I´m all for it as long as we get to check the cargo manifests to see they don´t ship a humongous 10 terawatt laser up there… 
I have a Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999) patch in my patch collection.
It is rumored that Gene Roddeneberry’s son had a Space: 1999 lunchbox.
^ 
^
There was found to be a dearth of published orbital stuff when it came to actually, really, “hey we’re going” of the moon. The math was, as it were, almost too easy, so students for generations were given assignments on Mars and other, more interesting planetary objects.
Did Gemini and or the LEM just dump the atmosphere to decrompress, or did they pump it into a tank?
Y’know, I’ve always been a space cadet, ever since I was a kid. But I have to say that I think this is a colossal waste of tax dollars. One of our major cities sits devastated, we can’t seem to educate our children, and people are having to accept fuel oil from Venezuela, yet we’re spending billions to build space camps and bridges to nowhere. I know I’m being a wet blanket here, but something seems out of whack with our country’s priorities.
Let’s see…d’ya think it’ll be canceled because of budget cuts, first, or because the voting public panics upon realizing that firing people through outer space to another world on a giant rocket is actually dangerous, and not the fun, Fisher-Price family ride they thought it was?
“…and I’m learning Chinese, says Werner von Braun…!” 
If you wanted to save on fuel, wouldn’t you want to NOT build the ship on a planet? You’d want to build it in space, wouldn’t you?
I just don’t get the logic in building ship parts, taking them out of one gravity well, and putting them into another. One you get them off the earth, the logical thing is to assemble them in orbit so you don’t have to build them to be entered into and taken out of the Moon’s gravity, too.
And if you think you’re gonna be able to build a ship on the Moon with the Moon’s resources… oh, man, that’s just too funny.
As long as NASA don’t build it on the acre I own or the one my son owns…
No, I hadn’t intended for it to be built on the moon. But on the premise that a ship is built and designed to land and take off from the surface, given that the escape velocity of the Moon is much less than that of the Earth, less fuel would be needed to take off from the Moon’s surface. With advances in technology it is entirely plausible that an interplanetary ship could be built without the need for booster rockets.
There is the problem of getting fuel to the Moon of course. I didn’t say it was a perfect plan.
That’s one of the reasons they chose the moon’s south pole. Neutron scattering shows that there’s a lot of hydrogen down there. It might be in the form of water, which can be turned into fuel.
I’d considered the possibility of scooping hydrogen from the general vicinity and building a hydrogen-powered craft, but didn’t know if there was enough to make the effort worthwhile, nor if hydrogen could be stored in sufficient quantity or would produce enough thrust for a ship to take off and have enough fuel for its mission and return flight. The potential is there though, at least.
They’re doing all those other things, without a doubt. This is just gravy to me. A moonbase would be Grand Central Station, to THIS solar system anyways.
Sign Me Up!
Better yet, beam me up! 
Isn’t there some solar derived energy source in appreciable amounts on the lunar surface? Something about a material that’s deflected by our atmosphere or magnetic poles but it accumulates on the moon’s surface because of an absence of such? Is that helium 3 or am I thinking about something else? I thought this figured heavily in considerations of non-governmental, capitalistic expeditions to mine the lunar surface.
You’re thinking about something else. Sunlight that is reflected off the earth’s surface reaches the moon as polarized light. Polarized light (all the light waves are “vibrating” in the same plane) is inherently more hignly organized and is thus greatly improves the efficiency of photoelectric cells.
He[sub]3[/sub] is much more common on the moon due to seeding by the solar wind. A number of people have suggested that mining He[sub]3[/sub] for Earth based He[sub]3[/sub] + D fusion reaction. Currently work is focusing on D + T, however that produces fast neutrons which can make reactors mildly radioactive and shorten their lifespan. The He[sub]3[/sub] + D reaction produces a proton which can be directed by electric and magnetic fields instead.
I’m torn on this. We need to learn how to exploit space resources and the moon is about as good a place as any. It’s close and possibly has water which drops the amount of consumables substantially, and at least provides for the basis of a lunar high energy telescope platform.
I must admit that the possibility of a massive, moon-based telescope is one of the reasons I am intrigued by this whole idea. Hubble and Spitzer are great, but having a telescope 400,000 miles away from the nearest source of light pollution could produce some fascinating imagery.
Would it only be usable during new moon phases? Would the sun’s reflection off the lunar surface far outweigh (outshine) that encountered by a space telescope?