There have been past discussions about the best place for a lunar base/colony/outpost, but since it has been a while I thought to refresh the topic with or without the likelihood of a lunar expedition in the immediate future (ask this question again with the next US president or Congress and I'll bet the chances change once again).Previously, the Lunar poles garnered attention since the presence of ice is confirmed. While this is logical for long-term sustained settlement, if we're talking the first 20 years it is not so much. I state this because it will be some time before we figure out what to do with the ice, partly because we aren't fully certain if it's fluffy space snow or thin veins in a rocky matrix. Add to that, neither the north or south poles are friendly places to land blindly since they are, for better or worse, crater quagmires. Regarding the poles, definitely study them both with robots and astronauts but hold off on any fledgling lunar cities.
The "Best Region for a Base/Outpost" is in LLO, not on the surface. From there, sorties to all regions of interest can be carried out, samples gathered, tests performed and instrumentation laid. Only if that location is worth hanging around for or is ideal for testing surface equipment for other (Mars?) operations should a surface base/outpost be established. From a previous post of mine, the LLO temporarily-manned base/outpost;For maximum scientific, modular and reuse capability with minimum size, fuel use and cost I've gone with polar LLO, possibly 86 degrees as that appears to be highly stable. I've calculated delta-v at 2.014 for obit between 85 - 103km with inclination/plane change budget of 15 - 10 degrees, respectively, to cover the entire polar regions. The polar regions with their possibility of ice are a must, the far side equator prime for radio telescopes and the Apollo 15 site the most geologically interesting.All these are readily accessible from the PLO mentioned, as well as much more. Since then I've buttoned down and tweaked the orbit to be elliptical, but the fundamentals and reasons remain: "Anytime return" from all areas of interest, lowest fuel requirements for multi-sortie missions, shortest duration (safest) and smallest craft to LLO return, greatest downmass capability especially if delivered via SEP, etc.
For any base to survive it needs power 24/7. A nuclear power supplied base can be placed anywhere. In case of solar power it needs to be near a pole for higher sunshine hours. During lunar nights a solar power system will be running on batteries or fuel cells.
I don't think any other location comes close to the poles in desirability, and that makes it the #1 initial base location to obtain "propriatory" rights.
And when the Sun has one of its hissy fits?
Quote from: Andrew_W on 03/12/2014 06:11 amI don't think any other location comes close to the poles in desirability, and that makes it the #1 initial base location to obtain "propriatory" rights.Desirable yes, practical another question. We don't know how to mine lunar ice and landing on or near a shadowed crater is not easy. However, landing at one of the mares near the north pole would be possible, and either by rovers or short-range rocket jumps venturing into the polar craters themselves to build up confidence.
Pros. A solar satellite beaming power maybe able to deliver enough power on each pass to keep a hibernating base alive for lunar night.Cons. Solar satellites don't exist so it would have to be developed. Between satellite and ground station this base has suddenly become complicated and expensive.
Apollo went for large flat areas because hitting a predesignated specific landing spot was near impossible...
Quote from: Andrew_W on 03/12/2014 08:43 pmApollo went for large flat areas because hitting a predesignated specific landing spot was near impossible...False. Apollo 15 was one hairy ride between a mountain and canyon that produced excellent science. Apollo 17 went into a hilly region with serpentine valleys. Suggesting large flat spaces are required is completely incorrect.