Will man build Lunar Colonies or Lagrange Colonies first?

Question

I feel that a lunar mining establishment is require first for raw materials, including water. We would also need to establish long range mining ships to go to the inner astroid belt to find astroids and tow them back to earth area for us to use to mine metals from. In this way we could, build the monolith stations at Lagrane points. In this manner we could have a viable space colony.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMM17XJD1E_index_0.html#subhead7
http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html

Answer 1

Lunar then Lagrange makes the most sense.

Answer 2

My money's on a permanent moon colony being established before a permanent LaGrange colony gets up and running. The International Space Station, great as it is, is not designed to be a permanent structure; does anyone else remember Skylab?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab
Anyway, a moon colony has a much better chance of becoming self-sufficient. Assuming that the lunar soil is at least as fertile as terrestrial soil, and that a useful quantity of water (say, a couple of metric tons) can be transported to Luna (or, hopefully, harvested on-site), it would form the basis for a viable ecosystem.
A LaGrange colony, by contrast, has only what meteors and other cosmic debris collects in the LaGrange areas to work with, and the contents of this 'stellar dustbin' are unpredictable at best. In other words, a LaGrange colony can, by definition, produce very little other than energy, but will consume a sizeable quantity of resources in maintenance. Thus, it must be situated in locations of some importance: scientific (though I have difficulty imagining a space station of any kind that did not have some kind of research facility as a prime component) or strategic (hopefully more in a commercial sense than military).
Ultimately, I believe that both types of colonies will become valuable and highly viable... after about a century of research and development. There may not be a solid mass near a strategic point in space, after all, and the capacity to construct a viable way-station at any desired location has proved to be a tremendous advantage here on Terra. I see no reason why this should change when the context is expanded to three dimensions and outer space...

Answer 3

Lunar is basically a lagrange point anyways - i mean its not perfectly balanced between to equal forces of gravity, but it still orbits the earth at a fairly constant rate (and probably will eventually as it slows down).

But I would actually think orbital colonies first - like the ISS. Its too hard to go back and forth to the moon or L1-5 (i think there are 5 - too busy to read your articles to confirm).

Maybe after we use vernier fuel and pilot gundams can we make it out to Lagrange points :)

Answer 4

Regardless of which type they begin with, space colonies are inevitable. It's like my old history teacher said; In the past, the one that controlled the oceans ruled the world, In the future- the one that controls outer space will rule the world.

P.S.: I don't know how plausible the whole idea about harvesting meteors on the moon or lagrange stations is, but if it is possible it gives more reason for man to colonize space.

Answer 5

Moon bases are certainly first.

However, if the space elevator picks up some momentum, it is very likely that the counter weight could actually be a station as well. And could certainly be a staging point for supplies to L1 and L2.

As far fetched as the Space Elevator might seem, it really has a great deal of possibility. And the payoff would be extrodinary!

Answer 6

Near earth first.

Lunar second.

Lagrange third.

Planet (Mars?) fourth.