Rob Coppinger describes some potential scientific research that could be performed on the moon. As I note in comments over there (assuming that he approves it) he seems to be under the misapprehension that a lunar base (particularly a lunar base that will be as insanely expensive to build and support as NASA’s planned architecture would render it) can be justified on the basis of science return. It cannot.
I think that the root of the problem lies in his statement:
Back in August (how time flies!) I began to set out Hyperbola’s architecture for exploration…
Despite the name “Vision for Space Exploration,” this really isn’t about exploration (as I’ve also noted before). Exploration is just a means to an end. Even more, it’s not about pure science, or knowledge for knowledge’ sake. If we can’t come up with some compelling reasons for developing space technology (and more affordable means than Constellation as currently planned), it’s simply not going to happen.
I like your argument which compares the cost of a lunar base to the spending on the National Science Foundation (NSF). If the sole goal of a program is science, then it’s reasonable to compare the scientific return on investment to other publically funded science programs. NSF gets pretty good ROI.
If as in the example you give, the lunar base costs a hundred times as much as the annual budget of the NSF and its sole benefit is scientific knowledge, then you have to explain why the science from the Moon is worth at least a century of NSF funding. That is, wouldn’t we get more science by doubling the NSF budget for the next century? (Or increasing the NSF budget by a factor of ten for the next 11 years or so?) Ignoring inflation and the time value of money, of course.
There has to be some other value to a lunar base else you’ve only justified maybe a few percent of its cost. Even if you believe that science in space is worth ten times the equivalent science on Earth (which is roughly how much more a space telescope is over an equivalent Earth-based telescope), you maybe justified 10% of the cost of the station, using the above numbers.