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.