No, don't do that!
At least for 3 reasons:
1) Interferometry. It has been posit that distance from the sun is good for interferometry infrared, and that the orbital stability at a Lagrange points is far superior to any Moon-based interferometer, OK, but when we weight the scientific performance versus the technological robustness and feasibility of the concept, all things considered, the Moon wins. That is, provided the Interferometer would be installed and serviced during human missions to the Moon, on the dark side.
Also, at some point, you have to start to ponder the relevance of building bigger and bigger mirrors, 40m, 60m, 100 meters...here on Earth, knowing that they are too small anyway to resolve anything on exoplanets. OK, one maybe, but why more than one?
2) Resolve the mystery of the prebiotic chemistry on Earth.
Right now, we still don't know if life appeared deep under sea, in shallow ponds, in clays... Well, it appears that no rocks dating from the pre-biotic area has been preserved on earth, not even mentioning organics of this time. However, if they still exist, the Moon is probably the only place where we have a small chance to find these samples. I know the Moon has been heavily bombed, but some craters might still hide a frozen piece of early pre-biotic Earth. I don't know anywhere else to look for. That is, again, provided human missions are set.
3) Humans mission to the Moon, to do, ehhh, stuff....'stuff' that has been, ahem, 'discussed' (we assume), are possible, thanks to a vehicle (Orion) capable to go...ehhh, somewhere. As a change, why not to give a clear goal to a human mission? These two goals are worth the challenge, and money, in my opinion, rather than a flyby near Mars.
Nuke the moon
25 replies to this topic