Alas, this is simply wrong.
Firstly, the Moon is further from our comsats than you are.
I was part of a major study on the practicality of placing a manned station at the lunar south pole for making propellant (intended for sending missions to Mars). We simply could not make it pay for itself. The way I put it, "If God were to emplace the infrastructure there for us, it might be justifiable."
I believe the break-even point--versus propellant hauled from Earth--was 10-20 manned Mars missions, which we simply are not gonna do.
This study completed my disillusionment.
All you need on the moon is:
Trucks, bulldozers, "steam shovels" and other mining equipment specifically designed for vacuum, ultra-cold temperatures, and lunar dust. On Earth we use diesels; on the moon (no air) these would have to be very-high-powered electric or nuclear-powered vehicles, or very-high-powered fuel-cell vehicles.
Spares and maintenence facilities.
Mechanics.
Food and water for mechanics, mining engineers, etc. Remember--there is NO infrastructure in place.
If you are at the South pole (where the water is) you need a BIG nuclear reactor.
The BIG nuclear reactor powers a BIG factory for getting the water out of the regolith and electrolyzing/liquifying the propellants.
You need a complete infirmary or hospital, with doctors and nurses.
You need:
Brand new cargo craft (for carrying propellant);
Brand new lunar hoppers (if you want to do anything except stay at the pole);
Brand new crew return vehicles (folks want to rotate home);
Brand new vehicles for transport of equipment and crew to the moon.
Imagine the cost. $100 billion? $500 billion?
Does not matter; it is simply NOT going to happen--in your lifetime or in mine.
--Boris
What study was that? I understand if Mars is your guiding focus, a return to the Moon would, in your view, slow you down. When in fact, it's the only way you're going to get there.