Zubrin mentions polar peaks that always receive light, “where sunlight is accessible all the time, as well as permanently shadowed craters nearby where water ice has accumulated.”

However, as J Fincannon mentioned in another post a week ago, these are hypothetical at best and likely only receive light 90% of the time. I read a similar analysis of these “areas of eternal light,” too, that they receive light most but not all of the time. This is still much better than 1/2 the time, and other than that, Zubrin’s case seems feasible — and it does not use a lunar space station as a way point.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/may-29-2018-zimmerman-batchelor-podcast/#comment-1053520

Perhaps in the far distant future a way point lunar space station will be useful for refueling and allowing for a lighter lunar landing shuttle along with a larger low-Earth-orbit to lunar-orbit shuttle with sleeping quarters and other amenities for the longer voyage, but for the next couple of decades we are unlikely to use a lunar way station to get to or from the Moon.

Localfluff: Thank you. The first podcast has been corrected.

So they brag about “international cooperation” with the LOP-G. This is the danger with lousy space advocacy. It is unfortunately a standard argument that space flight improves international cooperation (since the Apollo-Soyuz docking). But that means that LOP-G is great even if it is nowhere doing nothing, because it delivers diplomacy! That’s the purpose of space flight, space advocates have argued, not space exploration.

Another self destructive argument is spin off effects. Right. So if we get better kitchen utensils by going to the Moon, then maybe we get to the Moon by investing in feminist studies? Feminism as a way to the Moon, space advocates say. At least that’s what their audience hear.

Diplomacy, space unrelated spin offs, high paying jobs. All threr right. What’s wrong with the LOP-G, politicians wonder after having listened to space advocates.