Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Mister T
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/01/08

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Nuke the moon new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5549196 - 12/01/12 06:26 PM

and once the military gets involved, killing a mosquito with a grenade becomes a more attractive (manly) option

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
D_talley
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/05

Loc: Richmond VA
Re: Nuke the moon new [Re: Jarad]
      #5551070 - 12/02/12 09:14 PM

Quote:

Quote:

If given the choice between total extinction vs mass death, but non-extinction, isn't the latter less negative than the former?





If those are the only two choices, yes. But as I recall, they didnt simply oppose nuking an asteroid, they proposed alternatives like landing a thruster on it to nudge it away intact, or coating one side with reflective or absorptive material to cause solar light pressure to nudge it over time, etc.

In other words, if the choices are between total extinction, mass death, or no damage at all, they prefer door #3.

Jarad




If there is time. All of the plans work on the premise that there is enough time to develop, test and launch the strike. If we don't have the time and can only launch some of our ICBMs at it, would the explosion do anything?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ColoHank
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: western Colorado
Re: Nuke the moon new [Re: D_talley]
      #5551095 - 12/02/12 09:27 PM

Wrong tool for the job. ICBMs are suited only for killing folks right here on Earth.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Nuke the moon new [Re: D_talley]
      #5551167 - 12/02/12 10:18 PM

Quote:

If there is time. All of the plans work on the premise that there is enough time to develop, test and launch the strike. If we don't have the time and can only launch some of our ICBMs at it, would the explosion do anything?




Good question. No easy answer. It depends on how close the object it, how fast it is moving, how squarely is it going to impact us (i.e. how much does it need to be shifted to miss), how dense is it, how cohesive is it, how big it is, etc.

The more advance notice we get, the less energy it takes to shift it and the more likely we are to be able to succeed. If it is small enough, breaking it up might be better than letting it hit in one chunk, but for a really big one multiple still-pretty-big chunks just spreads the damage over a larger area. The main goal has to be making it miss.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Nuke the moon new [Re: StarWars]
      #5551920 - 12/03/12 12:03 PM

You guys are so easily misled...

They blow the moon up every month! Don't you wonder where it goes?

After a few days the pieces start to fall back together from gravity and you can see with your own eyes the moon steadily getting bigger every night!

I'm not sure why they keep trying. It never seems to work.

Pesse (Now let's get back to the idea of moving those Deer crossing signs so the poor deer have a safer place to cross highways) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Nuke the moon [Re: Pess]
      #5552174 - 12/03/12 02:38 PM

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.

Edited by dickbill (12/03/12 02:41 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 1579

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics