Bombing the moon...

Discussion in 'Community' started by MrMacMan, Apr 24, 2003.

  1. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #1
    Thats right, its time again to bomb another place.


    THE MOON!

    Well, at-least it aint Syria, well, yet...

    They acually have a reason this time, to find some water, or even very cold ice. :D

    Interesting anyawy.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    nutty. it reminded me of an old mr. show segment about blowing up the moon. very amusing.
     
  3. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #3
    >MrMacman

    Darn...

    No explosives.

    How are you supposed to get rid of the nasty aliens living in underground bunkers on the moon if you take out the 2k pounds of high explosives.
     
  4. MrMacMan thread starter macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #4
    I think any thing moving fast enough it deadly. Well, anything as big as a pebble. A grain of sad moving 50 MPH launched at you probably wouldn't kill you but it would hurt atlot... :rolleyes:

    edit: yes I know it should be a 'grain of sand' not sad.
    har har har
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    i was pegged by a grain of happy and i was loopy for days

    :)
     
  6. Perci Mac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    In a state of perpetual waiting
    #6
    You were also pegged by a grain of sarcastic. :D
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    i think it was a boulder.
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #8
    I would be neat if they did find an easily to mine source of H2O on the moon.

    That would be put the world one step closer to a moon base.
     
  9. MrMacMan thread starter macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #9
    You might want quote me FULLY before making remarks...

    Don't twist my words, k?
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    no offense meant. you put "sad" instead of "sand." had i quoted the whole thing, your amusing n-omission would likely go unnoticed.

    all is forgiven?
     
  11. MrMacMan thread starter macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #11
    yes yes.

    I'm supprised not many people looked at this, its quite good.
     
  12. baby duck monge macrumors 68000

    baby duck monge

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    #12
    not sure how much it really matters... BUT

    how much ice/water would they be expecting to find, if any? if it would be deposits from meteors striking the moon, how often does this happen? how large of objects are we talking about? and how many would have ice to begin with?

    i could be very wrong, but i imagine that even after millions of years there would not be a HUGE amount of ice build up, especially since there are only certain areas where the ice could remain.

    i guess we will have to wait and see what happens with all this, but i wonder what the real implications will be if they find anything. other than it being neat, of course.
     
  13. MrMacMan thread starter macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #13
    Think about it this way, alot of the water that is in the ocean, alot of it didn't come from this planet alone.

    (joking, none of it did originally)
     
  14. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #14
    This is actually pretty interesting - but its a very brute force approach. And they're only going a few meters.

    There are technologies that can go deeper and don't require worrying about the payload getting destroyed on impact. It'd be better to send a robotic drill rig or backhoe and do the excavation and then have another rover/robot do the analysis.

    The moon isn't that far and robots could be controled from earth.....but maybe this will lead the way in finding a good place to start digging....

    And one other thing, there are plenty of near earth asteroids that contain millions of tons of water and the deltaV getting there is significantly less than getting to the moon. There is also 100s of billions to be made on just mining one asteroid. I think that doing this first will be a smarter approach than trying to go and get the stuff off the moon.

    D
     
  15. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #15
    I would like to see us go back to the moon. Since they have found evidence of water, it make it possible to have a base camp. Just what we need for easier space exploration. It seems more likely for a commerical venture for mining. The Chinese are very interest!
     
  16. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #16
    Going back to the moon isn't practical right now. We have no way of moving about the earth outside of it's orbit.

    We need to develop a system of spacestations, built in space, not lifted up from the Earth. Viable refueling (water converted to oxygen and hydrogen...) and the cheapest way to do this is with NEO (near earth objects).

    The moon is a fantasy in my opinion, its all glamour but too far and too expensive. Over the next several decades we'll be able to go back as long as we build an infrastructure capable of supporting a 'base'. That requires getting people there and back regularly, not jus taking a tour for a couple days every other year and returning like the Apollo missions.

    Its quite frustrating sometimes since we do have the technology but the means of doing it is prohibitively expensive. And the major setback is a reliable, single stage to orbit manned vehicle that makes things cheap enough to get supplies up there. Once we get that, things will expand rapidly.

    I see that being a huge industrial boom in the not so distant future.

    D
     
  17. Flowbee macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #17
    "We're Earth-lings, let's blow up Earth things!" :D
     

Share This Page