NASA Watches Armageddon

[Builtgypsy]

...and thinks "Hey, what a great idea!"

NASA to Bomb the Moon to Search for Water | ChattahBox News Blog

[Alawicious]

I saw that on the Nightly News. I was on the phone with a customer when they said how much it was going to cost. I think it was something like 70 million (or billion). Dont quote me on that. I checked out the site and couldn't find a cost estimate

[Builtgypsy]

Why would they be looking for water instead of materials that could be mined?

I want to mine the moon until there's no moon left and then put a Death Star in its place.

[Alawicious]

If the moon is gone it will totally freak the earth out so get your Death Star ready first

[Builtgypsy]

Pfffft, who needs rising tides anyway.

[Alawicious]

Many of our vocabulary words are "moon oriented." The words "honeymoon" "'lunatic" "moon madness" and "moonflower" would not exist. And try to imagine us without that showy social past-time of "mooning!"

Earth would spin much faster without its orbiting moon. That's because the moon's gravity pulls on Earth's oceans. The moon is largely responsible for the tides. The pull of the moon, and ebb and flow of the tides, puts the brakes on Earth's daily rotation. Billions of years ago, Earth spun around on its axis much faster. At one time, the cycle of day and night was less than ten hours long. If we'd never had a moon, we'd still have a shorter day.

[Builtgypsy]

Honeydeathstar is a much cooler word.

[Alawicious]

Instead of mooning would it be deathing or staring?

[blurr]

Nasa is a complete and total waste of money, yet another example of the priorities of America, hey, lets find water on the moon, fuck our crumbling infrastructure.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Builtgypsy

Why would they be looking for water instead of materials that could be mined?

I want to mine the moon until there's no moon left and then put a Death Star in its place.

Because water is (a) necessary for any sort of human habitation, even temporarily, and (b) heavy. If there is water there already, it makes it significantly less expensive to mine the moon into a shell of its former self.

Originally Posted by Alawicious

Earth would spin much faster without its orbiting moon. That's because the moon's gravity pulls on Earth's oceans. The moon is largely responsible for the tides. The pull of the moon, and ebb and flow of the tides, puts the brakes on Earth's daily rotation. Billions of years ago, Earth spun around on its axis much faster. At one time, the cycle of day and night was less than ten hours long. If we'd never had a moon, we'd still have a shorter day.

This is true, and it is still happening. But if the moon were to go away, the Earth's rotation would not speed back up; that energy has already been expended. We would just stabilize at the current day length instead of continuing to slow down.

Originally Posted by blurr

Nasa is a complete and total waste of money, yet another example of the priorities of America, hey, lets find water on the moon, fuck our crumbling infrastructure.

I think space exploration in general, and water on the moon in particular right now, is very worthwhile. But I do agree that NASA is a waste and should be disbanded, so that private enterprise can go get all those raw materials and energy sources out there for us.

PhilB