NASA To Trigger Massive Explosion On the Moon In Search of Ice

[Objectivist]

I have a question about lunar property rights. A few years ago I saw where people were selling plots of the Moon and celebrities like Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood had purchased their own section. Now if this impact alters their plot do they have recourse with the government for creating the damage? I know, I know, but I'm the son of a Lawyer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/LAND-ON-THE-MOO...temQQimsxZ20090616?IMSfp=TL090616031002r24536

 

[Annihilia]

Yes, that's one of the few legitimate functions of government; securing individual rights.

He doesn't believe government is a morally justifiable institution at all, so appealing to those ideals won't get you anywhere with him.

 

[Sandman33]

We should spend more time and effort exploring the depths our oceans where we KNOW life exists rather than the damn moon.

We know more about the moon than we do the bottom of the depths of the ocean.

 

[Matt Collins]

He doesn't believe government is a morally justifiable institution at all, so appealing to those ideals won't get you anywhere with him.

Well if he wants anarchy he should try Somolia or Afghanistan.

 

[Matt Collins]

I've seen this on Futurama,

They changed the name of that planet to stop that awful joke once and for all. What do they call it now? Urectum.

Seriously though, who the fuck cares if there is ice on the moon.

If there is ice there is water. If there is water then that means humans can live there. If there is water then that means there is both hydrogen and oxygen which can be used as fuel for use as a staging location to other missions around the solar system.

 

[Bodhi]

We should spend more time and effort exploring the depths our oceans where we KNOW life exists rather than the damn moon.

There is no reason we can't to both at the same time.

 

[Sandman33]

They changed the name of that planet to stop that awful joke once and for all. What do they call it now? Urectum.



If there is ice there is water. If there is water then that means humans can live there. If there is water then that means there is both hydrogen and oxygen which can be used as fuel for use as a staging location to other missions around the solar system.

There is no atmosphere on the moon! That means no water unless its frozen...and we aren't going to live on the moon or use it as a space station......it's too close to earth to make a difference.

Its a giant rock...thats it.

 

[Sandman33]

There is no reason we can't to both at the same time.

I think the reason we spend more money and time researching the moon is just because it's shiny.

OOOHHH SHINY.

Theres more going on down below. Lets go there and make it a priority...we can go jump on the space rock later.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

We should spend more time and effort exploring the depths our oceans where we KNOW life exists rather than the damn moon.

Hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the Marianis trench = 16,000 pounds per square inch!

Quite frankly space seems friendlier.

We've found life in active volcano's too - I'll let you go first...

-t

 

[Andrew-Austin]

They changed the name of that planet to stop that awful joke once and for all. What do they call it now? Urectum.



If there is ice there is water. If there is water then that means humans can live there. If there is water then that means there is both hydrogen and oxygen which can be used as fuel for use as a staging location to other missions around the solar system.

Okay thanks for the explanation.

But humans are not going to colonize the moon any time soon obviously, as I can't see it happening within the next fifty to one hundred years, so basically their doing this because their rocket geeks and its tax payer money anyways?

 

[akihabro]

We finally found Osama so we are going to take him out. So are any of these rocks that are going to be blown up from the Moon pose a threat to the Earth?

 

[Matt Collins]

There is no atmosphere on the moon! That means no water unless its frozen...and we aren't going to live on the moon or use it as a space station......it's too close to earth to make a difference.

Its a giant rock...thats it.

Again, that is untrue. Why? Because it costs money to get large objects into space. LOTS of money and lots of fuel. If we are going to get a sizeable ship to go to other planets it will have to be assembled in space, not on Earth. The Moon is the perfect place for this because it can (potentially) have fuel, firm ground, and some gravity.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Okay thanks for the explanation.

But humans are not going to colonize the moon any time soon obviously, as I can't see it happening within the next fifty to one hundred years, so basically their doing this because their rocket geeks and its tax payer money anyways?

naw - they plan on putting oil wells up there and getting the oil that was deposited there after that other asteroid hit the moon and wiped out the greys.

-t

 

[Matt Collins]

But humans are not going to colonize the moon any time soon obviously, as I can't see it happening within the next fifty to one hundred years, so basically their doing this because their rocket geeks and its tax payer money anyways?

Well humans were not going to setup the United States government for almost 300 years, so why should Columbus have bothered to sail?

 

[Mini-Me]

Well humans were not going to setup the United States government for almost 300 years, so why should Columbus have bothered to sail?

Sure, but deciding to sail in the general sense is a bit different from taking a buttload of taxpayer money during an economic depression so he can build his ship.

 

[Sandman33]

Hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the Marianis trench = 16,000 pounds per square inch!

Quite frankly space seems friendlier.

We've found life in active volcano's too - I'll let you go first...

-t

WAIT...let me grab my snorkel and goggles.....and my swim floaties for my arms...just in case.

 

[Sandman33]

We finally found Osama so we are going to take him out. So are any of these rocks that are going to be blown up from the Moon pose a threat to the Earth?

Obviously we're going to conquer the moon and leave it with a paper Rothschild central banking system...

 

[silverhawks]

Again, that is untrue. Why? Because it costs money to get large objects into space. LOTS of money and lots of fuel. If we are going to get a sizeable ship to go to other planets it will have to be assembled in space, not on Earth. The Moon is the perfect place for this because it can (potentially) have fuel, firm ground, and some gravity.

You sound as if this is one of your pet hobbies too, Matt; have you ever read about Project Orion, back in the 50's?

I've got to admit, I recoil in horror at this current NASA idea, and here's why.

According to rock samples taken from the surface, the age of the moon has been estimated at 4 billion years. The moon isn't subject to erosion; footprints from the Apollo moon landings are still there 40 years later, as well as evidence for countless impacts from space over those billions of years. That's due to no atmosphere/air/storms, no surface water, no tectonic activity. The only things that affect any changes to the moon's surface are either impacts from meteorites (which are actually rare), human exploration, and the solar wind that pushes fine particles up and out of the gravitational pull of the moon. Evidence of this kind of ejected particle erosion has been confirmed by discovery of rocky meteorites found in Antarctica which have been chemically identified as having come from the surface of Mars.

That's the scope of the scientific knowledge that would be utterly destroyed by any a surface detonation in even a small area, and this is not a small area we're talking about; its actually somewhere between 350 and 500 metric tons being thrown over a VAST area. This isn't progress, it doesn't display any scientific finesse; it's the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to archaeological artifacts to see what they're made of.

Irreplaceable scientific data that would be eradicated by this mission; the primary reason for the moon missions to go slowly, to preserve, catalog and analyse it. Howard Carter didn't blast his way into King Tut's tomb for similar reasons; likewise, I don't think we shouldn't blast lunar material six miles into space just to look for water.

In short, this is yet another example of government failing miserably at a task that could be done 100x better by a private institution.

 

[KCIndy]

So are any of these rocks that are going to be blown up from the Moon pose a threat to the Earth?

No.

To hit Earth, the rocks blown off the lunar surface would have to reach "escape velocity" - that is, their speed would have to be sufficient to overcome the gravitational pull of the moon.

The debris thrown up from the impact will simply, albeit slowly, fall back down across the lunar surface.

 

[Kraig]

Yes, that's one of the few legitimate functions of government; securing individual rights.

So you feel it is legitimate and morally right to steal my money for the sake of securing individual rights? Which individuals? Not mine if I am being stolen from.