Question Impact on the moon.

[ryan]

Theres no doubt that the moon has been hit by rouge astroids and comets, but has it been witnessed by anyone, NASA, ESA all them. And what are the chances of seeing a impact?
Thanks.
Ryan.

 

[Sunhillow]

When searching for "moon impacts" you will find many references, esp. to leonit meterites hitting the moon

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/13jun_lunarsporadic.htm

 

[ryan]

So we havnt seen large meteors hit, i know its been hit by possible earth killers before, by the look of some craters.

 

[Mafuskas]

There is an account of what appears to be an impact on the moon, recorded by a monk in the 12th century.

Here is a good page about it: http://www.weblore.com/richard/june_18_1178_impact_crater.htm

 

[Quick_Nick]

Tiny, yet still visible impact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1#Lunar_impact

 

[Usquanigo]

A shield, integral to tidal flows, and indeed life itself. It's already moving away from us, and now people want to mine it.

 

[MeDiCS]

Yes, moving away but at an extrmely slow rate, so don't think you'll ever feel the efects in your lifetime.

Who wants to mine it?!

 

[Usquanigo]

Yes, moving away but at an extrmely slow rate, so don't think you'll ever feel the efects in your lifetime.

Speak for yourself.

Who wants to mine it?!

Look at the thread about why to go back. Basically, everyone wants to. They want to use up all the regolith to make O2 for a base (leaving it much darker than it is now, definitely having an adverse effect on life on this planet, which will work it's way up the chain and impact us as well), they want to dig for He3 and other materials. There is talk of strip mining, using the results of that for both sending ships beyond, as well as sending stuff back to Earth, and underground bases......

In short, greed and lack of concern for the future is driving mankind to destroy the Moon just as soon as we are able.

It's a bad f*cking idea. It should be used as nothing more than a launch platform, and all fuel and O2 should come from here, not there. Leave it alone.

 

[MeDiCS]

Speak for yourself.

From the Wikipedia article on the Moon: "[...]increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 m per century[...]".
I'm sorry, but how do you plan to feel the effects of that?

Look at the thread about why to go back. Basically, everyone wants to. They want to use up all the regolith to make O2 for a base (leaving it much darker than it is now, definitely having an adverse effect on life on this planet, which will work it's way up the chain and impact us as well), they want to dig for He3 and other materials. There is talk of strip mining, using the results of that for both sending ships beyond, as well as sending stuff back to Earth, and underground bases......

In short, greed and lack of concern for the future is driving mankind to destroy the Moon just as soon as we are able.

It's a bad f*cking idea. It should be used as nothing more than a launch platform, and all fuel and O2 should come from here, not there. Leave it alone.

First, there's a lot or regolith. It covers the whole surface of the moon, having a thickness of up to 20m. So, you complain that we plan to use the regolith to help astronauts survive in the Moon's harsh environment, but you don't care about our sand being used to make a lot of things, from glass to concrete? Plus, the regolith would be used in way smaller quantities than sand here on Earth.

We haven't reached a level of technological advancement that'd allow 'resources' mined outside our for lower prices. And that won't change for decades yet to come.

As for fuel, which one do you think is the best alternative: send fuel from Earth, or produce fuel on the Moon? It's actually worst to send fuel from here than produce there: again, from Wikipedia (gotta love it), "The propellant mixture in each SRB [Space Shuttle Booster] motor consists of ammonium perchlorate, [...] aluminum [...], iron oxide [...]. This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP.". And from the APCP page: "The exhaust from APCP solid rocket motors contain mostly water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and a metal oxide[...]. The hydrogen chloride can easily dissociate into water and create corrosive hydrochloric acid, [...] biasing the pH of local water and rainfall". You choose, harm the Earth, or the Moon, but fuel will be needed, that's for sure.

And, harmful underground bases?

 

[Jer95]

From the Wikipedia article on the Moon: "[...]increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 m per century[...]".
I'm sorry, but how do you plan to feel the effects of that?


First, there's a lot or regolith. It covers the whole surface of the moon, having a thickness of up to 20m. So, you complain that we plan to use the regolith to help astronauts survive in the Moon's harsh environment, but you don't care about our sand being used to make a lot of things, from glass to concrete? Plus, the regolith would be used in way smaller quantities than sand here on Earth.

We haven't reached a level of technological advancement that'd allow 'resources' mined outside our for lower prices. And that won't change for decades yet to come.

As for fuel, which one do you think is the best alternative: send fuel from Earth, or produce fuel on the Moon? It's actually worst to send fuel from here than produce there: again, from Wikipedia (gotta love it), "The propellant mixture in each SRB [Space Shuttle Booster] motor consists of ammonium perchlorate, [...] aluminum [...], iron oxide [...]. This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP.". And from the APCP page: "The exhaust from APCP solid rocket motors contain mostly water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and a metal oxide[...]. The hydrogen chloride can easily dissociate into water and create corrosive hydrochloric acid, [...] biasing the pH of local water and rainfall". You choose, harm the Earth, or the Moon, but fuel will be needed, that's for sure.

And, harmful underground bases?

12.5 ft per century, that means it would take 422.4 centuries just to be 1 mile further apart (im most familliar with imperial units)

And regolith is like 70 ft thick, wow!