Stop NASA from smashing a lake on the moon
Michael Alexander
rocket into what may be the only lake on the moon on July 31. Even if
there's no water in the crater, there might be something else that is
unique. I believe that unique features should be treated with some
reverence. On earth, Mount Everest is unique. What if some scientist
wanted to blow the top 2000 feet off of Mount Everest. He might argue that
he's not destroying the entire mountain, but it's still wrong. If there is
a lake on the moon, it is wrong to crash anything into it. NASA is being
too destructive. Is there no concern for beauty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_359000/359782.stm
Andrew Higgins
The crater generated by the Prospector impact would only liberate about
20 kg of water vapor, hardly comparable to blowing the top 2000 feet off
of Everest. The latest estimates are that there are about three billion
metric tons of water ice at each of the poles. See:
http://www.spacer.com/planetary/lp-98g.html
Provided, of course, that the hydrogen detected by Prospect *is* indeed
water. The proposed impact of Prospector could finally settle this
scientific issue.
After all, as we all know, the moon is under continuous and unrelenting
impact by meteoroids over the complete range of sizes. Lunar Prospector
only weighs about 150 kg. There are probably numerous impacts of
meteoroids of this size and larger on the moon every year. Why is one
more impact necessarily evil just because it is man-made?
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who
'love Nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which
'Man has spoiled 'Nature.'' The obvious contradiction lies in
their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts
are not part of 'Nature' -- but beavers and their dams are.
But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for
beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for
the purposes of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his
own race-i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of 'Naturists' such self-hatred is understandable;
they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion
to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate....
Believe it or not, there were 'Naturists' who opposed the first
flight to old Earth's Moon as being 'unnatural' and a 'despoiling
of Nature.'"
--The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
--
Andrew J. Higgins Department of Mechanical Eng.
Shock Wave Physics Group McGill University
hig...@mecheng.mcgill.ca Montreal, Quebec
William J. Keaton
Michael Alexander wrote in message
<7jc5rp$rvr$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>What if some scientist
>wanted to blow the top 2000 feet off of Mount Everest. He might argue that
>he's not destroying the entire mountain, but it's still wrong
From your own source, the total amount of water vapor to be released is 40
pounds. We've already brought back much more of the Moon than that! I don't
see how you can possibly equate this with blowing 2000 feet off of Everest.
I suppose we should stop climbing Everest, I would not be surprised to hear
that 40 pounds has been taken off the summit!
More trolls crawling out from under their rocks...
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_359000/359782.stm
>
>
>
Michael Martin-Smith
<hig...@mecheng.mcgill.ca> writes
> In the case of 'Naturists' such self-hatred is understandable;
> they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion
> to feel toward them;
Self hatred, being an unnatural emotion, carries a negative selection
value. Perhaps we would do well to leave the "Naturists" to the tender
mercies of Nature!!
--
Michael Martin-Smith
David M. Palmer
Keaton" <wj...@prodigy.net> wrote:
I say, take Lunar Prospector and stick it where the sun don't shine!!!
--
David Palmer dmpa...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/dmpalmer/
Michael Alexander
just a unique feature. The south pole crater might be a beautiful place.
It might not be. I think we should get pictures of it before we tear it up.
We are developing technology capable of annihilating all multi-cellular
non-human life. Without restraint, we will do it. Is that what you want?
Is that what you want to leave to future generations?
Michael Martin-Smith <mar...@miff.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o32pvCAe...@demon.co.uk...
George P. Masologites
>We are developing technology capable of annihilating all multi-cellular
>non-human life. Without restraint, we will do it. Is that what you want?
>Is that what you want to leave to future generations?
That technology is already here. We've had a nuclear sword hanging
over our heads for the past fifty years. There's enough nuclear power
in the American and Russian arsenals to kill all life on Earth four
times over.
The question is: what are we going to do about it? I'd say plant
roots elsewhere, make sure all of us aren't killed in a nuclear
firestorm.
--
George P. Masologites | gui...@mail.serve.com
Space | http://www.serve.com/guilds/astro/
Fanfiction | http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
Art | http://www.serve.com/guilds/
http://www.luf.org/~jwills/LufWiki/view.cgi/Main/GeorgeMasologites
LufWiki. You know you love it.
"Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur."
Graham Nelson
> "There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who
> 'love Nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which
> 'Man has spoiled 'Nature.'' The obvious contradiction lies in
> their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts
> are not part of 'Nature' -- but beavers and their dams are.
>
> But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
> In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for
> beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for
> the purposes of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his
> own race-i.e., his own self-hatred.
I appreciate that in America it is routine to portray
environmentalists as lunatics, traitors to the human species,
tree-huggers, etc., and that environmentalists are often their
own worst enemies, but honestly, this is a deeply facile
argument. The point is that there is only a finite amount of
Nature on earth for Man to change and exploit, so that Man might
want to think about rationing it, preserving some for later,
indeed preserving some for its aesthetic value. This is not
"preferring beavers to men".
But of course the proposed Lunar Prospector crash is trivial.
The moon is fairly littered with broken bits of spacecraft as it
is, -- forty or fifty, I think -- and you could still walk almost
forever before coming upon any. Imagine if there were only
fifty cars placed at random in the whole land mass of the USA.
Adding a fifty-first would scarcely despoil it.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Craig Fink
Andrew Higgins wrote:
> In article <7jc5rp$rvr$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> , "Michael
> Alexander" <kest...@worldnet.att.xxx.net> wrote:
> >
> >I would like to see a NASA mission canceled. They are planning to crash a
> >rocket into what may be the only lake on the moon on July 31. Even if
> >there's no water in the crater, there might be something else that is
> >unique. I believe that unique features should be treated with some
> >reverence. On earth, Mount Everest is unique. What if some scientist
> >wanted to blow the top 2000 feet off of Mount Everest. He might argue that
> >he's not destroying the entire mountain, but it's still wrong. If there is
> >a lake on the moon, it is wrong to crash anything into it. NASA is being
> >too destructive. Is there no concern for beauty?
> >
>
> The crater generated by the Prospector impact would only liberate about
> 20 kg of water vapor, hardly comparable to blowing the top 2000 feet off
> of Everest. The latest estimates are that there are about three billion
> metric tons of water ice at each of the poles. See:
>
> http://www.spacer.com/planetary/lp-98g.html
>
> Provided, of course, that the hydrogen detected by Prospect *is* indeed
> water. The proposed impact of Prospector could finally settle this
> scientific issue.
>
> After all, as we all know, the moon is under continuous and unrelenting
> impact by meteoroids over the complete range of sizes. Lunar Prospector
> only weighs about 150 kg. There are probably numerous impacts of
> meteoroids of this size and larger on the moon every year. Why is one
> more impact necessarily evil just because it is man-made?
>
You've missed the point. Yes, the moon is bombarded with meteoroids all the
time, but the probability of one 150 kg in size hitting the south pole crater in
any one year are quite small. In fact I imagine that it may be quite a few years
since the last time something that size has hit the south pole crater. This
crater is unique, it's the only place on the moon that is continuously shaded
from the sun. For all we know right now, this crater could contain some very
unique structures made of water that take tens of thousands of years to form.
Smashing 150 kg probe into it could be equivalent to shooting a BB at a glass
chandelier. Maybe it would be better to land next to the crater then walk over
the rim and have a look first.
Don't let your lust for knowledge destroy what you seek.
>
> "There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who
> 'love Nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which
> 'Man has spoiled 'Nature.'' The obvious contradiction lies in
> their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts
> are not part of 'Nature' -- but beavers and their dams are.
>
> But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
> In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for
> beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for
> the purposes of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his
> own race-i.e., his own self-hatred.
>
> In the case of 'Naturists' such self-hatred is understandable;
> they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion
> to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate....
>
> Believe it or not, there were 'Naturists' who opposed the first
> flight to old Earth's Moon as being 'unnatural' and a 'despoiling
> of Nature.'"
Attacking someone in this manner shows that your position in the debate is weak.
Personally, I don't want to end up sitting on this planet by myself surrounded
with a bunch of genetically engineered food.
Craig Fink
The Second Amendment is the Right of Self Defense
Jens Lerch
>You've missed the point. Yes, the moon is bombarded with meteoroids all the
>time, but the probability of one 150 kg in size hitting the south pole crater in
>any one year are quite small. In fact I imagine that it may be quite a few years
>since the last time something that size has hit the south pole crater. This
>crater is unique, it's the only place on the moon that is continuously shaded
>from the sun. For all we know right now, this crater could contain some very
>unique structures made of water that take tens of thousands of years to form.
Your talking as if there is just a tiny crater with a few square
meters of "unique structures" made of water at the lunar south pole.
And evil NASA want's to destroy this natural wonder by crashing Lunar
Prospector into it!!!!! ;-)
But about 18000 square miles are in permanent shadow at the north pole
and 7200 square miles at the south pole. The most recent estimate of
the amount of water is 10 billion tons, so the impact of Lunar
Prospector will be negligible.
>Smashing 150 kg probe into it could be equivalent to shooting a BB at a glass
>chandelier.
The "chandelier" is the size of Delaware.
>Maybe it would be better to land next to the crater then walk over
>the rim and have a look first.
Well, the polar craters are dark, completely dark. You'll need a
strong flashlight.
--
Jens Lerch
jle...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2221
Ben
<kest...@worldnet.att.xxx.net> wrote:
> Why these attacks on Naturists? I am not trying to protect the entire moon,
> just a unique feature. The south pole crater might be a beautiful place.
> It might not be. I think we should get pictures of it before we tear it up.
erm, there is nothing unique about a single crater in the polar region of
the moon, trust me.
-Ben
Michael Alexander
06069919...@lax-ts5-h2-47-244.ispmodems.net...
> erm, there is nothing unique about a single crater in the polar region of
> the moon, trust me.
If there is a frozen lake there, it is unique. Even without a frozen lake,
it might still be unique. We don't know. Most craters get occasional sun.
There is one at the south pole that doesn't.
Jens Lerch
>Ben <bhi...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> erm, there is nothing unique about a single crater in the polar region of
>> the moon, trust me.
>If there is a frozen lake there, it is unique. Even without a frozen lake,
>it might still be unique. We don't know. Most craters get occasional sun.
>There is one at the south pole that doesn't.
18000 square miles at the north pole and 7200 square miles at the
south pole are in permanent darkness.
Michael, please use your energy on protecting something else.
Andrew Higgins
Alexander" <kest...@worldnet.att.xxx.net> wrote:
>
>Ben <bhi...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:bhines-
>06069919...@lax-ts5-h2-47-244.ispmodems.net...
>> the moon, trust me.
>
>If there is a frozen lake there, it is unique. Even without a frozen lake,
>it might still be unique. We don't know. Most craters get occasional sun.
>There is one at the south pole that doesn't.
>
No, there are hundreds of craters at *both* poles that are permanently
shadowed from the sun. See:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/June99/moon.poles.deb.html
(Of course, since heavily cratered surfaces are to some extent fractal,
asking for the number of craters in a given area is like asking for the
length of the coastline of England.)
One way or another, Prospector is going to hit the moon. There is not
enough fuel left to prevent it from going down. Why not do it in a way
so that we might learn something?
Craig Fink
Jens Lerch wrote:
> Craig Fink <cf...@accesscomm.net> wrote:
>
> >You've missed the point. Yes, the moon is bombarded with meteoroids all the
> >time, but the probability of one 150 kg in size hitting the south pole crater in
> >any one year are quite small. In fact I imagine that it may be quite a few years
> >since the last time something that size has hit the south pole crater. This
> >crater is unique, it's the only place on the moon that is continuously shaded
> >from the sun. For all we know right now, this crater could contain some very
> >unique structures made of water that take tens of thousands of years to form.
>
> Your talking as if there is just a tiny crater with a few square
> meters of "unique structures" made of water at the lunar south pole.
Have you ever seen a snowflake, it's kind of a "unique structure", each and every one
of them. Then again some people would say that if you've seen one snowflake, you've
seen them all. I thought one of the South Pole craters is particularly unique in that
it's rim get sunshine all the time while the crater is in permanent shadow. I would
hope that NASA would target a different crater than this one if there is so much
shadow to choose from. One of the smaller, less popular ones.
>
> And evil NASA want's to destroy this natural wonder by crashing Lunar
> Prospector into it!!!!! ;-)
I originally posted because it didn't seem like very much consideration of the given
subject, just a lot of name calling. The words above are yours not mine...;-)
>
> But about 18000 square miles are in permanent shadow at the north pole
> and 7200 square miles at the south pole.
In permanent shadow? I would have thought the area would have been much less, thanks
for correcting me.
> The most recent estimate of
> the amount of water is 10 billion tons, so the impact of Lunar
> Prospector will be negligible
I agree with you, the impact of Lunar Prospector will be negligible. Except, that I
think it will be negligible one way or the other. The more important finding of Lunar
Prospector is that Hydrogen exists on the moon. Why do you cares what form it takes.
At this point in time, no one is building anything to extract it with anyway.
>
>
> >Smashing 150 kg probe into it could be equivalent to shooting a BB at a glass
> >chandelier.
>
> The "chandelier" is the size of Delaware.
Now that would be a "unique structure" wouldn't it. I'd like to see that before
distructive testing is done on it.
>
>
> >Maybe it would be better to land next to the crater then walk over
> >the rim and have a look first.
>
> Well, the polar craters are dark, completely dark. You'll need a
> strong flashlight.
I've got a strong flashlight. Sounds like a fun trip to the Dark Craters of the Moon.
When do we leave?
Craig Fink
The Second Amendment is the Right of Self Protection
Rand Simberg
Fink <cf...@accesscomm.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Smashing 150 kg probe into it could be equivalent to shooting a BB at a glass
>> >chandelier.
>>
>> The "chandelier" is the size of Delaware.
>
>Now that would be a "unique structure" wouldn't it. I'd like to see that before
>distructive testing is done on it.
The chandalier analogy doesn't hold up. If I (successfully) shoot a
BB gun at a chandalier, it will be obvious to anyone coming along
later, who does an inspection, that it has been shot with something.
I've somewhat increased its entropy.
It isn't clear that one can increase the entropy of a crater, pocked
with craters of random size and location, by adding yet another random
crater. Would it be obvious that NASA had crashed a spacecraft there,
or would it look like just another meteoroid hit among many? I think
the latter, and I suspect that someone who came along after the fact
(with no knowledge of its appearance prior to the impact) would be
unable to tell and unlikely to sorrow for the lost pristine crater.
************************************************************************
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Geoffrey A. Landis
kest...@worldnet.att.xxx.net writes:
>Why these attacks on Naturists? I am not trying to protect the entire moon,
>just a unique feature. The south pole crater might be a beautiful place.
>It might not be. I think we should get pictures of it before we tear it up.
Good heavens, the impact of a space probe is negligible compared to the
natural flux of meteoroids. The moon gets hit all the time. Do the
calculation. It's just not an issue.
Now, if *I* were looking for an argument, I would say why don't we keep
the Lunar Prospector in orbit until every last iota of fuel is exhausted,
and get that much better data. (the resolution reliability of LP data is
proportional to the square root of time, FWIW). The argument that we
don't have a lousy hundred thousand dollars to keep the operators running
ir is a pretty weak one IMHO.
____________
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Michael Martin-Smith
>We are developing technology capable of annihilating all multi-cellular
>non-human life. Without restraint, we will do it. Is that what you want?
>Is that what you want to leave to future generations?
Of course not- I want to harness Man's enormous capabilities to
Creation, away from destruction. Without a largwer vision man will
either misuse the powers he ahas or regress and abotrt his tremendous
potential as demiurge - that would be a crime to be rewarded by
extinction, IMO. The planets and asteroids are, to the best of our
knowledge, lifeless - what could be more creative than to turn them into
the abodes of new life and civilization? What could more constructively
harness our talents to the greater enrichment of the Universe? These
things would be not for the glory of Man but the enhancement of the
Universe as a whole. In an embryo 13 billion years young we are its
prototypre vcentral nervous system. For this task , Man has a special
place, and for no other reason.
Unlike many others here I ask not only, what can Space do for Man, but
waht can Man bring to Space?
Of course we must not destroy other life - but harness it to the
greater goal in co-operation - yes!
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Jens Lerch
>Jens Lerch wrote:
>> Craig Fink <cf...@accesscomm.net> wrote:
>Have you ever seen a snowflake, it's kind of a "unique structure", each and every one
>of them. Then again some people would say that if you've seen one snowflake, you've
>seen them all.
Save the snowflakes!!!!!
>I thought one of the South Pole craters is particularly unique in that
>it's rim get sunshine all the time while the crater is in permanent shadow. I would
>hope that NASA would target a different crater than this one if there is so much
>shadow to choose from. One of the smaller, less popular ones.
NASA decision will be determined only by the orbit of Lunar Prospector
and the viewing angle of the Hubble and the other telescopes used to
observe the impact.
>> The most recent estimate of
>> the amount of water is 10 billion tons, so the impact of Lunar
>> Prospector will be negligible
>> >Smashing 150 kg probe into it could be equivalent to shooting a BB at a glass
>> >chandelier.
>>
>> The "chandelier" is the size of Delaware.
>Now that would be a "unique structure" wouldn't it. I'd like to see that before
>distructive testing is done on it.
It is quite common to destructively test a tiny fraction of a unique
item, e.g. mummies, historical artefacts, plants or animals.
Jens Lerch
>Now, if *I* were looking for an argument, I would say why don't we keep
>the Lunar Prospector in orbit until every last iota of fuel is exhausted,
>and get that much better data. (the resolution reliability of LP data is
>proportional to the square root of time, FWIW). The argument that we
>don't have a lousy hundred thousand dollars to keep the operators running
>ir is a pretty weak one IMHO.
Lunar Prospector has about 6 months of propellant left and targeting
it for impact at a certain spot will require a large fraction of the
remaining propellant.
Geoffrey A. Landis
jle...@geocities.com writes:
>Lunar Prospector has about 6 months of propellant left and targeting
>it for impact at a certain spot will require a large fraction of the
>remaining propellant.
That's right.
It is not clear to me that this rather hit-or-miss experiment is more
valuable than six good months of data, especially if they are
low-altitude (and hence high resolution) data.
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to s
wrote:
>
>(Of course, since heavily cratered surfaces are to some extent fractal,
>asking for the number of craters in a given area is like asking for the
>length of the coastline of England.)
Uh oh, you said "fractal". You know, there are those in this group who probably
do a search on that word just so they can jump in and tell you all about their
nanotech robots that can do everything...
--
Michael R. Grabois | http://chili.cjb.net
Houston, TX | $pac...@wt.net (change $ to "s")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some people call me Maurice, 'cause I speak of the Pompatus of Love."
Craig Fink
"Geoffrey A. Landis" wrote:
In article <7jh99g$eq0$1...@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> Jens Lerch,
jle...@geocities.com writes:
>Lunar Prospector has about 6 months of propellant left and targeting
>it for impact at a certain spot will require a large fraction of the
>remaining propellant.That's right.
It is not clear to me that this rather hit-or-miss experiment is more
valuable than six good months of data, especially if they are
low-altitude (and hence high resolution) data.
I agree. Or possibly turning the instruments away from the moon (if possible) and looking for cosmic snowflakes. I think proving or disproving the existence of these small comets would be just as important as proving that water exists on the moon.
Also, I wonder what resolution photographs/radar images are available of the proposed impact sites. Or if they even have pictures of the proposed impact sites. The radar images looked like they might be pretty low in resolution and didn't cover the entire area of the Dark Craters.
Craig Fink
Rand Simberg
$pac...@wt.net (Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s") made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Uh oh, you said "fractal". You know, there are those in this group who probably
>do a search on that word just so they can jump in and tell you all about their
>nanotech robots that can do everything...
Heh heh heh... He said fractal.
X-factor
self-proclaimed 'highest' achievements include: turning the world into an
armed nuclear camp and sending a few astronauts to the moon.
Andrew Higgins <hig...@mecheng.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:vvj63.4475$U4.1...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca...
> In article <7jc5rp$rvr$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> , "Michael
> 'love Nature' while deploring the 'artificialities' with which
> 'Man has spoiled 'Nature.'' The obvious contradiction lies in
> their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts
> are not part of 'Nature' -- but beavers and their dams are.
>
> But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
> In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for
> beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for
> the purposes of men) the 'Naturist' reveals his hatred for his
> own race-i.e., his own self-hatred.
>
> In the case of 'Naturists' such self-hatred is understandable;
> they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion
> to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate....
>
> Believe it or not, there were 'Naturists' who opposed the first
> flight to old Earth's Moon as being 'unnatural' and a 'despoiling
> of Nature.'"
>
Andrew Higgins
<tde...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>If only mankind were half as intelligent as it thought itself...Man's
>self-proclaimed 'highest' achievements include: turning the world into an
>armed nuclear camp and sending a few astronauts to the moon.
>
...An armed nuclear camp whose technical principles of operation tapped
into the same thermonuclear fires that power the stars. And an armed
nuclear camp that was judiciously deployed to defeat an ideology
responsible, by conservative estimates, for slaughtering 50 million
individuals in the first half of this century.
...Sending a few astronauts to the moon, albeit a tenuous first step,
was Life's first departure from the Earth's thin biosphere in 5 billion
years.
High achievements, indeed.
--
Andrew J. Higgins
hig...@mecheng.mcgill.ca
ClvspamX
>If only mankind were half as intelligent as it thought itself...Man's
>self-proclaimed 'highest' achievements include: turning the world into an
>armed nuclear camp and sending a few astronauts to the moon.
Not everyone considers nukes a crowning achievement. But the sending of 12 Men
to step onto the Moon is a great achievement! Human history will long remember
Neil Armstrong long long after it has forgot you T. Dennis!
C.L. Vancil ( clvs...@aol.com to email change spamX to ancil )
http://members.aol.com/clvancil/
frank...@delphi.com
>I would like to see a NASA mission canceled. They are planning to crash a
>rocket into what may be the only lake on the moon on July 31. Even if
>there's no water in the crater, there might be something else that is
>unique. I believe that unique features should be treated with some
>reverence. On earth, Mount Everest is unique. What if some scientist
>wanted to blow the top 2000 feet off of Mount Everest. He might argue that
>he's not destroying the entire mountain, but it's still wrong. If there is
>a lake on the moon, it is wrong to crash anything into it. NASA is being
>too destructive. Is there no concern for beauty?
`Lake' inplies a body of liquid water. We're talking *ice* here. Some, but
not much pure ice, this is mostly like permafrost. And any pure ice would
still be covered by a respectable layer of dust. This is the Moon. No
atmospherre,
naked to cosmic radiation. We've been hard and soft landing objects on its
surface for almost 40 years. Nature has been dropping rocks of all sizes on
its surface for billions of years. Please don't make this sound like someone's
planning to dump a megaton of toxic waste into a resort lake. It's got more
in common with dropping an engine block in the middle of the Arctic tundra....
Frank
frank...@delphi.com
>over our heads for the past fifty years. There's enough nuclear power
>in the American and Russian arsenals to kill all life on Earth four
>times over.
times, twice...
>The question is: what are we going to do about it? I'd say plant
>roots elsewhere, make sure all of us aren't killed in a nuclear
>firestorm.
Frank
frank...@delphi.com
>Why these attacks on Naturists? I am not trying to protect the entire moon,
>just a unique feature. The south pole crater might be a beautiful place.
>It might not be. I think we should get pictures of it before we tear it up.
surface. That signifigance has little to do with beauty, though. We have
pictures, thanks to Clementine. If you were expecting open, visible
expanses of ice, I'm sorry. It would have to be in and/or covered by
the Lunar surface material. (I hesitate to call it `soil'.) Background
ultraviolet sources in the universe would have slowly dissociated the
water molecules over eons, if not protected so. (Or so I have read would be
the reason exposed ice can't exist at the also sunless poles of Mercury.)
You may rest assured it will all still be there (plus one little impact
crater from Lunar Prospector, among all the older impact craters) when
humans can come and photograph it first-hand. And rest assured they eventually
will.
And what *is* beauty anyway?
I've so often heard that strip mining makes a place `look like the surface
of the Moon.' (A good argument for doing future mining *on* the surface of the
Moon.) Sounds like an attempt to paint an ugly picture, in that context....
Frannk
frank...@delphi.com
>You've missed the point. Yes, the moon is bombarded with meteoroids all the
>time, but the probability of one 150 kg in size hitting the south pole crater in
>any one year are quite small. In fact I imagine that it may be quite a few years
>since the last time something that size has hit the south pole crater. This
>crater is unique, it's the only place on the moon that is continuously shaded
>from the sun. For all we know right now, this crater could contain some very
>unique structures made of water that take tens of thousands of years to form.
>the rim and have a look first.
large this `south pole crater' really is? How often smaller objects do hit
it? (This has been an objection to my fiber-optic cable ideas, and we're
now talking a vastly greater area.) And why does the likelyhood in any
*one* year matter? The Moon has had billions of them (and more frequent in
the distant past) to work in, and no erosional forces to erase any of them,
except
fresh impacts....
Frank
frank...@delphi.com
>it's rim get sunshine all the time while the crater is in permanent shadow. I would
>hope that NASA would target a different crater than this one if there is so much
>shadow to choose from. One of the smaller, less popular ones.
to do that on the Moon) The idea is to hit a spot that has a respectable chance
of
containing frozen water, and hoping some of the impact debris will be thrown
far enough above the surface that instruments on and near Earth can observe
it, and absolutely determine that this *is* water ice.
We barely proved the stuff is there, and now we seem to need an environmental
inpact (pun intended) statement to do anything to it....
Frank
George P. Masologites
>>over our heads for the past fifty years. There's enough nuclear power
>>in the American and Russian arsenals to kill all life on Earth four
>>times over.
>
> How is that figure arrived at? It never seems to be the same number of
>times, twice...
I've read that figure and my history teacher told me that was roughly
correct, when the topic came up in a discussion with him. That isn't
to say I couldn't be off by one or two, but once it kills us once, I
don't think it matters how _many_ times it does so. :P
--
George P. Masologites | gui...@mail.serve.com
Space | http://www.serve.com/guilds/astro/
Fanfiction | http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
Art | http://www.serve.com/guilds/
http://www.luf.org/~jwills/LufWiki/view.cgi/Main/GeorgeMasologites
LufWiki. You know you love it.
"Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur."
Geoffrey A. Landis
gui...@mail.serve.com writes:
>frank...@delphi.com wrote:
>
>>>over our heads for the past fifty years. There's enough nuclear power
>>>in the American and Russian arsenals to kill all life on Earth four
>>>times over.
>>
>> How is that figure arrived at? It never seems to be the same number of
>>times, twice...
It is calculated by taking the number of deaths produced by a single bomb
detonated in a major city, dividing that by the kilotonnage of the bomb,
and then multiplying by the total megatonnage of the nuclear arsenals of
the world.
So, yes, you could kill every human on Earth with the arsenals we have
deployed... but to do that, you first have to move everybody together
into the major cities.
"All live on Earth"-- no. Not even close. Not even close to being close.
____________
Geoffrey A. Landis
Scientist and part-time science fiction writer
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
frank...@delphi.com
>frank...@delphi.com wrote:
>
>>>over our heads for the past fifty years. There's enough nuclear power
>>>in the American and Russian arsenals to kill all life on Earth four
>>>times over.
>>
>> How is that figure arrived at? It never seems to be the same number of
>>times, twice...
>
>correct, when the topic came up in a discussion with him. That isn't
>to say I couldn't be off by one or two, but once it kills us once, I
>don't think it matters how _many_ times it does so. :P
kill everyone *once.* I once made the guess that someone took the Hiroshima
casualties arizing from a 10 kiloton device, and extrapolated that to the
total megatonnage in the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. arsenal, but I don't know that
to be the real source. It's like the `We only use (insert various small number
here) percent of our brains.' statement.
And bringing the two together....what's the minimum amount of conventional
explosive needed to kill someone? A few ounces if applied directly to the
skull? One can then argue that there's enough conventional weaponry to
kill everyone `X' times over, too. But with HE or nukes, not all the energy
is conviently directed at living targets (or *meant* to be, if one is mostly
interested in destroying command centers, missile silos, bombers, vulnerable
submarines, and killing their crews is purely secondary), some miss, some are,
as noted, destroyed before use, nome simply not used, etc....
Not to say that there aren't thousands of arguments against nuclear
conflict (I hope they keep this in mind in India and Pakistan...even the
handful both sides have in total would make life rather uncomfortable
anywhere downwind.), I just question the hyperbole of the multiple overkill
numbers, whenever I hear it.
Frank
frank...@delphi.com
>>>>over our heads for the past fifty years. There's enough nuclear power
>>>>in the American and Russian arsenals to kill all life on Earth four
>>>>times over.
>>>
>>> How is that figure arrived at? It never seems to be the same number of
>>>times, twice...
>
>detonated in a major city, dividing that by the kilotonnage of the bomb,
>and then multiplying by the total megatonnage of the nuclear arsenals of
>the world.
>
>So, yes, you could kill every human on Earth with the arsenals we have
>deployed... but to do that, you first have to move everybody together
>into the major cities.
to get everyone conviently together (and was the idea behind the Holocaust
too, I suppose). As is, we'd run out of cities (depending on how one defines
a city) before running out of weapons. And clustering your victims would
make them just as vulnerable to conventional weaponry (more casualties at
Hamburg and Dresden than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki...it just took a little
longer) but I never hear that argument applied to conventional weapons....
Frank