Half-an-hour and NASA will be bombing the moon, in hopes of finding water. The is project LCROSS, I think. WHat do you think.
I think I'll remember this event forever, I mean, this is historic, luckily my mom agrees so I can stay home late to watch the bombing.
www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.htm...
/\
|
Watch a live feed!
That has got to be the stupidest thing ive ever heard of.
That has got to be the stupidest thing ive ever heard of.
Then you have lead a remarkably sheltered life.
Its an explosive, not a nuclear warhead. I've got no issues with it, it's a rock, they aren't going to break it.
And if they find a substantial amount of water? Big Big news.
Meh. Considering the state of the economy, this is a huge waste of time and money. Sure, discovering water or some other potential resource is important. Not important enough, however when compared to the state of the country. See, we're a damn long way off from being able to actually pull resources from there or from establishing some sort of settlement. It's just not worth it at this time. In the future, maybe. Right now 'maybe' for something we can't use is just not enough ROI.
While interesting, it is a waste of money at this point in time to figure out if the moon has water. They should wait for our technology to advance further so that we might be able to put it to good use quickly should the result be positive.
Meh. Considering the state of the economy, this is a huge waste of time and money. Sure, discovering water or some other potential resource is important. Not important enough, however when compared to the state of the country. See, we're a damn long way off from being able to actually pull resources from there or from establishing some sort of settlement. It's just not worth it at this time. In the future, maybe. Right now 'maybe' for something we can't use is just not enough ROI.
This isn't a project they just thought of last week. They shouldn't have to waste two-years funding because since they started the economy tanked. And ending the project would cost jobs.
While interesting, it is a waste of money at this point in time to figure out if the moon has water. They should wait for our technology to advance further so that we might be able to put it to good use quickly should the result be positive.
It's been 40 years since we were last on the moon. If it became a priority we could easily return or go to Mars.
This isn't a project they just thought of last week. They shouldn't have to waste two-years funding because since they started the economy tanked. And ending the project would cost jobs.
Regardless, it's a waste of time and money. It was a waste of time and money when it was first conceived. There is absolutely no need to discover water on the moon at this time. There will not be a need to do so for a very long time. It's a waste.
The only benefit is the jobs it created. The problem is that the cost of the project is going to far outweigh the benefit conferred to those that were employed. Again, there is zero ROI. This is literally throwing money at the moon - and then blowing said money to hell.
panel 4
Regardless, it's a waste of time and money. It was a waste of time and money when it was first conceived. There is absolutely no need to discover water on the moon at this time. There will not be a need to do so for a very long time. It's a waste.The only benefit is the jobs it created. The problem is that the cost of the project is going to far outweigh the benefit conferred to those that were employed. Again, there is zero ROI. This is literally throwing money at the moon - and then blowing said money to hell.
Yeah, knowledge is stupid. Only things that make money matter.
Yeah, knowledge is stupid. Only things that make money matter.
Now where did I say that?
Knowledge is important. Knowledge that is immediately useful is even more important. Considering that even if anything of use is discovered, it'll be impossible to retrieve (it's like -400 degrees F in that crater), I think that this particular quest for knowledge could have standed a wait. Right now, you've got people concerned with a more pressing quest for knowledge: Where their next paycheck is going to come from, how they can afford to take their kid to the doctor without insurance, etc. With the bang-up job of increasing the defecit plans like the bailout have done, I think detonating more cash on the moon may not be the best way to foster confidence in the government's plan of action.
Saying it's a waste of money now in no way elevates money above knowledge. Right now, that knowledge is not something that's very useful. Right now, money is damned useful.
Also, don't put words in my mouth. Next time you'd like to assume something about anything I said, howsabout you ask some questions first?
Now where did I say that?
Here:
Regardless, it's a waste of time and money. It was a waste of time and money when it was first conceived. There is absolutely no need to discover water on the moon at this time. There will not be a need to do so for a very long time. It's a waste.The only benefit is the jobs it created. The problem is that the cost of the project is going to far outweigh the benefit conferred to those that were employed. Again, there is zero ROI. This is literally throwing money at the moon - and then blowing said money to hell.
See?
Knowledge is important. Knowledge that is immediately useful is even more important. Considering that even if anything of use is discovered, it'll be impossible to retrieve (it's like -400 degrees F in that crater), I think that this particular quest for knowledge could have standed a wait. Right now, you've got people concerned with a more pressing quest for knowledge: Where their next paycheck is going to come from, how they can afford to take their kid to the doctor without insurance, etc. With the bang-up job of increasing the defecit plans like the bailout have done, I think detonating more cash on the moon may not be the best way to foster confidence in the government's plan of action.
It is not an either/or situation. There is not a big common pot full of money and different agencies get to scoop up as much as they can carry, thus denying it to someone else. NASA is spending form NASA's budget. Money they don't spend doesn't get portioned out to other programs, it still stays part of their operating capital.
The idea that we must put by the wayside the expansion of the human sphere of information whenever things get rough is absurd. Such thinking would have us all hunkering down in buckskin huts, eating only what we kill or harvest ourselves, and dying of simple diseases and starvation.
Knowledge is human evolution. It cannot and should not be stifled in the interest of commerce or local politics.
Saying it's a waste of money now in no way elevates money above knowledge. Right now, that knowledge is not something that's very useful. Right now, money is damned useful.
You didn't say "now". Indeed, you very specifically said "It was a waste of time and money when it was first conceived."
Also, don't put words in my mouth. Next time you'd like to assume something about anything I said, howsabout you ask some questions first?
I put nothing in your mouth, and see it as pointless to ask questions to which you've already made your answer clear.
Here's three words from my post that you seem to have missed: at this time. That means now. Whether you like it or not, you made incorrect assumptions about my position. The end.
Here's three words from my post that you seem to have missed: at this time. That means now.
I didn't miss them, they simply did not obtain. In full you wrote "There is absolutely no need to discover water on the moon at this time", and you basis for that claim was financial. My rebuttal was that you were wrong because it is never a bad time to expand the sphere of human knowledge and that finance and commerce is not a sufficient reason for failing to do so.
Whether you like it or not, you made incorrect assumptions about my position.
Geez man, when did you get so abrasive and adversarial? the only incorrect assumption I made was that you were interested in a discussion.
The end.
Only of your credibility, mate.
Any discovery of water on the moon will be used as the basis for applications to the scientific and commercial communities for the development of missions and technologies to exploit these findings. It works this way around, not the other way around.
As for scientific overspending... I honestly believe you need to check your facts. And that is speaking as a scientist.
There is one question no-one has yet asked: Did we win?
Our first salvos have gone unanswered as of yet. The collected personal of NASA are holding their collected breaths in anticipation of a military response from the Men on the Moon. With our numerous failed invasions, dating back to the late 60's, astronomers have feared that we will never overcome this distant foe. With the Moon's control of our world water supplies and it's ability to cause metemorphic hair growth, this menace has never before been so openly challenged for fear of reprocussions. And now we wait for a reponce from our heavenly neighbor from hell, the Moon.
That has got to be the stupidest thing ive ever heard of.Then you have lead a remarkably sheltered life.
You name me one thing stupider than NASA bombing the Moon!
That has got to be the stupidest thing ive ever heard of.Then you have lead a remarkably sheltered life.
You name me one thing stupider than NASA bombing the Moon!
the fact they didn't think of this sooner?
Something as stupid as bombing the moon? My dear, you should take a greater interest in anthropology and history. Since you asked for an example, how about the practice of human sacrifice? The Spanish Inquisition? The guy who had the idea to build a giant floating replica of an English port-city to confuse German bombers during World War II? Sideways baseball caps?
With all this argument over government spending, I wonder if there is ever a "right time" to provide funding for this sort of thing? There will always be immediete concerns which money from these funds could have been diverted to. The real question, in my opinion, would be if it will actually be necessary for humans to colonize the moon and/or if there are any practical applications we could make with the knowledge gained from the experiments on Earth. If you think it is necessary, somebody in some era has to foot the bill. Otherwise it's just a rubbish idea at any time, isn't it?
The guy who had the idea to build a giant floating replica of an English port-city to confuse German bombers during World War II?
Why did they not do this?
You name me one thing stupider than NASA bombing the Moon!
Are you kidding? Seriously.
At first I thought you were simply sheltered, but now you are actually choosing to defend your claim. I must admit, then, that I was wrong. You have not lead a sheltered life, you are simply delusional.
I could name you many thousands of things stupider than this, as could any thinking person on this planet. In the past month alone two things that leap immediately to mind are the "Birther" nonsense and "Death Panel" rubbish, and if you think anything is stupider than those two loads of utter shash then I think you may have the basis for a negligence lawsuit towards your former teachers.
The guy who had the idea to build a giant floating replica of an English port-city to confuse German bombers during World War II?
Why did they not do this?
I'm actually kind of inclined to agree with you. I do wish people were a bit more frivolous than they are. It's not quite as stupid an idea as everything that led up to World War I was in the first place. I say World War I, because World War II was kind of unavoidable after that.
But now that's just me getting jaded about humanity in general. Let me stop before I start another pointless argument.
Yep, in 50 years all the history books will be talking about wether or not Jimmy Thompson had a filling and nutritional dinner on October 8th, 2009. Noone will rember this stupid moon stuff. Duh.
I love NASA. 
The moon better look exactly the same or someone is getting goatsed by snail-mail.
After years of scheming, science launches its first direct assault upon the heavens. Take that celestials!
(They are going to piss off alot of werewolves.)
Werewolves? My !@#$% secret base is up there. NOOOOOOOOO!
P.S. I think I agree with S-marrow.
i just thought of something... this could piss off dracula...
There are an awful lot of ignorant posts here. As someone who was actually at the talk given at NASA Ames when this mission, and the data that was expected to be collected from it, was explained, let me try to clear the air.
Meh. Considering the state of the economy, this is a huge waste of time and money.
This mission was conceived, researched, built, and paid for before the economy went downhill. Regardless, I fail to see how it's a waste of time (I'm pretty sure you can't justify that statement at all) and waste of money in -- uh, what way, exactly? Money went to the same basic scientific research that enables all science to advance. Unless you're referring to the price of hydrogen, or something. And, once again, most of the project development was done before the economy tanked...
While interesting, it is a waste of money at this point in time to figure out if the moon has water. They should wait for our technology to advance further so that we might be able to put it to good use quickly should the result be positive.
That's something known as "putting the cart before the horse". It is totally pointless to work on something that will only be useful if the moon has water when you don't even know if the moon has water!
Regardless, it's a waste of time and money. It was a waste of time and money when it was first conceived. There is absolutely no need to discover water on the moon at this time. There will not be a need to do so for a very long time.
See what I just said.
Of course, I imagine from your posts so far that you're one of those types who think that the only "science" that has any value is engineering. This is patently false (and I say this as an engineer myself), because the only way that engineering advances happen is because of research in basic science. Like this.
The moon better look exactly the same or someone is getting goatsed by snail-mail.
Read about the damn project before making uninformed posts like these. If I'm recalling the talk given a year and a half ago correctly, the cloud isn't even visible in most telescopes.
Regardless, the moon does not have any less mass than it had before (it actually has more). There'll be a small new crater that wasn't there before, and all the dust that got kicked up is going to come down once again thanks to that wonderful law known as gravity.
Read about the damn project before making uninformed posts like these. If I'm recalling the talk given a year and a half ago correctly, the cloud isn't even visible in most telescopes.
Feel better now, everyone? I do hope so. If you have a real serious concern about this subject, better keep some asprin handy. The next few weeks and months aren't going to be easy for any of you. Not to mention hours. What you've just experienced is the best hope at a thoughtful, non-judgmental argument as you're going to get.
I'd advise you go and play video games or something for a bit. That's what I'm going to do. Maybe make some cupcakes. Not that you should care. Just saying. Cupcakes. Now there's a good time. Okay. Later.
I still stand by my statement that this is the most stupidest thing ive heard of. I mean this is NASA were talking about. Couldnt they come up with a better idea? Like maybe sending something like one of those Martian rovers up there or something?
I still stand by my statement that this is the most stupidest thing ive heard of. I mean this is NASA were talking about. Couldnt they come up with a better idea? Like maybe sending something like one of those Martian rovers up there or something?
Perhaps instead of spouting off about how "stupid" this idea is, you should say why it's stupid. So go on, tell us. Why is this idea stupid? What makes it inherently worse than other scouting mechanisms, instead of better?
I still stand by my statement that this is the most stupidest thing ive heard of. I mean this is NASA were talking about. Couldnt they come up with a better idea? Like maybe sending something like one of those Martian rovers up there or something?
Perhaps instead of spouting off about how "stupid" this idea is, you should say why it's stupid. So go on, tell us. Why is this idea stupid? What makes it inherently worse than other scouting mechanisms, instead of better?
Because it uses simple laws of physics to allow nasa to search a large volume of moon for water in a short amount of time instead of relying on robots with complex moving parts that are prone to failure rolling around taking small samples of the surface hoping to scoop of ice in a tiny sample cup. Boo simplicity! Boo efficency! Down with awesome! Keep your exsplosions out of my space program thank you very much!
I still stand by my statement that this is the most stupidest thing ive heard of. I mean this is NASA were talking about. Couldnt they come up with a better idea? Like maybe sending something like one of those Martian rovers up there or something?
Perhaps instead of spouting off about how "stupid" this idea is, you should say why it's stupid. So go on, tell us. Why is this idea stupid? What makes it inherently worse than other scouting mechanisms, instead of better?
I think reusability makes more sense, but im not a NASA scientist.
I still stand by my statement that this is the most stupidest thing ive heard of. I mean this is NASA were talking about. Couldnt they come up with a better idea? Like maybe sending something like one of those Martian rovers up there or something?
Perhaps instead of spouting off about how "stupid" this idea is, you should say why it's stupid. So go on, tell us. Why is this idea stupid? What makes it inherently worse than other scouting mechanisms, instead of better?I think reusability makes more sense, but im not a NASA scientist.
How are you going to reuse a lunar rover?
More importantly, how are you going to reuse a spent booster rocket on the moon? (Which is all the 'Bomb' was, the rocket used to put the device into orbit. The part that would have ended up as random space junk during a rover landing.)
I still stand by my statement that this is the most stupidest thing ive heard of. I mean this is NASA were talking about. Couldnt they come up with a better idea? Like maybe sending something like one of those Martian rovers up there or something?
Perhaps instead of spouting off about how "stupid" this idea is, you should say why it's stupid. So go on, tell us. Why is this idea stupid? What makes it inherently worse than other scouting mechanisms, instead of better?I think reusability makes more sense, but im not a NASA scientist.
How are you going to reuse a lunar rover?
The same way that they used them Martian rovers, they didnt just check for water in one spot, and then that was it, they continued on and beamed back all kindsa interesting stuff.
More importantly, how are you going to reuse a spent booster rocket on the moon? (Which is all the 'Bomb' was, the rocket used to put the device into orbit. The part that would have ended up as random space junk during a rover landing.)
Well good question, but as i pointed out im not a NASA scientist, Im sure they could of come up with something, and anyway how is a spent booster rocket going to detect water?
.... By slamming into the surface at high velocity, vaporizing any water in or around the crater it makes, and throwing it into the atmosphere where it can easily be detected? Kind of the plan, you know?
.... By slamming into the surface at high velocity, vaporizing any water in or around the crater it makes, and throwing it into the atmosphere where it can easily be detected? Kind of the plan, you know?
The moon has an atmosphere? And it can be easily detected? by what? and what if the picked the wrong spot? maybe the waters all on the other side. we could go back and forth on this all night, but youre not going to change my mind. Even if there is water on the moon, so what? I dont live on the moon, I got water here. I could think of lots better ways to spend the millions of dollars they spent on this.
Don't be retarded. Your claim was not that it wasn't the smartest thing you had ever heard of, but rather that it was the dumbest. Keep your story straight.
But hey, sense you offered: give 10 better, less stupid, ways in which you would spend 79 million dollars.
we could go back and forth on this all night, but youre not going to change my mind.
What the hell? You do realize this means you're basically a religious nut, don't you? "Oh hey you can give me definite proof that I'm wrong but you're never going to convince me!" Surgo sounds like he's got some aptitude with physics. Ask him to explain how they detect water and how rockets are more efficient (I can answer this though: They're cheaper and faster to build and overall much simpler in structure than a rocket with a lunar rover inside it). Hell, I'll ask. Surgo, how do you detect water in a cloud of dust whirled up by an explosion?
Don't be retarded. Your claim was not that it wasn't the smartest thing you had ever heard of, but rather that it was the dumbest. Keep your story straight.
But hey, sense you offered: give 10 better, less stupid, ways in which you would spend 79 million dollars.
Im not being retarded.
i stand behind my statement, stupiderest thing ive heard of. my story is straight.
less stupider ways to spend 79 million dollars? well thatd be pretty easy. I mean really if there is water on the moon how is that going to help anything? use that money for water purification projects on earth, or you could feed alot of the planets hungry with that money, that money could help more in the development of alternative energy sources, give that money to our troops in Afganastan and Iraq, that could pay off at least a couple days on the interest of the national debt, revitalizing poor neighborhoods, cancer reasearch is a good one, that money could be spent switching us over to the metric system were failing behind there or just education in general, put that money into recycling sooner or later were gonna run out of plastics
and the best thing i would do with 79 million dollars: throw one hell of a party!
we could go back and forth on this all night, but youre not going to change my mind.
What the hell? You do realize this means you're basically a religious nut, don't you? "Oh hey you can give me definite proof that I'm wrong but you're never going to convince me!" Surgo sounds like he's got some aptitude with physics. Ask him to explain how they detect water and how rockets are more efficient (I can answer this though: They're cheaper and faster to build and overall much simpler in structure than a rocket with a lunar rover inside it). Hell, I'll ask. Surgo, how do you detect water in a cloud of dust whirled up by an explosion?
How am i a religious not by thinking that blowing up the moon to look for water is the stupidest thing ive ever heard of. Its a matter of opinion, Stupidest is very subjective. I still think its stupid and you could give me all these facts and figures stating other wise and i still think its stupid. Even if there is water on the moon so what? Im the only one who thinks that spending however millions of dollars to find out if the moon has water is stupid!? No mater how they do it i still think its stupid, but yes i think a rover or something would make more sense IN MY OPINION. That way they could try different areas and do what ever other tests they wanted, like detecing whether or not theres helium on the moon.
we could go back and forth on this all night, but youre not going to change my mind.
What the hell? You do realize this means you're basically a religious nut, don't you? "Oh hey you can give me definite proof that I'm wrong but you're never going to convince me!" Surgo sounds like he's got some aptitude with physics. Ask him to explain how they detect water and how rockets are more efficient (I can answer this though: They're cheaper and faster to build and overall much simpler in structure than a rocket with a lunar rover inside it). Hell, I'll ask. Surgo, how do you detect water in a cloud of dust whirled up by an explosion?How am i a religious not by thinking that blowing up the moon to look for water is the stupidest thing ive ever heard of. Its a matter of opinion, Stupidest is very subjective. I still think its stupid and you could give me all these facts and figures stating other wise and i still think its stupid. Even if there is water on the moon so what? Im the only one who thinks that spending however millions of dollars to find out if the moon has water is stupid!? No mater how they do it i still think its stupid, but yes i think a rover or something would make more sense IN MY OPINION. That way they could try different areas and do what ever other tests they wanted, like detecing whether or not theres helium on the moon.
You seem to be Missing the point however.
Your opinion is WRONG.
You say you think its stupid, you say a rover would make more sence...But your not really offering ideas on what to do better, deflecting with 'Well, Im not a NASA scientists, so I cant think of anything better'
Did you ever think maybe...Maybe..because your not a NASA scientist, you cant see the GOOD parts of this as well?
Eh...Im not going to say anymore. Arguing with folks who refuse to change their thought process in the face of evidance are pointless to spend any time interacting with...Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go help Dracula rebuild the greenhouse...theres a big frigging hole in it from some jerk droping a rocket ontop of it.
we could go back and forth on this all night, but youre not going to change my mind.
What the hell? You do realize this means you're basically a religious nut, don't you? "Oh hey you can give me definite proof that I'm wrong but you're never going to convince me!" Surgo sounds like he's got some aptitude with physics. Ask him to explain how they detect water and how rockets are more efficient (I can answer this though: They're cheaper and faster to build and overall much simpler in structure than a rocket with a lunar rover inside it). Hell, I'll ask. Surgo, how do you detect water in a cloud of dust whirled up by an explosion?Stupidest is very subjective.
It's also not a word.
Im not being retarded.
i stand behind my statement, stupiderest thing ive heard of. my story is straight.
less stupider ways to spend 79 million dollars? well thatd be pretty easy. I mean really if there is water on the moon how is that going to help anything? use that money for water purification projects on earth
How is that going to help anything?
, or you could feed alot of the planets hungry with that money
How is that going to help anything?
that money could help more in the development of alternative energy sources
How is that going to help anything?
give that money to our troops in Afganastan and Iraq
See above.
that could pay off at least a couple days on the interest of the national debt
Doubtfull
revitalizing poor neighborhoods
Poor neighborhoods are poor for a reason. Givign them trivial (yes, trivial) sums of money acomplishes nothing.
cancer reasearch is a good one, that money could be spent switching us over to the metric system were failing behind there or just education in general, put that money into recycling sooner or later were gonna run out of plastics
And in 80 years from now, will anyone rember that 79 million dollars where spend on any one of thoes things? Will spending that money on any one of your ideas make the slightest notable impact on human history, knowledge, or progress? No. If you gave 79 million to each and every one of the ideas you listed above, you still havn't done anything of importance on a global scale over any scale of time that extends over a decade, much less a generation.
and the best thing i would do with 79 million dollars: throw one hell of a party!
See, even if it was the dumbest thing you had ever read, well, read that last sentence there. Now, at the very least, the NASA thing is the second dumbest thing you have ever read about.
It's also not a word.
Give this guy 1,000,000 XP!
I expected some one to point that out to me alot sooner, but no one did!
whos stupider now!!!
See, even if it was the dumbest thing you had ever read, well, read that last sentence there. Now, at the very least, the NASA thing is the second dumbest thing you have ever read about.
Nope the NASA thing still the stupidest. are you telling me if you had 79 million dollars you wouldnt throw a hell of a party?
And i think all my ideas would help out more than the search for water on the moon. but ive heard a lot of bashing of me but ive yet to hear anything about why its a good idea. So please enlighten me. Why is it so important that we find out if there is or isnt water on the moon?
If I would do something or not if I had 79 million dollars at my disposal is not what we where discussing. How I would spend 79 million dollars as a private citizen has no bearing on how stupid NASA's plan is. Yes, blowing 79 million dollars on a party is incredibly retarded.
"You can tell me all the facts in the world about why it isn't stupid, but I'm still going to belive it's stupid so don't bother!" "Hey, noone has been telling me why it isn't stupid, wtf?!"
Hey, judging by your responses, it has occured to me that you are ignorant as to the applicable meansing of stupid in this case, so here it is:
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless
So, a well thought out and rationalised plan to answer a widely held and speculated upon question is a ressult of less reasoned thinking than blowing 79 million dollars on a fleeting party. 'Kay.
Hey, judging by your responses, it has occured to me that you are ignorant as to the applicable meansing of stupid in this case, so here it is:
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless
So, a well thought out and rationalised plan to answer a widely held and speculated upon question is a ressult of less reasoned thinking than blowing 79 million dollars on a fleeting party. 'Kay.
I do understand the meansing of the word thank you very much.
But i still have no information why its a good idea to look for water on the moon, or why im retarded for thinking that it is dumb myself.
Ive been givin alot of facts about why NASAs bombardment of the moon is not stupid, and is a sound plan, which yes i still disagree on, but i havnt heard anything about why its a good idea in general to look for water on the moon or what benefit that would have if indeed there is water. all ive heard is how stupid and retarded i am. So fine go on and make your points by name calling.
Im sure you have opinions that i might not agree with, but im not going to call you stupid or retarded for having those opinions. I would expect the same consideration from you.
The big question here is: did they find water on the moon or not? If they find some water then Ill be forced to eat my words and agree that them NASA scientists have some idea what theyre doing.
It's great and all if they should happen to find water. Yet they need to figure out how to make life sustainable on a landscape that is not, while being able to harvest such useful resources for the benefit of mankind. Then again, maybe they've been working on this before they planned on bombing the moon and the public has yet to learn of it at this moment.
To be honest though, I'd rather see if chemists could figure out a way of manipulating molecules found on the moon and convert them into elements that are necessary for life. Why search for water on celestial bodies if you could "manufacture" it from other resources? Perhaps again, NASA had already tried that and all currently known molecules on the moon do not hold hyrdogen or oxygen.
The goal is not to find water on the moon. It isn't like some cosmic voice came down from the sky and said, hey, we hid water up here somewhere, come find it. Not finding water is as informative as finding water. As long as they find out if that part of the moon has water or does not have water, then they have acomplished their goal.
The Moon has no water of any kind, either free or chemically combined in the rocks. Water is a substance that is necessary for life, and it is therefore unlikely that life could ever have originated on the Moon. Furthermore, lunar rocks contain only tiny amounts of the carbon and carbon compounds out of which life is built, and most of this carbon is not native to the Moon but is brought to the lunar surface in meteorites and as atoms out of the Sun.
www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/teacher_...
From the samples previously collected, there is no water on the moon to speak of. The idea is that these chemicals could be found on the moon, but not in places accessible by typical surface sampling techniques, hence the impactor attempt.
Well i guess youre right i am retarded, i still dont get it.
But i still have no information why its a good idea to look for water on the moon, or why im retarded for thinking that it is dumb myself.Ive been givin alot of facts about why NASAs bombardment of the moon is not stupid, and is a sound plan, which yes i still disagree on, but i havnt heard anything about why its a good idea in general to look for water on the moon or what benefit that would have if indeed there is water. all ive heard is how stupid and retarded i am. So fine go on and make your points by name calling.
Im sure you have opinions that i might not agree with, but im not going to call you stupid or retarded for having those opinions. I would expect the same consideration from you.
Would the fact that 70 years isn't really that long, considering how much more work we'd have to do, make it good idea to at least "check it out"?
Would the fact that 70 years isn't really that long, considering how much more work we'd have to do, make it good idea to at least "check it out"?
To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to bring moon water back down to earth. I strongly doubt that the amounts of water on the moon, even if we could extract it all with minimal difficutly, would make a signifigant impact on potable water suplies here on earth. The primary use I have ever heard of for lunar water is as rocket fuel. Water on the moon could be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen gas via electrolisis and could then be used to power a vessel to more distant celestial bodies without requiering the huge expenditures of fuel requiered to lift such propelants beyond the gravitational field of the earth, drastically increasing the efficency of future deep space exploration.
[Or to be used in a moon base as drinking water, I guess.]
[Or to be used in a moon base as drinking water, I guess.]
That's more my thought. With enough water that's "extractable" you gain 2 important necessities - water, and oxygen. That means that it MAY be possible (depending on what's under the surface) to build a self-contained, self-sustaining biosphere. (remember the odd little projects back a decade or so ago?). Basically, a back-up plan.
Would the fact that 70 years isn't really that long, considering how much more work we'd have to do, make it good idea to at least "check it out"?
OMG! someone making a valid point! So ok if we run out of water i could see the need for moon water. But still it would make more sense to me to work on cleaning the water we have on this planet as opposed to looking to the moon. This of course is my opinion.
That doesn't solve the problem (and we already have money, both public and private going in that direction - as well). The world is gonna get ugly. Here's the latest UN report.
Should water be found, look for more news of biosphere research.
I do understand that we as earthings would have no need for "moon water" at this present time. It would seem that answering the question of whether there is a capability for water on our celestial satellite is more of about extraterrestrial expansion. Of course it involves other things but this would be one of the key technologies it leads to. Having water where you might colonize is essential for expansions of long distances. I know they had plans on colonizing Mars, but that is far too risky at this time and our moon would be a better candidate for such a task if it is has water or molecules that can lead to it.
I'll retract my statement of saying that I don't feel they are ready and thus it is a waste of time and money. Though I still feel we are not ready yet for extraterrestrial expansion, maybe this project will reveal how close we are to such technology.
we could go back and forth on this all night, but youre not going to change my mind.
What the hell? You do realize this means you're basically a religious nut, don't you? "Oh hey you can give me definite proof that I'm wrong but you're never going to convince me!" Surgo sounds like he's got some aptitude with physics. Ask him to explain how they detect water and how rockets are more efficient (I can answer this though: They're cheaper and faster to build and overall much simpler in structure than a rocket with a lunar rover inside it). Hell, I'll ask. Surgo, how do you detect water in a cloud of dust whirled up by an explosion?
I just want to start by saying that I'm a bioengineer, not a physicist, and I did not work on this project so any information I have on the LCROSS instruments is generally pulled off of NASA's big website about the project. However, I do understand how these instruments and the analysis behind them work decently well, so let's see if I can do something with that.
* Visible Camera. This does exactly what you'd expect it to -- take a picture of the dust cloud at substantially higher resolution than we would be able to see. You can examine the "graininess" properties of the cloud you object, which is basically a mixture of everything that you just ejected, and maybe get some information from that. Not sure how that would work.
* Various Infrared Cameras. These are where a lot of the water detection comes from. All materials absorb heat, and re-radiate it in the IR spectrum, in a slightly different fashion, with water being no exception. So if there is water in that ejection cloud, it's going to look different than if there's not-water. Now I want anyone reading this to understand that it's not really as simple as qualitatively comparing the pictures and instantly saying "oh that looks like water" -- there's a lot of intense mathematical analysis that goes on behind the scenes here.
* Spectrometers. This is a lot more "magic" and difficult explain, but wikipedia has a good explanation of how they work (search for "Spectrometer"). One of these covers the visible light region and two cover the near infrared region. Think of them like cameras that are looking much more closely at certain small portions of light to try to discover properties of the ejection cloud that wouldn't be visible in an overall big 'picture' taken by the cameras because it has comparatively low-resolution.
Wow some detailed information, instead of name calling. Kudos to you!
Ill admit i dont know much about this project. The way it was explained to me was they were sending a rocket into the moon to send up a cloud of moon dust and debris, a probe would then fly in and take readings before it crashed into the moon. I was saying in my opinion that sounded dumb, and they should use something that could be reused to check other areas of the moon. I think that makes sense, that of course is my opinion. I dont know though, did the probe they sent up crash or can it be used again?
I also think looking on the moon for water is dumb. My opinion once again. I just dont see any water being on the moon, but who knows? ive never actually been there.
My main beef is that people telling me im stupid and retarded for voicing my opinion. It was my understandiong that that was what a forum was for, stupid me. I think many people have little understanding what opinion means. If i say in my opinion that something is stupid or the stupidest thing ive ever heard of, i dont see how someone can tell me im wrong that its not the stupidest thing ive ever heard of? Yeah i guess other people are experts on what i think is the stupidest thing or not.
And besides so what if i was retarded? Retarded people have a right to voice their opinion as well!
Well im gettin off topic, i just wanted to get that off my chest, i fell so much better now.
Im going back to the Forgotten Realms, less name calling there 
i guess we hit the side of the moon that lacks vampires. or whalers.
Did they hit the moon nazis?
Why bomb the moon?
"Bomb" is a misnomer. NASA used a spent booster rocket to slam into a crater on the Lunar South Pole to kick up tons of dust into the Lunar atmosphere (Yes, the moon has a faint atmosphere) so that a trailing probe could examine the dust for traces of water and other elements.
Why do we care if there's water on the moon?
Water on the moon would mean that the moon could be more easily colonized. Water can be broken down into oxygen (for breathing) and hydrogen (for fuel).
Why colonize the moon?
Two reasons:
1. The moon would make the perfect base of operations for further exploration of the solar system, especially Mars and the asteroid belt. Exploring the asteroid belt, in particular, could have enormous benefits for Earth. Remember that the asteroid belt is a failed planet. It contains all the resources of Earth (not including hydrocarbons, but see 2, below). At present, we can only access a small fraction of the total resources of Earth, because the vast majority of them lie deep withing the earth's crust. The asteroid belt, however, would allow us to access an entire planets worth of resources and to do so with no negative environmental impact.
2. The moon is the only known source of large amounts of helium 3, a necessary component of fusion reactors. A single shuttle bay (roughly a single boxcar) of helium 3 would contain enough energy to power the U.S. for one year and would be worth about 75 billion dollars. 1.1 million metric tons of He3 is thought to exist on the moon. That's enough energy to fuel the entire Earth for 10,000 years. Unlike fission power, fusion power generates few if any toxic byproducts.
But isn't all that a long way off?
Sure. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The cost of this mission ($79 million) was about 15% of what was spent in the last presidential campaign, roughly the amount spent on health care industry lobbyists in the last 50 days, and the same amount that is spent on the war in Iraq every 6 hours.
We could still use that money at home.
Sure. But fossil fuels will run out eventually. The resources that we have on Earth will inevitably become harder and harder to reach. We are going to need what the solar system has to offer eventually. The sooner we start looking, the sooner we will find them. And this does not take into account the unexpected discoveries. The history of human scientific advancement has always been one of serendipity. No one was looking for a way to examine damage to bones without surgery when x-rays were discovered. No one was looking for ways to defeat infection when penicillin was discovered. If we do not invest in exploration and research, we will never find the answers to question we don't even know enough to ask.
My main beef is that people telling me im stupid and retarded for voicing my opinion.
Oh? I'm pretty sure I said that:
You should not be retarded (By changing the criteria mid discussion)
That you might be ignorant of the applicable definition of stupid as it aplies to the current conversation,
And that blowing 79 million dollars on a party is retarded.
So, yah. If your going to accuse people of calling you names, provide quotes or something. Noone stopped you from voicing your opinion. We just voiced our opinions about your opinions, namely, that your opinions are retarded.
Now see, Mynameisjake offered up some detailed information as to why NASAs plan makes sense. I still dont agree that the moon is the best place to look for water, but there is some very valid points there, other than just saying my opinion is wrong or retarded.
Now see, Mynameisjake offered up some detailed information as to why NASAs plan makes sense. I still dont agree that the moon is the best place to look for water, but there is some very valid points there, other than just saying my opinion is wrong or retarded.
I also wouldn't have thought of a plan like this, but if the guys with 40lb heads decided it was a worthwhile endeavor, I'll play along, because I'm no expert at all. Also, while 79 million dollars sounds like a lot to average joe, keep in mind that to the US government it is just a drop in the bucket.
why isn't any worried about vampiric retribution via death lasers or robotic moon whalers?! they could see this as a threath!
why isn't any worried about vampiric retribution via death lasers or robotic moon whalers?! they could see this as a threath!
Vampires? There ain't no vampires on the moon!
Personally, I'm a lot more worried about the Nazis launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent us from finding their secret base...
Ah ha! Now its starting to make more sense to me!
So NASA isnt looking for water, thats just a cover up so they can bomb the Nazis and Vampires! Its all starting to come together now.
why isn't any worried about vampiric retribution via death lasers or robotic moon whalers?! they could see this as a threath!
Vampires? There ain't no vampires on the moon!Personally, I'm a lot more worried about the Nazis launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent us from finding their secret base...
dude it's verified by Dr.McNinja & Doctor Doom.
Dracula has a Gorddarn mutherfrigging moonbase. you can't tell me two of the most awesome holders of a doctorate EVER are wrong?!
Fun thing about scientific research is that people never think it pays off now. Back when computing machines were new people said they were rubbish... they were too slow, too finnicky, putting money into developing better ones would never pay off. Same for just about every other advance or technology.
To make a long story short: research is expensive, slow, and almost never pays off in the short run. And putting it off just because you don't see a need for it now means that it will never be researched, because there will almost never be a need for it now.
Heck, the atom bomb? If people had never done research on account of there being no need now, then when it was needed the other stuff wouldn't have been done that allowed it to be done.
As for a better place to spend 79 million? Eh. In the grand scheme of things, that's a pretty small budget. Heck, my small school (about 2000 students, counting grad and undergrad) spends twice that amount in our research budget every year and we're not one of the big research labs.
So yeah. Awesome news. The only thing I don't like about this is that it wasn't done sooner (seriously, Nasa got crippled after the moon landings. Give them a real budget and we'll have people on Mars inside of ten years. And the rest of America will benefit from the things they have to invent to make it work. You know, like happened when they put people on the moon.)
Well, oxybe, looks like you've fallen prey to Nazi propaganda. Wake up, dude! They're just tryin' to keep you at bay!
(Unless the thing with the Nazis is Dracula propaganda. Hmm... looks like I got some research to do.)
Personally I find the whole situation a joke/stunt on the part of NASA.
Even if you did find enough sustainable water on the moon to be worth the investing of trillions of dollars to recover, we simply do not possess the kinds of equipment, funding and support to pull off a project of that size and scope. No country, to my knowledge, has that kinda bling just laying around with Star Trek-ish colony-esqe capabilities to make the thing even half-assed worth while. Maybe China, or Japan, they have some pretty kinky stuff going on in the space department, but I doubt they'd let anyone but themselves in on the dealio. First come, first serve and all.
Still, I wasn't impressed when I heard the news. Didn't bother to watch it either, only read about the results in the newspaper because I wasn't interested enough to go out of my way to keep up-to-date records of the whole silly thing. Still, I can see why others might see this as a huge event, especially those interested in Space Exploration and Scientific Study. Eh, just doesn't concern/interest me at the present time in the world economy and technological stage of development.
Wow! this is turning into a heasted discussion (argument) I can see both side really. I am very interested in space exploration and am amazed with all that they've discoverd so far. The Hubble images are defineatly "out of this world". I think searching for water on other planetary bodies makes a lot of sense, but I agree the moon is probably not the best place to look.
It's probably a better idea than one of their plans for a manned Mars mission. Think the idea was for the astronauts to land, explore, study and survive a year. This is with dwindling resources and the requirement of making their own fuel to launch themselves from the red planet. At least it is known that leaving the moon is much easier...
Water on the moon means it is possible to have sustainable self-sufficient colonies there. Or, large bases at the very least.
~~Edited to remove deleted content~~
Well, I'm back. And since my overall position on subjects much more expansive than this one was once again somehow determined from a couple of comments made about said one, I feel a need to further explain it. Again. And so here we go. I fully understand that no one actually wants me to do this - it's far more fun to make assumptions (and convenient, too - I mean, who needs to ask for or listen to clarifications?) that are incorrect. I'm also quite certain that no one wants to hear what I've got to say on the subject. The fun thing about mischaracterization is that it can be used as justification to ignore the person you've mischaracterized. Anyhoo, here we goes: I hate science. It's utterly useless to humanity. It costs money that we could be using to wage a propaganda campaign against science and other sciency stuff. Science simple isn't profitable enough. And, as we all know, if you can't turn a profit, you're wasting your time. Science is responsible for all of the great tragedies of our times. Hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunami are all the Earth's response to science. Science is killing the unique wildlife of the Galapagos. Science is responsible for AIDS and cancer. Were it not for science, we'd not know either. Without science, we'd be much more creative. Asking questions is a much more fruitful endeavor than answering them. Where's the fun in knowing? And, as I said before, it doesn't pay to know. So I hate science and all of its cult-like followers. Hopefully, someone someday will somehow discover something to remove science and all of its fanatics from our beloved planet. Maybe a group of people can band together and form some sort of method to figure this all out, I dunno. So ... yeah. That's my position. Try to misrepresent me now, beatches. Oh, one more thing. **** science.
^ I'm not sure whether to laugh in mirth, or cry in desperation. You, sir, have a flair with words I'll say that at least.
*Le sigh*
Dude youre seriously startin to P*ss Me off. Why dont you go bother some one else? you asked me how i would spend the money and i told you, I asked you the same question, of course that was beneath you to answer? WTF? Ive asked you why its a good idea to look for water on the moon, instead of answering, you just say my opinions are retarded and that im ignorant to the point of stupidity. So one more time ill ask you. Why is it a good idea to look for water on the moon? Maybe this time you could answer it with out being a jerk.
Did, a few days ago. See?
To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to bring moon water back down to earth. I strongly doubt that the amounts of water on the moon, even if we could extract it all with minimal difficutly, would make a signifigant impact on potable water suplies here on earth. The primary use I have ever heard of for lunar water is as rocket fuel. Water on the moon could be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen gas via electrolisis and could then be used to power a vessel to more distant celestial bodies without requiering the huge expenditures of fuel requiered to lift such propelants beyond the gravitational field of the earth, drastically increasing the efficency of future deep space exploration.
[Or to be used in a moon base as drinking water, I guess.]
I asked you what ways you thought would be better use of the money. You listed some reasons, but failed to offer any reasons why they where better. Then you asked me, not how I would spend the money, but specifically would I blow it all on a giant party where I said thats a stupid waste of the money. But as long as you continue misrepresenting my posts, my ability to respond without being a jerk is ... lacking. Stop playing victim and respond to what is actually there, not what you wish was there. Or atleast stop talking about how I said things that where never said. That is not an unreasonable request.
Well, I'm back. And since my overall position on subjects much more expansive than this one was once again somehow determined from a couple of comments made about said one, I feel a need to further explain it. Again. And so here we go. I fully understand that no one actually wants me to do this - it's far more fun to make assumptions (and convenient, too - I mean, who needs to ask for or listen to clarifications?) that are incorrect. I'm also quite certain that no one wants to hear what I've got to say on the subject. The fun thing about mischaracterization is that it can be used as justification to ignore the person you've mischaracterized. Anyhoo, here we goes: I hate science. It's utterly useless to humanity. It costs money that we could be using to wage a propaganda campaign against science and other sciency stuff. Science simple isn't profitable enough. And, as we all know, if you can't turn a profit, you're wasting your time. Science is responsible for all of the great tragedies of our times. Hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunami are all the Earth's response to science. Science is killing the unique wildlife of the Galapagos. Science is responsible for AIDS and cancer. Were it not for science, we'd not know either. Without science, we'd be much more creative. Asking questions is a much more fruitful endeavor than answering them. Where's the fun in knowing? And, as I said before, it doesn't pay to know. So I hate science and all of its cult-like followers. Hopefully, someone someday will somehow discover something to remove science and all of its fanatics from our beloved planet. Maybe a group of people can band together and form some sort of method to figure this all out, I dunno. So ... yeah. That's my position. Try to misrepresent me now, beatches. Oh, one more thing. **** science.
That'd be funny, except I've heard people say things like that in all seriousness.
See, North Korea? You don't want to mess with us! We just bombed the moon for no reason!
That's from one of the late-nite shows on ABC...don't remember which.
*Le sigh*
Dude youre seriously startin to P*ss Me off. Why dont you go bother some one else? you asked me how i would spend the money and i told you, I asked you the same question, of course that was beneath you to answer? WTF? Ive asked you why its a good idea to look for water on the moon, instead of answering, you just say my opinions are retarded and that im ignorant to the point of stupidity. So one more time ill ask you. Why is it a good idea to look for water on the moon? Maybe this time you could answer it with out being a jerk.
Did, a few days ago. See?To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to bring moon water back down to earth. I strongly doubt that the amounts of water on the moon, even if we could extract it all with minimal difficutly, would make a signifigant impact on potable water suplies here on earth. The primary use I have ever heard of for lunar water is as rocket fuel. Water on the moon could be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen gas via electrolisis and could then be used to power a vessel to more distant celestial bodies without requiering the huge expenditures of fuel requiered to lift such propelants beyond the gravitational field of the earth, drastically increasing the efficency of future deep space exploration.
[Or to be used in a moon base as drinking water, I guess.]
I asked you what ways you thought would be better use of the money. You listed some reasons, but failed to offer any reasons why they where better. Then you asked me, not how I would spend the money, but specifically would I blow it all on a giant party where I said thats a stupid waste of the money. But as long as you continue misrepresenting my posts, my ability to respond without being a jerk is ... lacking. Stop playing victim and respond to what is actually there, not what you wish was there. Or atleast stop talking about how I said things that where never said. That is not an unreasonable request.
Well dang your absolutly right. I guess youre not a jerk after all. Ive completly changed my mind now. Water on the moon makes perfect sense to me now. I think we should take the sun next. It is after all a huge ball of hydrogen. So all it needs is some oxygen in there and bam you got water!
I should get a job at NASA!
*Le sigh*
Dude youre seriously startin to P*ss Me off. Why dont you go bother some one else? you asked me how i would spend the money and i told you, I asked you the same question, of course that was beneath you to answer? WTF? Ive asked you why its a good idea to look for water on the moon, instead of answering, you just say my opinions are retarded and that im ignorant to the point of stupidity. So one more time ill ask you. Why is it a good idea to look for water on the moon? Maybe this time you could answer it with out being a jerk.
Did, a few days ago. See?To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to bring moon water back down to earth. I strongly doubt that the amounts of water on the moon, even if we could extract it all with minimal difficutly, would make a signifigant impact on potable water suplies here on earth. The primary use I have ever heard of for lunar water is as rocket fuel. Water on the moon could be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen gas via electrolisis and could then be used to power a vessel to more distant celestial bodies without requiering the huge expenditures of fuel requiered to lift such propelants beyond the gravitational field of the earth, drastically increasing the efficency of future deep space exploration.
[Or to be used in a moon base as drinking water, I guess.]
I asked you what ways you thought would be better use of the money. You listed some reasons, but failed to offer any reasons why they where better. Then you asked me, not how I would spend the money, but specifically would I blow it all on a giant party where I said thats a stupid waste of the money. But as long as you continue misrepresenting my posts, my ability to respond without being a jerk is ... lacking. Stop playing victim and respond to what is actually there, not what you wish was there. Or atleast stop talking about how I said things that where never said. That is not an unreasonable request.
Well dang your absolutly right. I guess youre not a jerk after all. Ive completly changed my mind now. Water on the moon makes perfect sense to me now. I think we should take the sun next. It is after all a huge ball of hydrogen. So all it needs is some oxygen in there and bam you got water!
I should get a job at NASA!
***************************
*yawn*
Lame response.
We have been on the moon before, so it can be done. It could be a stepping stone to further exploration. Furthermore, we are faced with dwindling resources and a growing population. The ability to transplant to the moon is a possible long term solution.
Edit: quote tags are effing up again...
I am going to preface this comment by saying that I have no idea how space or government work.
Okay, now that that is said...
I think I read somewhere that Moon gets hit quite often by meteors and asteroids which is why it is covered in craters. We have no idea how to protect the earth from asteroids or meteors which mostly burn up in our atmosphere, thankfully.
The Moon's atmosphere is far weaker which means larger impacts.
How the hell would you keep a Moonbases from being destroyed by flying doom rocks. I wouldn't even consider building anything on the moon until we figured out how to blow-up or deflect asteroids and meteors that are going to strike the moon much less the planet killers that could be hurtling toward earth.
How bout we spend that 79 Million on research into that instead? I mean Moonbases and such are nice but if we build them and they keep getting destroyed what is the sense in that.
Well they did spend that 79 million on research. Maybe not the research you wanted, but there it is. And as has been stated before, 79 million is a relatively small amount of money in the grand scheme of things. I seriously doubt it would go as far as you seem to believe.
We have been on the moon before, so it can be done. It could be a stepping stone to further exploration. Furthermore, we are faced with dwindling resources and a growing population. The ability to transplant to the moon is a possible long term solution.
Right it can be done. Moon colonies could happen regardless if theres water there or not. They could just recylce urine like on the international space station. Its very feasible to have moon bases, but yeah astroids crashin down might be a problem, unless they can make biodomes or something to withstand an impact.
We have been on the moon before, so it can be done. It could be a stepping stone to further exploration. Furthermore, we are faced with dwindling resources and a growing population. The ability to transplant to the moon is a possible long term solution.
Right it can be done. Moon colonies could happen regardless if theres water there or not. They could just recylce urine like on the international space station. Its very feasible to have moon bases, but yeah astroids crashin down might be a problem, unless they can make biodomes or something to withstand an impact.
You miss the point.
Recycling urine does not enable the growth of the population and thus inhibits the sustaining of a colony. As people are born and grow the minimum necessary amount of water increases, It does not just miraculously appear. There is a big difference between sustaining a mission crew and actually sustaining a population with the potential to grow.
Recycling urine does not enable the growth of the population and thus inhibits the sustaining of a colony. As people are born and grow the minimum necessary amount of water increases, It does not just miraculously appear. There is a big difference between sustaining a mission crew and actually sustaining a population with the potential to grow.
Well a mars colony might be a better idea. Didnt they actally find water there? I just dont see any hope for water on the moon. I could be wrong. Ill be totally blown away if they come out and say yep theres water on the moon. But im not a NASA scientist, they must have a reason to think that there could be water there, but i dont see it. But even if they do find traces of water on the moon, theres still not going to be enough to suport a growing population.
Recycling urine does not enable the growth of the population and thus inhibits the sustaining of a colony. As people are born and grow the minimum necessary amount of water increases, It does not just miraculously appear. There is a big difference between sustaining a mission crew and actually sustaining a population with the potential to grow.Well a mars colony might be a better idea. Didnt they actally find water there? I just dont see any hope for water on the moon. I could be wrong. Ill be totally blown away if they come out and say yep theres water on the moon. But im not a NASA scientist, they must have a reason to think that there could be water there, but i dont see it. But even if they do find traces of water on the moon, theres still not going to be enough to suport a growing population.
Well, the gist has been that the water is found in small pieces that are very mobile and through the results of various impacts and such would end up gathering in the older craters as gravity would capture them and they would collect there. There is also evidence to support that the amounts may be greater at the poles than elsewhere.
So, exactly what mathematics are you using to determine that they cannot gather enough to support a population?
Also, the moon is still a whole lot easier and safer to reach as well as less expensive.
So, exactly what mathematics are you using to determine that they cannot gather enough to support a population?
Ahh see thats the thing im not using any mathmatics. Just useless speculation on my part. Theyve long speculated that mars could have water or had water on it because of the canals. The moon doesnt have anything like that, so i see no evidence to support that the moon has or ever had water. But yes i suppose maybe it pools in craters and thats why the moon doesnt have rivers or whatever. But still with little to no atmosphere wouldnt moon water just evaporate into space?
So, exactly what mathematics are you using to determine that they cannot gather enough to support a population?
Ahh see thats the thing im not using any mathmatics. Just useless speculation on my part. Theyve long speculated that mars could have water or had water on it because of the canals. The moon doesnt have anything like that, so i see no evidence to support that the moon has or ever had water. But yes i suppose maybe it pools in craters and thats why the moon doesnt have rivers or whatever. But still with little to no atmosphere wouldnt moon water just evaporate into space?
It is frozen. I was speaking of tumbling bits of ice and iced debris that would accumulate in craters when disturbed by impacts. It has never had water in a liquid form but it has always had water in the form of ice.
I don't think there is much to any evidence that the "canals" had anything to do with water but other tests have determined that it is on Mars. However, the distance to traverse is around 90 million plus miles rather than 200 thousand plus miles to the moon. We have also had a woeful record of losing the use of robots and other devices that have landed on Mars. Further, at this point we have no known way to deal with the threat to a crew that would be caused by the possibility of vast radiation releases from the sun that occur periodically. Astronauts would quite literally become toast. Right now that is a hurdle that scientists need to overcome before ever attempting a manned flight.
In the mean time many ideas for Mars colonization could be implemented and refined onthe moon. Take the gathering of water for instance. If roughly 2 pounds of water could be expected to be found on average out of every ton (earth weight) of rock then (since it would only weight 1/6th that on the moon...) it could be collected and placed in a solar still. Without an atmosphere to disperse the radiation (inthe form of light as well as other forms...) the temperature will vary from over 100 degrees celsius to undewr -100 degrees celsius. Thus a simple still heated only by the sun could turn ice into vapor form only to be collected in an insulated container to remain in liquid form. Water collection with minimal expenditure of power beyond the collection and return of the original rock which would be made easier by the reduced gravity.
A larger problem caused by the thin atmosphere of the moon is solar radiation. Fortunatly the moon presents a solution to that problem: moon rocks. For reasons I no longer rember, a deep layer of rocks from the moon is an effective measure to protect from sustained radiation exsposer. Convient side effect is that it protects from most asteroids as well. The giant crater making asteroids are incredibly rare, its the small ones that you have to look out for. So the answer is that you simply bury them, either in an actual hole or in a man made mound.
Ahh see thats the thing im not using any mathmatics. Just useless speculation on my part. Theyve long speculated that mars could have water or had water on it because of the canals. The moon doesnt have anything like that, so i see no evidence to support that the moon has or ever had water.
...
But yes i suppose maybe it pools in craters and thats why the moon doesnt have rivers or whatever. But still with little to no atmosphere wouldnt moon water just evaporate into space?
Nah, the pressure of the luminiferous aether should keep the water down, just as it does in the Martian canals.
A larger problem caused by the thin atmosphere of the moon is solar radiation. Fortunatly the moon presents a solution to that problem: moon rocks. For reasons I no longer rember, a deep layer of rocks from the moon is an effective measure to protect from sustained radiation exsposer. Convient side effect is that it protects from most asteroids as well. The giant crater making asteroids are incredibly rare, its the small ones that you have to look out for. So the answer is that you simply bury them, either in an actual hole or in a man made mound.
Well, a deep layer of rocks is pretty good shielding for most radiation. That's why it's dark underground!*
And yeah, Earth gets a lot of hits too, but they tend to burn up in the atmosphere. The Moon doesn't have much in the way of an atmosphere, but it's important to remember that it has so many visible craters because it doesn't have the weathering effects we have on Earth - once a crater's there, it stays there until another rock hits it. The Moon is old, and very few of its craters are recent.
I mean, to quote Wikipedia, "Tycho is a relatively young crater, with an estimated age of 108 million years". So yeah, if you build a base on the surface of the Moon it's unlikely to be hit, and if anything does hit it, chances are it'll be something really small - big rocks are unlikely.
* Yeah, I know, it's more than just your basic visible light. The point stands - rocks are good shielding wherever you are.
Any physicists out there? Can the moon hold an atmosphere? I assume the gravitational pull being lower would necessarily mean that it would have a lighter/thinner atmosphere. To explain, the surface of the moon has a certain gravitational pull, that gravitational pull would be equivalent to that exerted by the earth at a given orbital radius (altitude). Does earth have an atmosphere at the calculated altitude? Or would it not work that way, does atmosphere have additional requirements other than gravity, or a specific threshold by which it can be maintained.
Too many questions.
Nah, the pressure of the luminiferous aether should keep the water down, just as it does in the Martian canals.
I'm pretty sure the existene of a luminiferous ether has been disproven and that gravity is the main phenomenon responsible for attraction between objects with mass.
ZB: I will point out that, Colonies are a great way to gain money. (Why do you think America was founded after all. And the Cost of doing so back then was "prohibitively expensive".)
This project is far from the worst "waste of money" that we could have done. If anything actually it's based in Long Term Investment, more than Shortsighted Moron ideas like bailing out banks that failed, who are only making money because of the record high of Overdraft fees their customers are facing.
It's just like infrastructure etc. We NEED to repair it, most of it is crumbling away into ruin. Basically we are living in a dying Roman Empire, and the only way to fix it, is to throw money at it. Being a tight ass financially is what got us into all of this trouble in the first place. Our outdated highway and interstate system have cost us billions of dollars in transport times alone for example. (And China's growth can largely be attributed to their intelligently designed set up)
Then of course there is healthcare which, I'm sorry every plan proposed this far (that I will even consider a plan and not simply "Status quo because everything is fine!") is a bandaid on a fatal sucking chest wound.
Them looking for water on the moon is a good thing. Especially as we are approaching a serious over population problem.
Hell it cost us far less than what the war cost us in a single 24 hour period.
A question. Do you want us to fall even farther behind China and let them make even more money to buy us off with?
Any physicists out there? Can the moon hold an atmosphere?
Drat. I was hoping to stay out of this one for the rest of the thread, but here I am. Guilty as charged. I am a Physicist.
The short answer is yes, the Moon can hold an atmosphere in a general sense. Particles that lack the kinetic energy to escape into space are held near the surface. However, this atmosphere is so very very rarified that it comes to less than one trillionth (about 4 x 10^-14 in my back of envelope calculation) of the particle density at sea-level on earth.
This is why moon colonies being in caves or domes would be a really good idea. I hope that answered at least some of your queries.
Any physicists out there? Can the moon hold an atmosphere?Drat. I was hoping to stay out of this one for the rest of the thread, but here I am. Guilty as charged. I am a Physicist.
The short answer is yes, the Moon can hold an atmosphere in a general sense. Particles that lack the kinetic energy to escape into space are held near the surface. However, this atmosphere is so very very rarified that it comes to less than one trillionth (about 4 x 10^-14 in my back of envelope calculation) of the particle density at sea-level on earth.
This is why moon colonies being in caves or domes would be a really good idea. I hope that answered at least some of your queries.
I read the question as more, "could the Moon be given an atmosphere?" It doesn't have one now, except for a tiny bit of gas and possibly some dust, but some idle googling seems to indicate that if you put an insane amount of effort into it you could get an atmosphere dense enough to notice. You'd have to maintain it (the lighter gases would leave on their own, and IIRC solar wind would blow some of the rest away), and getting a breathable one would be another question entirely (you'd need the Moon to be warm enough to stop it freezing at night, but heating it to that level would require the atmosphere you're heating it to allow you to create), but...
Mars is more fun for terraforming, anyway. The Moon's mostly awesome because it's relatively easy to get to, and it's easy to get stuff off the surface. Space habitats are even more fun than terraforming - at least, until the time you can build an engine into your terraformed lump of rock.
That'd be funny, except I've heard people say things like that in all seriousness.
Who says I'm not? Science can suck my fat rooster. I hope it chokes to death on the feathers.
Let's compare costs
cost of Iraq war 790 million per day.... per day. Do the math because we've been there for five years.
cost of bombing the moon 79 million spread over how many years? Two or three?
Nasa is dirt cheap frankly. If anything we should be giving them more resources and doing wars less.
Should I compare the Defense Budget vs the entirety of Nasa? Wanna know who is cheaper? Nasa. And not by a little margin. I find it hilarious that people attack Nasa for costs especially since it actually generates income (who do you think is launching all of those satelites we use on a constant basis? they do get paid to do it you know), while consciously ignoring the cost of our military and the war which was waged for all the wrong reasons which as done nothing but suck our money down the toilet.
I read the question as more, "could the Moon be given an atmosphere?" It doesn't have one now, except for a tiny bit of gas and possibly some dust, but some idle googling seems to indicate that if you put an insane amount of effort into it you could get an atmosphere dense enough to notice. You'd have to maintain it (the lighter gases would leave on their own, and IIRC solar wind would blow some of the rest away), and getting a breathable one would be another question entirely (you'd need the Moon to be warm enough to stop it freezing at night, but heating it to that level would require the atmosphere you're heating it to allow you to create), but...Mars is more fun for terraforming, anyway. The Moon's mostly awesome because it's relatively easy to get to, and it's easy to get stuff off the surface. Space habitats are even more fun than terraforming - at least, until the time you can build an engine into your terraformed lump of rock.
This is more of what I was thinking. If there was enough substratus ice, with the proper equipment to basically steam it up. That's why I mentioned the altitude of earth (for the gravity effect), At what altitude would you reach 1/6 G? would you still be within earth's atmosphere? (as a benchmark)
im not a NASA scientist.
Clearly.
im not a NASA scientist.Clearly.
Well i had to put that out there just incase people got the wrong idea.
If anyone is interested in a pretty good read that will also teach alot about potential terraforming techniques, Kin Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) is highly recommended.
@colonizing the moon: When most scientists speak of colonizing the moon, they are generally not suggesting large scale colonies of millions or even thousands of people. A moon colony would be more likely to fit the trope of a moon base. Luna would make an excellent jumping off point and resupply point for larger colonies elsewhere, most likely Mars. Terraforming the moon is extremely...unlikely...due to it's small size, gravity, and lack of an appreciable atmosphere. The moon simply isn't large or dense enough to generate sufficient gravity to hold on to much atmosphere.
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but we cannot live forever in a cradle". - (Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky-Kaluga,1 911
Let's compare costscost of Iraq war 790 million per day.... per day. Do the math because we've been there for five years.
Six and a half years, but who's counting. And look at the bright side, after years of EOD techs and UXO contractors destroying military ordnance, and years of training the Iraqi Army, now they need weapons, and we happen to be in the business of selling them. Now if only we can convince them to spend 790 million per day on munitions...
Ok, maybe NASA is still the better deal.
Wasn't impressed. Seemed like a colossal waste of time and money. Maybe if they had invested that money into water purifiers, or further medicinal sciences, I might be more interested.
Yes, further medicinal sciences. Cause, you know, if the world lacks anything, its people.
Yes, further medicinal sciences. Cause, you know, if the world lacks anything, its people.
Yes, further medicinal sciences, because, you know, if the world needs anything, it's people suffering and dying in ways that could be prevented.
Where are you going to put them cheif? If more people die, the world will go on. If less people die, it might not.
Point taken; though I'd still rather see taxpayer money put too use to help alleviate the present, then the far-off future.
We need less people. Our age structure is supposed to look like a Pyramid - with the elderly at the top and infants at the bottom. Thanks to modern medicine (a cyst on the rotten ovary of despicable science), it's a friggin' square. Without natural predators beyond ourselves and without plague, pestilence and famine, we're increasing in population much too fast. All we've got left are the occasional, half-hearted war and natural disasters that we're learning to predict and mitigate the loss of life against. It's a sad fact but a fact nonetheless. People need to die. We're taking the nature out of as many natural causes as we possibly can. And that's a bad thing no matter what our hearts tell us.
Actually, the countries with some of the lowest growth rates are some of the most advanced countries in the world. United States, Canada, parts of western Europe, Australia, even China, all have a growth rate of less then 1%. Heck, Russia and parts of Europe have a negative growth. The parts of the world that are seeing the biggest population growth are in Africa and Latin America, and those tiny little islands around New Zealand.
For all of Europe and US of A's medicine, we're not growing as fast as third world countries.
Fancy that.
Anyway, if you really want to complain about the state of the world, complain about agriculture. After all, if agriculture hadn't been developed then people could have stayed as tribes of hunter gatherers. Sure, we never would have developed very far, but we would have an easily sustainable population that didn't have much of a carbon foot print, and would die with everything else when some disaster finally kills the Earth.
Anyway, if you really think Nasa spending their budget on whatever they feel like spending their budget on in any way impacts government research grants for medical science, then I suspect you don't have a firm grasp on how research grants are handed out.
Point taken; though I'd still rather see taxpayer money put too use to help alleviate the present, then the far-off future.
If everyone felt that way we'd still be hunkered in caves living off bugs and rainwater.
Luckily enough people in the past have thought enough about the future to spur on human societal evolution to the point where you are able to decry forethought and forward-thinking while hitching a comfy ride on the coattails of people, past and present, who were clever enough to think the opposite.
Yeah. How silly of me.
If you need me, I'll be hunting some mammoth. Keep the cave warm for me, okay? :P
Luckily enough people in the past have thought enough about the future to spur on human societal evolution to the point where you are able to decry forethought and forward-thinking while hitching a comfy ride on the coattails of people, past and present, who were clever enough to think the opposite.
*snort*
Thank you for that! Best laugh I've had all day - I tend to forget just how many high and mighty elitists we have running rampant on the forums. Ah, the good ol' days. I salute you!
*snort*
Nasty cold you've got there.
Thank you for that! Best laugh I've had all day - I tend to forget just how many high and mighty elitists we have running rampant on the forums. Ah, the good ol' days. I salute you!
In what way is not wanting the human species to stagnate "elitist"?
Oh, I have no issues with the progress of the human race (or the advances/negatives therin), just the idiots that inhabit it. 'Specially the high and mighty ones. Lates.
If I may, I'd ask that we drop this rather heated interlude before it spirals out of hand. I have respect for people that disagree with me, even if their rude about it. Everybody has an opinion, and not all opinions are shared. They should be respected though, even if all parties involved greatly disagree. I'd hate too see such a progressive thread be shut down, just because of a few perceived slights.
Everybody has an opinion [...] [t]hey should be respected though, even if all parties involved greatly disagree.
Gonna have to disagree there. There are some mighty stupid things that have been said and shielded behind the whole "it's my opinion" thing.
And when someone's "opinion" shows willful ignorance on a subject, it's rather unreasonable to expect me to "respect" it and consider it equal to informed and educated opinions.
Good call on that, okay, let me try and say this another way:
"Everybody has an opinion, and whether or not you agree with that opinion, you should at least show some respect to the person behind the opinion, even if you bash the opinion itself."
A bit better?
So what we need is to further genetic research/genome mapping to create a natural enemy/predator for ourselves.
Main Entry: 1re·spectPronunciation: \ri-ˈspekt\
Hrm... funny, here I thought that having someone in "high or special regard" should be something that's earned, and not just handed out like it's a "congratulations on dressing yourself this morning!" door prize.
You obviously thought wrong. But don't worry, I can respect that. Welcome to the modern age, where idiocy and backwardness are hailed as the truest of human virtues.
We need less people. Our age structure is supposed to look like a Pyramid - with the elderly at the top and infants at the bottom. Thanks to modern medicine (a cyst on the rotten ovary of despicable science), it's a friggin' square. Without natural predators beyond ourselves and without plague, pestilence and famine, we're increasing in population much too fast. All we've got left are the occasional, half-hearted war and natural disasters that we're learning to predict and mitigate the loss of life against. It's a sad fact but a fact nonetheless. People need to die. We're taking the nature out of as many natural causes as we possibly can. And that's a bad thing no matter what our hearts tell us.
Oh, good. People agree. Who's supplying munitions, and who's supplying weapons? Vehicles would be nice too. I can make explosives and crude rockets, of course.
If I may, I'd ask that we drop this rather heated interlude before it spirals out of hand. I have respect for people that disagree with me, even if their rude about it. Everybody has an opinion, and not all opinions are shared. They should be respected though, even if all parties involved greatly disagree. I'd hate too see such a progressive thread be shut down, just because of a few perceived slights.
This poster has earned my congratulations for displaying a touch of class.
I just think we should focus more on fixing things on this planet before mucking up the rest of the universe.
I just think we should focus more on fixing things on this planet before mucking up the rest of the universe.
If we stopped all artificial man made emissions right now it would take 150 years before the damage would begin to repair itself. (Note this includes killing massive amounts of cows too)
Since frankly that's not going to happen, it's better that we start going out of planet. Especially since you know, things like meteors, gamma ray bursts etc could just wipe out all life on the planet. Better to not have all the eggs in one basket.
So what we need is to further genetic research/genome mapping to create a natural enemy/predator for ourselves.
We already have one:
I'm all for killing off all the cows. We just need to make sure we eat 'em all, too. Doing that would make sure more people would die as well. Win-win. Mmmmmmm. Dead cow .....
Oh, so long as no wretched science is used to justify, explain or implement it, of course.
I'm all for killing off all the cows. We just need to make sure we eat 'em all, too. Doing that would make sure more people would die as well. Win-win. Mmmmmmm. Dead cow .....
Oh, so long as no wretched science is used to justify, explain or implement it, of course.
So no bullets and firearms then... or spears, or bows. Just gotta use your fists.. oh but you can't use any martial arts to kill the cows. :P
If we stopped all artificial man made emissions right now it would take 150 years before the damage would begin to repair itself. (Note this includes killing massive amounts of cows too)
Since frankly that's not going to happen, it's better that we start going out of planet. Especially since you know, things like meteors, gamma ray bursts etc could just wipe out all life on the planet. Better to not have all the eggs in one basket.
There's also the fact that the earth has been getting colder for the last 7 years while emissions of "greenhouse gases" have increased, which is a pretty strong indicator that we aren't actually responsible for global warming cooling temperature change. It was never linear to begin with, so it was never really anything but terror propaganda.
Fists, who needs those? Either use your claws and teeth or starve. If other predators do it, you should too.
There's also the fact that the earth has been getting colder for the last 7 years while emissions of "greenhouse gases" have increased, which is a pretty strong indicator that we aren't actually responsible for global warming cooling temperature change. It was never linear to begin with, so it was never really anything but terror propaganda.
Well some of the green house gases such as sulfur (which since our Co2 emissions have gone down in relation to Sulfur) actually have a cooling effect as they reflect the sun's light back out.
I think the current research on global warming is that we are not solely responsible, we just simply kicked it into overdrive. Assuming you buy into it in the first place. (There's other reasons why we should be more mindful of what we are putting into the atmosphere though. such as Acidic rain, cancer and various lung diseases etc)
Yeah. How silly of me.
See, now don;t you feel better admitting you were wrong?
If you need me, I'll be hunting some mammoth.
Nope, sorry. Mammoth hunting requires forethought, planning, and devotion of resources with no immediate material gain. We should be concentrating on the needs of the cave in the here-and-now, not throwing away our time and resources, not to mention risking the lives of any number of our people, simply on the potential for gain in the future. Those resources could be better used gathering rainwater and rooting around for grubs, maintaining the status-quo.
Maybe NASA was looking for phlebotinum.
Wow, maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a lot of anger in this thread.
We've gone from 'NASA trying to kill the moon' to 'People must die'. Wow. Just wow, that a group of individuals, when faced with a comical event, can get so fatalistic. Because yeah, it is a little fun how the news programs protrayed this story. So just state an opinion or crack a joke and move on.
Just wow, that a group of individuals, when faced with a comical event, can get so fatalistic.
There is nothing comical about science. DO NOT QUESTION MY SCIENCENESS!!!!
Science sucks. It's responsible for global warming. Die, science. Get in a coffin and die.
People do need to die, though. It's just a part of life. Unavoidable.
The stuff about global warming bugs the hell out of me. It's so ... presumptious. We've occupied this floating rock for a mere fraction of the time it's been a' floatin'. We don't have any real concept of what the temperature 'should be' at this point in time. Sure, we can guesstimate, but that's it. We simply have not been around long enough to notice trends that could take a massive amount of time to develop and change. For all we know, it's just Earth bein' Earth. Not that we should turn a blind eye to pollution, mind, but let's slow down on the doomspeak a bit. Though I suppose it does help one to say, get elected to a public office or, say, win a Nobel Prize or, say, fit in properly with a certain clique. ;) It's gone from most hated science to something approaching entirely political in nature. And that's worse. It's a buzzword - a platform keystone - like 'abortion' or 'gun control' or 'gay marriage' or anything else that some **** doesn't actually believe in or against himself but is required to because of his political leanings. And, therefore, it is largely crap. Like science.
Manbearpig, otoh, is super serial.
Manbearpig has returned? Why haven't we contacted Mr. Gore? How will he finish his new movie/documentary called 'The Manbearpig Strikes Back: Now It's Super Serial'?
Remember kids, don't eat treasure.
Manbearpig never left. Mr Gore has been advised and will be here as soon as his people can arrange his travel plans. It's difficult to get a fighter escort for a personally chartered 787 (all 10 members of his staff will be on board - it'll be tight, but they'll make due) and a 70 vehicle motorcade of identical Cadillac Escalades (to throw off assassins, of course) together quickly. I hear that they do have several hotels reserved and that the AC has been cranked the **** up, though. So that's something. It's cool, though. It's all green. Enough people donated money to his cronies to bu ... earn enough green credits to cover it. No carbon footprint for Mr Gore. How can he defeat manbearpig if he isn't 100% green?
heavy breathing
"There's... there's something outside the cevern window..."
scratching noises
"I'm going to go look."
"No, Carl! Don't-"
"Shush, I know that silhouette, that curly porcine tale, and the ursine ears. I have to do this, I have to see."
"Carl, it will kill you. You know it's half man, half bear, and half pig. Do you even know what that can do to a man?"
slap
"Thanks Carl, I needed that. Let's go see togeth-"
"Stop right there young man, I'm totally serial."
Together "All Gore!"
"We're safe"
"Thank Pelor on the Raven Queen's Golden Popularity Surge!"
ripping clothes, heavy footfalls
"SQERROOOAAAROINK!"
"Oh god! Carl? Carl! CARL! Mr. Gore? Mre. Gore! MR. GORE!"
whump whump whump
"Oh god, it's... it's... wait! I know that suit! You... you're-"
"That's right, I'm Manbeargorepig. I was bitten years ago in a cavern. Just as you will be!"
"I should never have tried to hide in a cavern and make out with Carl!"
horrified scream
Announcer: "That's right kids, everytime NASA blows up the moon, another post-pubescent teenage couple necking in a slimy cavern gets killed by Manbeargorepig. So, the next time NASA says we should blow up an orbiting celestial body, what do we say?"
Kids: "AHHHHHH MANBEARGOREPIG"
chomping, screaming, panicked voices
"Excelsior!"
Announcer: "That's right kids, everytime someone makes a PSA about NASA blowing up the moon, a group of children standing infront of an announcAAAAAAUUGGGGHHHHH!"
"Excelsior!"
I think this generally and adequately sums up my opinion regarding this thread.
May I ask what the creature in question is?
Manbearpig? It's half man, half bear and half pig. Everybody that knows stuff knows that. I'm super serial.
This thread is really getting off topic...
Unless...
...Are there Manbearpigs on the moon?
The stuff about global warming bugs the hell out of me. It's so ... presumptious. We've occupied this floating rock for a mere fraction of the time it's been a' floatin'. We don't have any real concept of what the temperature 'should be' at this point in time. Sure, we can guesstimate, but that's it. We simply have not been around long enough to notice trends that could take a massive amount of time to develop and change. For all we know, it's just Earth bein' Earth.
How anyone can see things like this and not think "oh hey we're really doing something serious here" is beyond me.
(Picture from Brook, E.J. 2005. Tiny Bubbles Tell All. Science 310:1285-1287.)
What good is atmospheric data from the year zero to the year .7 ?
while consciously ignoring the cost of our military and the war which was waged for all the wrong reasons which as done nothing but suck our money down the toilet.
Uh-Oh Cap'n...
Them is fightin' words!
Oh no, it's quite all right to talk bad about the war. Just don't make any negative comments about Obama, or your post gets deleted.
Oh no, it's quite all right to talk bad about the war. Just don't make any negative comments about Obama, or your post gets deleted.
Oh man dont get me started on that. Ive already gottin enough s**t over my views on NASA "bombing" the Moon.
What good is atmospheric data from the year zero to the year .7 ?
Uh...huh? The x-axis is age, not year. 0 corresponds to 2005.
Oh no, it's quite all right to talk bad about the war. Just don't make any negative comments about Obama, or your post gets deleted.
Oh man dont get me started on that. Ive already gottin enough s**t over my views on NASA "bombing" the Moon.
What you didn't know is that your questioning of the US government has placed you on the NSA's "watch list". After all, you may be a moon sympathizer and desire to aid the moon in a retaliatory strike.
What you didn't know is that your questioning of the US government has placed you on the NSA's "watch list". After all, you may be a moon sympathizer and desire to aid the moon in a retaliatory strike.
How did you know that!?
Youre one of "them" arent you?
global warming is a sham anyways. a person truly in the know will tell you it's because there is a decline in the global pirate population.
you can't disagree with those numbers folks. we need to create a pirate stimulus package to encourage shipbuilders to create more schooners outfitted with cannons so we can get our pillage on.
TA SAVE DA WOOOOOOOOOOORLD!
@Oxybe: actually, your data is off, there are many more pirates than that, and the number has stayed fairly constant over the past 2 decades. (ie. not only does correlation not equal causation, but the corellation is not accurate) 
@Surgo: simply put - it's become political. Once data enters the realm of politics, truth becomes a tertiary (not even secondary) concern.
Manbearpig? It's half man, half bear and half pig. Everybody that knows stuff knows that. I'm super serial.
Well thanks, I figured that much at least (though what a three-half creature is supposed to look like is beyond me). I was asking because it seems like some running gag, like there's a common consensus on what a MBP is or what its coming means or something. I'm just confused because everyone keeps mentioning it.
Well thanks, I figured that much at least (though what a three-half creature is supposed to look like is beyond me). I was asking because it seems like some running gag, like there's a common consensus on what a MBP is or what its coming means or something. I'm just confused because everyone keeps mentioning it.
Learn more about Manbearpig, or see it for yourself
How anyone can see things like this and not think "oh hey we're really doing something serious here" is beyond me.
The main issue with this is that we've only been recording weather data for an incredibly tiny portion of the Earth's life. As TA mentioned, the amount of real data we have is, in reality, nothing. And, as I stated in my post, we can't predict trends based upon the infinitesimal amount of data we have. It's ... presumptuous.
PBN also brought up an excellent point (and one I touched upon as well). Once something becomes primarily a political endeavor, there's no way to tell what's true and what's not. Spin is powerful and, obviously (I hope), deceptive. That, of course, works both ways. The side that believes is just as likely to stretch and fudge as the side that does not.
I also would like to point out that I never suggested that we have had no impact upon the situation. I simply asked that we cut back on the doomspeak. Again, we really have no real way of knowing exactly what we've done. How anyone that understands what a data set should be and doesn't have questions is beyond me.
How is it that this thread has grown to 165 posts and no one has yet said "NASA set us up the bomb!"
I'm disappointed in you, Internet.
Because we're not Lunars. We're Martians.
All your moon are belong to us?
How anyone can see things like this and not think "oh hey we're really doing something serious here" is beyond me.
The main issue with this is that we've only been recording weather data for an incredibly tiny portion of the Earth's life. As TA mentioned, the amount of real data we have is, in reality, nothing. And, as I stated in my post, we can't predict trends based upon the infinitesimal amount of data we have. It's ... presumptuous.
The earth, however, has been recording weather data for a very long portion of its life. That's what ice cores do for us -- when ice freezes, it traps a small portion of the earth's atmosphere in it. Do that over hundreds of thousands of years, and extract a sample of that in a big ice core, and you have atmosperic data stretching back long past the point of humanity.
And that data shows a nearly asymptotic and never-before-seen rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane. And that's scary.
Half-an-hour and NASA will be bombing the moon, in hopes of finding water. The is project LCROSS, I think. WHat do you think.
I think I'll remember this event forever, I mean, this is historic, luckily my mom agrees so I can stay home late to watch the bombing.
Bomb the moon... Yeah... The AMERICAN way of problem-solving ;)
How do you create freedom in Iraq? BOMB IT
How do you obtain peace in Afghanistan? BOMB IT
How do you find water on the moon? BOMB IT
I see it now... Fuglesang (the Swedish astronaut) sits in a NASA boardroom saying something like "Let's go to the moon and dig or someth..." and then Colonel Spacegun walks in, mirrorshades, US cavalry trooper hat, riding crop... "Nah... Let's bomb the hell out of it. ALIENS DON'T SURF"
(Cue Walkürenritt)
(Cue Walkürenritt)
Hey! Leave Wagner out of this!
You can't dig in -400 degree F temperatures. Cuz you'll die.
You can't ask terrorists to stop being terrorists over a cup of tea. Cuz you'll die. Or be ransomed. And then die.
You can't kill the guy that tried to kill your dad by asking him to be dead. Cuz he won't listen.
In all cases, bombs are the best solution. Really, it's like that for all sorts of stuff. Maybe we'll bomb global warming next. And then ... Manbearpig.
And then the human race. That should solve the rest of our problems.
I didn't bother to go that far because I sincerely doubt we'll ever rid ourselves of Manbearpig.
Hm, well, in that case we might as well just skip to the final step. If there aren't any more humans, we can't be threatened by monsters anyway. Genius plan, if I do say so myself.
I concur. Well done. I'd love to help, but I simply don't have any bombs. Oh well. What a world, what a world.
Is the outcome of this known yet?, has NASA released any info?
I wasn't able to find anything.
Is the outcome of this known yet?, has NASA released any info?
I wasn't able to find anything.
the second probe gathered the data from the dust plume created by the impact from the first one. NASA is still processing it. That's about all they've released that I know about.
Is the outcome of this known yet?, has NASA released any info?
I wasn't able to find anything.
Yes. The mission was a total success. The moon has been fatally wounded and is expected to die from exsanguination within the next two or three centuries. Our ordeal with the pock-marked bastard is at an end.
Well someone had to put and end to the tyrannical monopoly the moon had over tidal control.
Our ordeal with the pock-marked bastard is at an end.
You leave Edward James Olmos out of this!
Well someone had to put and end to the tyrannical monopoly the moon had over tidal control.
Don't you mean moonopoly? 
Nice one. Usually I don't miss the chance to make a bad pun like that. Kudos Jayne.
You leave Edward James Olmos out of this!
Hey, if you're gonna look like the moon, expect the bomb. They make bondo for a reason.
Don't you mean moonopoly?
ROFL. You can't imagine what you just said means in Greek.
All I'll say is that it's a little rude to the ladies.
i believe my special sattelite's images are coming in clear about the entire process... it seems we didn't explode the moon, but punch it's face...
I don't think it's hiding. We just gave it a black eye. After it holds some giant space steak on itself for a while, it'll be back.
Wait, wait, wait. Hold this thread for a moment.
You're telling me that NASA launched a missile at the moon, and only managed to blow a small crater in it? What kind of a waste was that?! If people are paying the government with their own money, they should demand results! What kind of slipshod organization fires a large rocket at a target the size of, well, the moon, and only manages to take a teeny piece of it out of play?
What a mockery! Next time aim for the center, and add a few more kilos worth of explosives. Sheesh. I want to see nice chucks of moon-rock burning in orbit, and a nice empty space where the moon used to be. Is that too much to ask for?
Wait, wait, wait. Hold this thread for a moment.
You're telling me that NASA launched a missile at the moon, and only managed to blow a small crater in it? What kind of a waste was that?! If people are paying the government with their own money, they should demand results! What kind of slipshod organization fires a large rocket at a target the size of, well, the moon, and only manages to take a teeny piece of it out of play?
What a mockery! Next time aim for the center, and add a few more kilos worth of explosives. Sheesh. I want to see nice chucks of moon-rock burning in orbit, and a nice empty space where the moon used to be. Is that too much to ask for?
If we stopped all artificial man made emissions right now it would take 150 years before the damage would begin to repair itself. (Note this includes killing massive amounts of cows too)
Since frankly that's not going to happen, it's better that we start going out of planet. Especially since you know, things like meteors, gamma ray bursts etc could just wipe out all life on the planet. Better to not have all the eggs in one basket.
There's also the fact that the earth has been getting colder for the last 7 years while emissions of "greenhouse gases" have increased, which is a pretty strong indicator that we aren't actually responsible for global warming cooling temperature change. It was never linear to begin with, so it was never really anything but terror propaganda.
GCC (Global Climate Change) is a natural course that usually takes millions of years to fully enter an ice age or enter the opposite. Now from polution we have reduced the timeline from millions of years to hundreds of years. What we are seeing now, massive storms, giant tornadoes, constant hurricanes and tsunamis, extreme temperatures in the wrong seasons, are just signs of how far along we are.
Tsunami are not weather related.
Indeed, tsunamis are the reaction of a venegful moon.
Yes. And the response of a planet driven mad by the stubborn use of loathsome science by its inhabitants. Want to stop 'global warming'? Sacrifice a chemist or two to the nearest volcano.
Rather, not directly initiated by atmospheric causes. I'm fairly sure tsunamis constitute a portion of weather.
Edit: And cause I'm a geology jerk: That is also not exactly true. There are some tsunami-like events which are formed in a similar manner to storms.
And also. Regular tsunami are not caused by tides at all. They are related to earthquakes and volcanos. And other stuff that happens underwater.
The tsunami like events are not tsunami. They are tsunami like precisely because they are created by different events and therefore do not fit the definition. At least my very limited research into the matter says so. And no, I didn't get my info from science. That would be terribly hypocritical of me, wouldn't it?
Well, I only made the example because I thought you cared less about terminology and more about the physical results of the event. The difference is hard to determine when you are on the immediate recieving end.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, so I couldn't say if you are being hypocritical, but you may be consistent in your ignorance if that is your preference. I have always preferred to be whimsically ignorant.
It all started with a comment in regard to another post that mentioned tsunami in the same breath as global warming. Unless global warming increases the amount of earthquakes the world sees (or volcanic activity), I can't see how they're related. And so I pointed it out. Nothing else, really. And I hate science, so if I were to get any of this information from a source beyond my own bum or tea leaves or something, I'd be hypocritical in that regard.
And I hate science, so if I were to get any of this information from a source beyond my own bum or tea leaves or something, I'd be hypocritical in that regard.
Sufficiently analyzed tea leaves are indistinguishable from science.
That is an unlucky viewpoint. I hate to inform you, but there is much science about your bum.
I recommend you to excise it from your body at this very minute before it spreads any further.
Oh gods. No. We're too late.
Our ordeal with the pock-marked bastard is at an end.You leave Edward James Olmos out of this!
Well someone had to put and end to the tyrannical monopoly the moon had over tidal control.Don't you mean moonopoly?
HA HA HA HA!!! MOOON-opoly... It is fortunate I am wearing my baldric on so tight, lest I would have split my sides!!! ;)
I am a bit miffed that the moon didn't break apart like it does in the Time Machine. Sci-fi doesn't come true anymore like it used to. I mean where are all the space cruisers and laser cannons that we are supposed to have by now!?
BTW is this thing to find out if there may be this hydrogen-something-thingy that you need for fusion power not to be ultra deadly and dangerous?
How anyone can see things like this and not think "oh hey we're really doing something serious here" is beyond me.
The main issue with this is that we've only been recording weather data for an incredibly tiny portion of the Earth's life. As TA mentioned, the amount of real data we have is, in reality, nothing. And, as I stated in my post, we can't predict trends based upon the infinitesimal amount of data we have. It's ... presumptuous.
The earth, however, has been recording weather data for a very long portion of its life. That's what ice cores do for us -- when ice freezes, it traps a small portion of the earth's atmosphere in it. Do that over hundreds of thousands of years, and extract a sample of that in a big ice core, and you have atmosperic data stretching back long past the point of humanity.
And that data shows a nearly asymptotic and never-before-seen rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane. And that's scary.
The funny thing is that is not what the chart shows that was posted. The chart starts at 2005 and has a near immediate drop rather than assymptotic rise so I am not sure what you are talking about. In fact, the guesstimates go through peaks and valleys and appear to have some discontinuity on the low end in the middle.
If we stopped all artificial man made emissions right now it would take 150 years before the damage would begin to repair itself. (Note this includes killing massive amounts of cows too)
Since frankly that's not going to happen, it's better that we start going out of planet. Especially since you know, things like meteors, gamma ray bursts etc could just wipe out all life on the planet. Better to not have all the eggs in one basket.
There's also the fact that the earth has been getting colder for the last 7 years while emissions of "greenhouse gases" have increased, which is a pretty strong indicator that we aren't actually responsible for global warming cooling temperature change. It was never linear to begin with, so it was never really anything but terror propaganda.GCC (Global Climate Change) is a natural course that usually takes millions of years to fully enter an ice age or enter the opposite. Now from polution we have reduced the timeline from millions of years to hundreds of years. What we are seeing now, massive storms, giant tornadoes, constant hurricanes and tsunamis, extreme temperatures in the wrong seasons, are just signs of how far along we are.
I hate to break this to you but this is a lot of nonsense. The hurricanes, storms, and tornadoes are simply not out of the ordinary.
The tsunamis have nothing to do with the weather.
The extreme temperatures have occurred in the past also. Do not forget the little ice age that ended a little over a hundred years ago. We are talking snow in July in D.C and New York City. Furthermore, although we may have ice samples, etc. to give averages for the last few thousands of years (and then some) we have absolutely no way to determine the regional extremes that have been felt over the past few thousans of years.
So, basically everything that you stated is either completely wrong or completely unsubstantiated. Wow.
Rumplestix beat me, but it's completely true that you can't just point to something you think is out of the ordinary (which it isn't, but whatevs) and say "This. THIS IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING." without substantiating it. There may be a correlation, but just as wearing clothes is strongly correlated with intelligent animals, wearing clothes does not cause increased intelligence.
EDIT: The ice age very likely hasn't ended. Ice ages cycle through warm and cold intervals (about 10k and 100k years long respectively), and we are now due for a cold period, which would explain why global temperatures have gone down over the last few years. I find it hilarious/annoying how convenient it is for "environmentalists" (the majority of which seems to just use environmentalism as a platform for political agendas) that they "forget" the most recent five years between 2004 and 2009 where global temperatures are universally shown to be decreasing.
.. wow, look what I started. I was just mocking the time scale. Who the hell labels their x axis in "Age (years) x 103 "? One-hundred one-thousandth of a year, two-hundred one-thousandth of a year, three-hundred one-thousandth of a year, four-hundred one-thousandth of a year......
If that's a positive exponent, you're going the wrong way. That's in Ten-thousands of years.
And, geologists would. It's a very sensible thing for them to do.
If that's a positive exponent, you're going the wrong way. That's in Ten-thousands of years.
And, geologists would. It's a very sensible thing for them to do.
But, the poster stated that it started with the year 2005 as zero. So, how do they get all those calculations for thousands of years into the future?
Clearly someone is doing something wrong, or just so good that we can't understand it.
I haven't looked at the poster yet, so let me see...
Ah, I think...if I'm not mistaken...the years are going backwards in time. That would account for much of the confusion, yes. It is Age of the data, not time passed.
Wait, and someone already explained that. You people. Making me do thinking when they've already been done.
I won't forget this slight! Today will always be rued as the day I had to do more work than neccessary!
Clearly someone is doing something wrong, or just so good that we can't understand it.
I haven't looked at the poster yet, so let me see...
Ah, I think...if I'm not mistaken...the years are going backwards in time. That would account for much of the confusion, yes. It is Age of the data, not time passed.
Wait, and someone already explained that. You people. Making me do thinking when they've already been done.
I won't forget this slight! Today will always be rued as the day I had to do more work than neccessary!
It makes more since but the information is still whacked. I see no reason for the assymptote to be jammed into the last five years or so. Everything right up to that last spot is similar to the previous cycles. There is no reason that things should change so much from 2000 to 2005 because the factors were all present in the years from 1995 to 2000 and in the years from 1990 to 1995.
The assymptote occurs at the cut-off point for the gathering of data in a cyclical mapping that has periodic spikes.. You cannot accurately determine anything from it. That is how statistics work. You cannot determine anything from it. Bad math conclusions.
Ive just received word that the denizens of the moon are planning on bombing Earth in an attempt to determine whether or not the Earth has water, so take cover people!
Ive just received word that the denizens of the moon are planning on bombing Earth in an attempt to determine whether or not the Earth has water, so take cover people!
Jumped the shark.
I prefer the older Silversword posts. Much more insane and amusing. This new crap? Totally derivitive. Thumbs down, I am not a fan.
...What the hell are you talking about?
I am annoyed now. I did not think you people were even being serious when I posted earlier, I thought it was a joke. Now that I've look back at this forum, all of you have not been arguing about science at all with any valid understanding of the data being presented or respect for the subject at hand. You are merely arguing political conspiracy.
I have not looked back at the person who posted the data, so I can't tell if they are doing the same, but I am not going to. Even if they were a person with knowledge about the subject trying to make a valid point, I am irritated that they would even continue to slog through this mudslinging fest.
It is fine if you say the data is inconclusive.
It is irritating if you say it is conclusively statistical falsity without any proof to the oppositehaving made any efforts to acquire real knowledge of the subject yourself.
Why don't you just say that you do not think that is right, while admitting that you have no reason to support your position based on your limited knowledge of the subject beyond your own suspicions?
I will say that myself. Right now. I have suspicions about this subject, but do not have adequate knowledge or proof to make a conclusive statement. I'm ignorant, and I have no right to make judgments about something I know so little about.
Is it so important for your pride that you have to win an argument with people online about a subject you have passable knowledge about and are only vaguely interested in because of some stubborn political viewpoint that you must defend to the death?
Fine then. Go ahead, as you were.
...What the hell are you talking about?
I am annoyed now. I did not think you people were even being serious when I posted earlier, I thought it was a joke. Now that I've look back at this forum, all of you have not been arguing about science at all with any valid understanding of the data being presented or respect for the subject at hand. You are merely arguing political conspiracy.
I have not looked back at the person who posted the data, so I can't tell if they are doing the same, but I am not going to. Even if they were a person with knowledge about the subject trying to make a valid point, I am irritated that they would even continue to slog through this mudslinging fest.
It is fine if you say the data is inconclusive.
It is irritating if you say it is conclusively statistical falsity without any proof to the oppositehaving made any efforts to acquire real knowledge of the subject yourself.
Why don't you just say that you do not think that is right, while admitting that you have no reason to support your position based on your limited knowledge of the subject beyond your own suspicions?
I will say that myself. Right now. I have suspicions about this subject, but do not have adequate knowledge or proof to make a conclusive statement. I'm ignorant, and I have no right to make judgments about something I know so little about.
Is it so important for your pride that you have to win an argument with people online about a subject you have passable knowledge about and are only vaguely interested in because of some stubborn political viewpoint that you must defend to the death?
Fine then. Go ahead, as you were.
First, I phrased my terminology in terms of years rather than thousands of years. My mistake.
I think you miss the point that I was making. I never said that it was falsified. Bunched data at the end of the period over which it is gathered is difficult to draw conclusions from. You can't draw conclusions about data approaching the year 2005 without having data both before and after. Data obtained at the point of discontinuity is not reliable.
For instance, if all the data prior had spikes at periodic intervals it would be important to know the resolution of the graph being used. Just exactly how small are the intervals broken down into. The intervals may show both sides of the spike in previous cycles but only one side of the spike in the newest. If the intervals are broken down into 1000 year increments (which would be 1 on that first scale of 1 to 100) it would cover an enormous amount of time graphed into a small area. But, if in one case the peak were speread over two intervals on the graph it could lead to smaller deviations than would occur over the same time period with the intervals being used for each period shifted.
The point is that although it is drawn to look like a graph that meets the definition of continuity, it is not continuous. Averages are taken around a point and then attributed to that point or readings are taken at a point and not around it. Then the dots are connected. The appearance of an assymptote at the end of the collection gathering may not be one.
That doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn are wrong but it does mean that you really are seeing interpretations rather than mere data.
Also s-marrow, knock off the bullshit insulting and character attacks.
I apologize for insulting you. I was in a bad mood, but I have calmed down now.
I do think that this is just an excercise in ego-butting, which annoys me, but it was foolish of me for calling you idiots for that.
Was I made a target of insults?
It was a general tirade, so you have every right to feel offended and demand recompensation.
If the person you're insulting is too clueless to notice (as I was) then you're off the hook.
I apologize for insulting you. I was in a bad mood, but I have calmed down now.
I do think that this is just an excercise in ego-butting, which annoys me, but it was foolish of me for calling you idiots for that.
Done deal. I'm much happier with you saying that it was my ego making me an idiot rather than my pride. /sarcasm.
No problem. (sincere)
The funny thing is that is not what the chart shows that was posted. The chart starts at 2005 and has a near immediate drop rather than assymptotic rise so I am not sure what you are talking about. In fact, the guesstimates go through peaks and valleys and appear to have some discontinuity on the low end in the middle.
It's no wonder there are still global warming deniers out there if people can't even manage to read a graph. Notice how the X axis is labeled age, as in it starts in 2005 and gets older?
I apologize for insulting you. I was in a bad mood, but I have calmed down now.
I do think that this is just an excercise in ego-butting, which annoys me, but it was foolish of me for calling you idiots for that.
Done deal. I'm much happier with you saying that it was my ego making me an idiot rather than my pride. /sarcasm.
No problem. (sincere)
I'm glad you take it with such grace.
Really though, it's not such a bad thing being an idiot. I get by alright.
If the person you're insulting is too clueless to notice (as I was) then you're off the hook.
Not so. You just have to live with the rantings of a maniac for the twenty seconds it takes you to read the statement. I have to live with the rantings of a maniac for the next twenty days, and someone deserves to a heavy book to the back of the head for that.
The funny thing is that is not what the chart shows that was posted. The chart starts at 2005 and has a near immediate drop rather than assymptotic rise so I am not sure what you are talking about. In fact, the guesstimates go through peaks and valleys and appear to have some discontinuity on the low end in the middle.
It's no wonder there are still global warming deniers out there if people can't even manage to read a graph. Notice how the X axis is labeled age, as in it starts in 2005 and gets older?
Now, now. We've already been over all that again. No need to dreg up bad news
The funny thing is that is not what the chart shows that was posted. The chart starts at 2005 and has a near immediate drop rather than assymptotic rise so I am not sure what you are talking about. In fact, the guesstimates go through peaks and valleys and appear to have some discontinuity on the low end in the middle.
It's no wonder there are still global warming deniers out there if people can't even manage to read a graph. Notice how the X axis is labeled age, as in it starts in 2005 and gets older?
Yes, I figured that out.
I find it funny how the global warming people pretend that their conclusions are based upon science.
I went through this debate before in a thread that went off-topic so I don't know if I can find the originalarticles.
But, it seems that the UN had used one major publication as its modeling for how the weather would change in the future. The UN gave it credit. other groups peer reviewed it and said that it was atisfactory and so then countless others used it in their calculations.
The group who made the publication refused to make public the methodology used to obtain their data and conclusions. But, perhaps the single most important part of a peer review is that the methods are analyzed to determine if the data was properly obtained. Publications cannot be properly peer reviewed without the methodology being revealed. The producers refused to release the methodology because they said people would try to analyze it and discredit their research. That was the reason given believe it or not. It was still given passing grades on peer reviews without the release of the methodology, the UN published it, and countless others used it to in their own publications.
That is not science but it is unbelievable and it did (is) happen(ing).
some one clue me in, what exactly is being discussed here?
some one clue me in, what exactly is being discussed here?
climate change
It's no wonder there are still global warming deniers out there if people can't even manage to read a graph. Notice how the X axis is labeled age, as in it starts in 2005 and gets older?
It's called "skepticism." You provided insufficient information to convince anyone. Show me not only the gas levels, but also temperature change and establish a causal relationship, if any, between the two variables. Maybe, just maybe, that will be enough to convince me but you are definitely not entitled to having your word taken for it.
The is it happening debate always amuses me.
It's moot.
The only real question is: does it make sense to do anything about it?
There's not all that much evidence to show that carbon cap and trade will have a measurable impact on global warming.
That being said there are plenty of good reasons for lowering pollution. Acid rain, lung damage etc...
Global warming concerns aren't that big a factor.
So it comes down to a pointless debate between those people who like to deal with problems locally and those people who like to deal with problems globally.
The isn't about the warming. It's about the Global.
Is it so important for your pride that you have to win an argument with people online about a subject you have passable knowledge about and are only vaguely interested in because of some stubborn political viewpoint that you must defend to the death?
"the pride and covetousness of the learned is so great, it will not suffer them to agree together" - Johann Valentin Andreae
Jumped the shark.
I prefer the older Silversword posts. Much more insane and amusing. This new crap? Totally derivitive. Thumbs down, I am not a fan.
So sorry. I meant it as a joke obviously. This thread has devolved to the point where it can no longer be taken seriously. In the beginning it was very serious and people were very passionate about their own views, but now it seems to have turned into a big spamfest. There was some interesting points brought up and some people did make some valid cases for NASAs plan. I was just surprised that some people thought that the fact that i thought it was a dumb idea was a dumb idea. I am interested in space exploration in general, but i still do not see the moon being a good source of water, but i am anxiously awaiting the results. If the moon does indeed have water i will be totally blown away and will have to admit that NASA had a good idea there. I will try to keep the insanity up just for your amusement. Ive kinda mellowed out a little, as i stated earlier its only my opinion and if some one elses opinion is that im an idiot or my opinions are wrong then fine, they are entitled to their opinion as i am mine.
Sufficiently analyzed tea leaves are indistinguishable from science.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
That is an unlucky viewpoint. I hate to inform you, but there is much science about your bum.
I recommend you to excise it from your body at this very minute before it spreads any further.
Oh gods. No. We're too late.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Anyhoo, we already have a solution to global warming. It's as simple as throwing as much money as you can at Al Gore's friends. See, when you pay them, they magically transform whatever activity you're paying for into a 100% green one! Greenbacks for green, as they say. Do whatever you like. So long as Gore and his cronies are getting paid properly, you'll not be impacting the world in any negative way. As a matter of fact, you'll be helping! Drive whatever you like, fly as often as you wish, burn tires in your back yard - it's all good. As long as you pay. The Church of Environmentalism: Pay and ye shall be saved. Cash for absolution. Empty your wallets for a cleaner conscience - and Earth! Science be damned, cash will set us free.
Given that earth's atmosphere only contains 0.038% C02 I have a hard time believing it would be the driving factor in changing earth's climate in any direction.
If for whatever reason it is, wouldn't stopping deforestation be a worthwhile goal?
Maybe carbon Credits are the answer. Oh wait. That's the answer to why "global warming" exists, to act as a means of transferring wealth from rich nations to poor ones.
Global warming sounds like a great idea right about now, im freazing my a$$ off right now. There is plenty of data showing that Glabal Warming is indeed happening, the big qustion is is it man made or a natural cycle of change. The deforestation of entire continents and the building of urban sprawl and increased polution probably does have an impact on the Earths weather patterens and climate, but what does all this have to do with moon water?
the big qustion is is it man made or a natural cycle of change.
moot.
either way the questions are can we do something about it and if so does it make sense to.
but what does all this have to do with moon water?
moon water is the first step in moving people off the earth.
If that's a positive exponent, you're going the wrong way. That's in Ten-thousands of years.
And, geologists would. It's a very sensible thing for them to do.
No sir. If I was to claim to be 37, and told you I was going to tell you my age in "Years x 103", I had best be saying I am 37000. If instead I say I am 370, I have just claimed to be .370 years old, a little over 4 months. If the markings on the x axis are, as they claim to be, the samples age times 1000, then all of the samples are from less than a year ago, because all markings are under one thousand.
(AKA, I was just being a **** about what I percieved as a poorly labled axis.)
moon water is the first step in moving people off the earth.
Well I agree in the future we should have some lunar colonies and some martian colonies, maybe we will even find other life sustaining planets in other solar systems, but i think we still need to do alot more work on Earth before we decide to start messin up the Moon too!
Global warming sounds like a great idea right about now, im freazing my a$$ off right now. There is plenty of data showing that Glabal Warming is indeed happening, the big qustion is is it man made or a natural cycle of change. The deforestation of entire continents and the building of urban sprawl and increased polution probably does have an impact on the Earths weather patterens and climate, but what does all this have to do with moon water?
the data is most certainly man-made!
the data is most certainly man-made!
Excellent point!
We can deduce that man is flawed therefor the data is flawed as well.
Excellent point!
We can deduce that man is flawed therefor the data is flawed as well.
Quite true. And, as man was made in god's image ...
Nah, I'm not goin' there. I was only playin'. :P
Excellent point!
We can deduce that man is flawed therefor the data is flawed as well.
Quite true. And, as man was made in god's image ...Nah, I'm not goin' there. I was only playin'. :P
An imperfect God isn't that controversial a topic. It just implies an imperfect universe, which to the common observer does seem to be the case.
An imperfect God isn't that controversial a topic. It just implies an imperfect universe, which to the common observer does seem to be the case.
It's my experience that that particular line of discussion can grow into a war really, really fast. As I've already gotten pretty political in another thread, I felt like tossin' a nod out to good ol' religion in this'n would be kind of amusing. To me. While it's a thought I myself have no problem exploring or debating, I also know better than to try it here (or in certain company). I appreciate your thought on the matter, though.
An imperfect God isn't that controversial a topic. It just implies an imperfect universe, which to the common observer does seem to be the case.
Well, depends. Talking about God (as you do), it is - simply because God is, by definition, perfect.
Speaking about a god in general (as in, a metaphysical entity with power of creation), I suppose that depends on which system you subscribe to: in a polytheistic system, that's the default (think Greek, Roman, Scandinavian - Heroes really are nothing else but mortals ascending to godhood by being more perfect than the gods themselves); in a monotheistic system, whatever god you have pretty much has to be perfect. Otherwise, we aren't talking about a god, but about some other kind of entity, call it what you will, it won't be what people understand by the term "god".
An imperfect God isn't that controversial a topic. It just implies an imperfect universe, which to the common observer does seem to be the case.
I dont know, I think the universe is perfect. I mean look at the cycle of death and rebirth, its all perfectly balanced, from the smallest micro organism to the largest galaxy. The grandeur of the universe is overwhelming, like contemplating infinity.
As far as God being imperfect, I dont agree with that, the main flaw God gave us is free will, which really i dont see as a flaw, but has allowed mankind to make a mess of everything else.
And to p*ss off the Creationists, i believe God created evolution.
But any way before i get too far off topic, lets say there is water on the moon, would it really be enough to sustain a sizable population?
lets say there is water on the moon, would it really be enough to sustain a sizable population?
no.
Just enough to get us started down the path of off world colonization.
Rocket to the moon. Stay a while, but then fuel up and then rocket else where.
Most the fuel in any mission is used to get off of earth. It's much easier to rocket off the moon.
We can turn water into rocket fuel.
I dont know, I think the universe is perfect. I mean look at the cycle of death and rebirth, its all perfectly balanced, from the smallest micro organism to the largest galaxy. The grandeur of the universe is overwhelming, like contemplating infinity.
None of which requires God as an explanation. see: Occam's Razor.
But any way before i get too far off topic, lets say there is water on the moon, would it really be enough to sustain a sizable population?
We don;t know. That is why they bombed the south pole in order to see what was located far below the surface. In truth, water to maintain a colony is is only part of the equation. Water can also be used to make hydrogen which can be used to fuel rockets.
The largest quantity of a spacecraft's fuel-load is used in escaping Earth's gravity. If ships could be assembled on a lunar station, filled with fuel manufactured there, and then launched from the moon they would use far less fuel in reaching escape velocity and would do so far more cheaply and efficiently. This would allow such ships to travel much further without needing an increase in booster-size or with much more of the vessel given over to crew work and living areas rather than fuel, which thus puts things like a manned trip to Mars well within human reach.
None of which requires God as an explanation. see: Occam's Razor.
Yes Im familiar with Occam's Razor. But still the universe seems to be a little too perfect to be a happy accident. I definatly see signs of intelligent design. But i dont want to get too much into that. Thats a forbidden topic, and i dont want to see this thread closed. I might not think that bombing the moon looking for water is a good idea but im still interested in it.
We don;t know. That is why they bombed the south pole in order to see what was located far below the surface. In truth, water to maintain a colony is is only part of the equation. Water can also be used to make hydrogen which can be used to fuel rockets.The largest quantity of a spacecraft's fuel-load is used in escaping Earth's gravity. If ships could be assembled on a lunar station, filled with fuel manufactured there, and then launched from the moon they would use far less fuel in reaching escape velocity and would do so far more cheaply and efficiently. This would allow such ships to travel much further without needing an increase in booster-size or with much more of the vessel given over to crew work and living areas rather than fuel, which thus puts things like a manned trip to Mars well within human reach.
That actually makes a lot of sense and one of the more intelligent things ive heard on this thread. Kudos to you man!
That actually makes a lot of sense and one of the more intelligent things ive heard on this thread. Kudos to you man!
::shakes fists at Jayne::
Damn you and your excellent word smithing taking my kudos I said it first but them you had to go and say it in such an eloquent manner.......
::grumble::
:p
::shakes fists at Jayne::
Damn you and your excellent word smithing taking my kudos I said it first but them you had to go and say it in such an eloquent manner.......
::grumble::
:p
You did say it first! My bad! Kudos to you too man. Id give you a cookie too if they didnt take them away. And thats not to say that everyone else is a total dumba$$. There have been alot of good points brought up, even by my arch nemesis Toasted Amphibian .
Yes Im familiar with Occam's Razor. But still the universe seems to be a little too perfect to be a happy accident. I definatly see signs of intelligent design. But i dont want to get too much into that. Thats a forbidden topic, and i dont want to see this thread closed. I might not think that bombing the moon looking for water is a good idea but im still interested in it.
No matter how small the chance, it's possible for the universe to come to exist exactly as we see it (in fact the possibility is the exact same as that for any other universal order to exist). As long as the possibility exists, no god is required to explain it.
No matter how small the chance, it's possible for the universe to come to exist exactly as we see it (in fact the possibility is the exact same as that for any other universal order to exist). As long as the possibility exists, no god is required to explain it.
Thats very true, I cant and wont argue with that, but the same could be said of God. But any way we need to steer away from the talks of Politics and Religion. An army of ORCs is gonna storm in and close the place down. The global warming thing seems kinda iffy too as it touches on politics.
So any way regardless of if theres water or not what would a moon colony look like? Ive always imagined it as some biodomes or something, but im not sure that would hold up to meteor strikes, perhaps an underground facility?
So any way regardless of if theres water or not what would a moon colony look like? Ive always imagined it as some biodomes or something, but im not sure that would hold up to meteor strikes, perhaps an underground facility?
So any way regardless of if theres water or not what would a moon colony look like? Ive always imagined it as some biodomes or something, but im not sure that would hold up to meteor strikes, perhaps an underground facility?
Underground facilities require heavy machinery. Inflatable structures initially, hardened later on. Interestingly, a high powered, portable microwave gun could be used to covert lunar dust to a hardened, glass-like substance that could then be used as building material or even a landing site. Eventually, you'd probably want to find a small-ish crater and both dig down and cover it, not to retain atmosphere, but for protection from radiation. Rads, not meteors, being the biggest threat.
That actually makes a lot of sense and one of the more intelligent things ive heard on this thread. Kudos to you man!
::shakes fists at Jayne::
Damn you and your excellent word smithing taking my kudos I said it first but them you had to go and say it in such an eloquent manner.......
::grumble::
Did not. I said it a week ago.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to bring moon water back down to earth. I strongly doubt that the amounts of water on the moon, even if we could extract it all with minimal difficutly, would make a signifigant impact on potable water suplies here on earth. The primary use I have ever heard of for lunar water is as rocket fuel. Water on the moon could be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen gas via electrolisis and could then be used to power a vessel to more distant celestial bodies without requiering the huge expenditures of fuel requiered to lift such propelants beyond the gravitational field of the earth, drastically increasing the efficency of future deep space exploration.
[Or to be used in a moon base as drinking water, I guess.]
I said everything first.
Did not. I said it a week ago.
So you did as well. I did point out, even though we dont exactly see eye to eye, that you did bring up some good points.
I said everything first.
Ok ok fine, kudos to you too!
Looks interesting. Might have to check that one out. Since you linked it im guessing youve seen it and thought it was a good movie?
Underground facilities require heavy machinery. Inflatable structures initially, hardened later on. Interestingly, a high powered, portable microwave gun could be used to covert lunar dust to a hardened, glass-like substance that could then be used as building material or even a landing site. Eventually, you'd probably want to find a small-ish crater and both dig down and cover it, not to retain atmosphere, but for protection from radiation. Rads, not meteors, being the biggest threat.
That does sound interesting. Would that really work? can you turn moon dust to glass? I know common sand could be turned into glass, so it the moon essentially made of sand? What is the main composition of the moon any way? I know the original plan was to mine the moon for ores and what not, but my understanding was that they never found anything worthwhile which was why the lunar missions were scrapped. Ive also heard stories that they found the remains of ancient alien civilisations up there and thought best to leave it alone. I dont buy into that one though, if that was the case i imagine there would be further missions to the moon to study that further.
Mostly the same as what you find on earth, but lacking in the heavier elements that you find deeper underground. Also, a lack of volatile compounds.
Did not. I said it a week ago.
well get to grumbling!
Intersting, the Moon is made mostly of Oxygen? I had no idea. I wonder if they could do something with that?
Looks interesting. Might have to check that one out. Since you linked it im guessing youve seen it and thought it was a good movie?
it's more about the acting then the set, but yes a good movie worth seeing.
From todays news(paper):
A scientist credited with helping to discover evidence of water on the moon was arrested Monday on charges of attempting to pass along classified information to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence officer.
Holy crap! Apparently water on the moon is more important than I thought....
Umm, no. The classified info was likely more tech based than info based. Water on the moon? Cool. Uber sensitive surveilance tech? Much, much cooler. And worth a hell of a lot more on the black market.
Hmmm the plot thickens!
So did they actually find water on the moon? Or just evidence of possible water?
The accused spy was part of a program that used radar to determine that it was very likely water was present. The LCross mission (the bombing) hasn't released its findings yet.
The accused spy was part of a program that used radar to determine that it was very likely water was present. The LCross mission (the bombing) hasn't released its findings yet.
They used radar to determine water was likely present? I missed that part. Im even more interested in finding out now. Perhaps water is more abundant in the Universe that was orginally thought.
The radar mission was a couple of years ago. Water seems to be fairly common in our galaxy. Liquid water, on the other hand, seems to be much more rare.
We have absurd amounts of liquid hydrogen though.
We have absurd amounts of liquid hydrogen though.
Big bada boom! (who wants to guess at the chemical composition of your average star?)
We have absurd amounts of liquid hydrogen though.
Big bada boom! (who wants to guess at the chemical composition of your average star?)
"The sun is a mass of incandecent gas,
A gigantic nuclear furnace.
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees."
Hey now, hold up one gosh darn minute here.
What's up with those there quotation mark thingies? I'm-a thinkin' that might not exactly be a guess 'ere.
"The sun is a mass of incandecent gas,
A gigantic nuclear furnace.
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees."
I love that Song!
"The sun is a mass of incandecent gas,
A gigantic nuclear furnace.
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees."I love that Song!
the song is false
The sun is a miasma
Of incandescent plasma
The sun's not simply made out of gas
No, no, no
tmbw.net/wiki/Lyrics:Why_Does_The_Sun_Re...(The_Sun_Is_A_Miasma_Of_Incandescent_Plasma)
... aw, I was so going to post that one next ... 
Yes but what is Plasma?
Ionized gas
So the first one by They might be Giants is still correct
I didnt even know they did a follow up song! I guess I'm behind the times.
Yes but what is Plasma?
Ionized gas
So the first one by They might be Giants is still correct
I didnt even know they did a follow up song! I guess I'm behind the times.
It's like an ionized gas, but really a plasma is a plasma. It's a distinct form of matter just like solid liquid or gas.
as to behind the times, it's on their latest album.
So i got a new TMBG album to buy and i need to check out this moon movie.
Damn! GeneralHenry Im gonna have to stop talkin to you! Im gonna be broke before the end of the week!
It (also?) appears on the Here Comes Science cd/dvd combo. My son prefers Here Come the ABCs, but I think that's because he's a little young for some of the concepts on the other one.
NASA says that they did, in fact, find water on the moon. About 12 gallons were found in the dust and debris kicked up by the impact. Not a hidden ocean by any means, but they seemed pretty happy about it.
Everybody knows the moon is made out of green cheese so it must be a dairy product that the probe sent up, hence milk.
Okay, I'm joking. I just thought this thread needs some comedic relief.
And the answer is............WATER!!!
NASA says that they did, in fact, find water on the moon. About 12 gallons were found in the dust and debris kicked up by the impact. Not a hidden ocean by any means, but they seemed pretty happy about it.
Whoa! For real!? I am totally blown away! I didnt think they would find even a trace of water. I guess water is more prevalent in the Universe than was previously thought, which makes the likelyhood of other life in the Universe that much greater. Very very interesting. And I guess I have to eat my words now, saying it was a stupid idea. I guess NASA might have some clue as to what they are doing after all.
And the answer is............WATER!!!
NASA says that they did, in fact, find water on the moon. About 12 gallons were found in the dust and debris kicked up by the impact. Not a hidden ocean by any means, but they seemed pretty happy about it.
Whoa! For real!? I am totally blown away! I didnt think they would find even a trace of water. I guess water is more prevalent in the Universe than was previously thought, which makes the likelyhood of other life in the Universe that much greater. Very very interesting. And I guess I have to eat my words now, saying it was a stupid idea. I guess NASA might have some clue as to what they are doing after all.
I read an article earlier today (can't remember the source, sorry) about this, and I have 2 things worth noting
A: The water found made that 1 specific crater about as wet as a desert (so good news/bad news there)
B: There are multiple theories on how water came to the moon/earth, including by comet and the fact that the moon could be part of Earth thaat spun off early.
C: We found Water, success
"This is going to be pretty cool," the project's manager told AP. "We'll be going right down into it. Seeing the moon come up at you is pretty spectacular." The satellite took the first-ever thermal images of the dark side of the moon yesterday as part of the search for water. NASA scientists say that if they manage to find water, it will open the door for lunar colonies and for using the moon as a staging ground for manned missions further into space.
Vatican astronomer says if aliens exist, they may not need redemption
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- If aliens exist, they may be a different life form that does not need Christ's redemption, the Vatican's chief astronomer said.
Jesuit Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, said Christians should consider alien life as an "extraterrestrial brother" and a part of God's creation.
Father Funes, an Argentine named to his position by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, made the remarks in an interview published May 13 by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
Father Funes said it was difficult to exclude the possibility that other intelligent life exists in the universe, and he noted that one field of astronomy is now actively seeking "biomarkers" in spectrum analysis of other stars and planets.
These potential forms of life could include those that have no need of oxygen or hydrogen, he said. Just as God created multiple forms of life on earth, he said, there may be diverse forms throughout the universe.
"This is not in contrast with the faith, because we cannot place limits on the creative freedom of God," he said.
"To use St. Francis' words, if we consider earthly creatures as 'brothers' and 'sisters,' why can't we also speak of an 'extraterrestrial brother?'" he said.
Asked about implications that the discovery of alien life might pose for Christian redemption, Father Funes cited the Gospel parable of the shepherd who left his flock of 99 sheep in order to search for the one that was lost.
"We who belong to the human race could really be that lost sheep, the sinners who need a pastor," he said.
"God became man in Jesus in order to save us. So if there are also other intelligent beings, it's not a given that they need redemption. They might have remained in full friendship with their creator," he said.
Father Funes went on to say that Christ's incarnation and sacrifice was a unique and unrepeatable event. But he said he was sure that, if needed, God's mercy would be offered to aliens, as it was to humans.
On another topic, the priest said he saw no real contradiction between evolutionary science and the Christian faith, as long as evolution does not become an absolute ideology.
"As an astronomer, I can say that from the observation of stars and galaxies there emerges a clear evolutionary process," he said.
He said that in his opinion the big-bang theory remains the best explanation of the origin of the universe from a scientific point of view. Above all, it's a reasonable explanation, he said.
As for the biblical account of creation, Father Funes said it was wrong to expect a scientific explanation from the Bible.
"The Bible is not fundamentally a work of science," he said. "It is a letter of love that God has written to his people, in a language that was used 2,000-3,000 years ago. Obviously, at that time a concept like the big bang was totally extraneous."
He said he was convinced that astronomy was a science that can open people's minds and hearts and bring them closer to God. The idea that astronomy leads to an atheistic view of the universe is a myth, he said.
I'd go so far as to say that it's not only a myth, but the more you learn of astronomy (as well as evolution - of our species, our world, and our universe, and what was known and recorded of each of those thousands of years ago, some of which we are only now rediscovering), the more implausible that myth becomes. Then again, I read too much :D