Slamming the Moon

Fraggle's already pretty much covered this, but, to put it simply. The moon is halfway to anywhere in the solar system. We're speaking, of course, in terms of energy expenditure required to get there.

So if you plan to explore the solar system you first need a moon base. And water is damned heavy. So if you can find a ready supply of it on the moon, it makes the whole thing a lot more practical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are faultlines- they show up as cliffs (called 'rupes' on the Moon and elsewhere). If the spacecraft hit a faultline the worst that can happen is a moonquake. The moon is very big, you know; nothing we can do would split it in half. It also has gravity- so any debris thrown into space will simply fall back onto the surface of the Moon. The worst case scenario is if a few small lumps of moonrock are given enough velocity to escape the Moon; these lumps would be necessarily smaller than the spacecraft itself, because of conservation of momentum. These small lumps of rock might eventually hit the Earth- but we get larger lumps of rock falling on the Earth every day. So we are in no danger to speak of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is actually one hell of an idea compared to a lunar landing to perform the same experiments, I mean, there's no lander to design and build, the most sensitive monitoring equipment stays in orbit away from lunar dust, it really does sound like the most economical and fool-proof way to take a look at the moon. An inexpensive and reliable solution to the question of water on the moon...

And as an aerospace engineering undergrad, I'm starting to wonder if the guys behind deep impact just really, really like slamming shit into stuff at mind-blowing speeds just for the hell of it, and find actual reasons to do so later... I mean seriously, if you got to go home at the end of a day after having a chunk of metal smash into a celestial body at unholy speeds of multiple kilometers per second, that would kinda kick ass, no?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not just send a bomb that should be intresting...
Kick up some dust.
I just can't believe there doing this.

 

Surely a bomb would generate less energy on exploding than the kinetic energy from the impact of a comparable mass?
Just in passing, why can't you believe they are doing it? Do I detect a touch of disapproval?

 

A nice shaped charge could force the appropriate amount of material into oribit.
I don't really approve, no. I'm not sure...if this is what Nasa should be spending money. The moon is our backyard...we really need to focus on getting back there not with theory. The better opportunity is to establish that moon base and then more research can be conducted on site. This is just a waste of money toward that objective.

I think I would strike the idea on first consideration.

 

I haven't seen experimentation in science characterised as theory before. Should I start up a new dictionary to help me interpret your posts?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I beg your pardon, Hipparchia, I assumed this experiment would be used to theorize as to the origin of the moon. I merely doubt the amount of water on the moon is substantial or economicly viable for harvesting.

 

Surely that is the point of the experiment - or at least one of its aims - to determine whether the amount of water is significant or not. Thus the experiment moves us from the theoretical, such as your doubt there is much there, to the practical, where we know how much is there.

 

I think the experiment is unnecessary. This can be discovered and acted upon once we're there. Either way a moon base will require an initial support from Earth.
It we need to conserve money for getting there.

 

The nature of what we take with us and how we plan the bases and the location of those bases can all be influenced by the outcome of this experiment in a major way. Therefore it is potentially valuable and may be viewed as an investment that will generate savings rather than an expenditure without financial return.

 

That may be so Hipparchia but I'm not sure if it out ways the need to conserve NASA's sparse budget. If they're removing the space shuttle for budget concerns then it follows that moon experiments of this category likely could wait untill our return.

 

Mod hat:

There is an active open thread on this topic.
I am locking this old thread.