Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How NASA Will Bomb the Moon To Find Water

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the black-eye-on-green-cheese dept.

Moon 280

mattnyc99 writes "A few weeks ago we got first word of NASA's plan to crash a spacecraft into the moon next February. The new issue of Popular Mechanics has an in-depth look at the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite and its low-cost, lightning-fast mission prep — even if delays have pushed it to late February or early March. Quoting: 'Andrews had no budget for an expensive lander to seek water, and conditions in the eternally dark polar craters would kill rovers, with temperatures close to minus 300 F. Instead, Blue Ice and its partners at Northrop Grumman came up with a concept to bring the lunar floor out in the open.... Since engineering precision hardware would break the budget, the LCROSS team had to make existing components work together.'"

cancel ×

280 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bomb what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616341)

Next they'll bomb Uranus in order to find it's filled with gas.

Re:Bomb what? (1, Troll)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617253)

Ah, obviously you don't know about the secret Soviet and Nazi moon bases. That's what this is really about.

Oh and the gray aliens have them there too.

This operation will be called... (1, Funny)

vivin (671928) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617377)

Like OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom), this one will be called Operation Moon Freedom (rated G for everyone), or OMFG.

Sorry about that (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617469)

I had Taco Bell for lunch.

percussion engineering! (5, Funny)

notgm (1069012) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616355)

I hit stuff to fix it all the time, why shouldn't they?

Re:percussion engineering! (1)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616941)

Are you on a LaCROSSe team too?

Re:percussion engineering! (2, Funny)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617095)

Good Ol' Emergency Repair Plan A

Polluting the moon (1)

teko_teko (653164) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617299)

That day will mark the day human started polluting and slowly destroying the moon.

This reminds me of a series of Calvin & Hobbes strips, where they went to Mars because earth was too polluted.

If there is one thing that NASA is good at... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617315)

It is crashing into planets (and other bodies). Look how well we did with the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Orbiter!

Re:If there is one thing that NASA is good at... (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617455)

I'm giving 4 to 1 odds that they miss the moon entirely. Because if the thy to land they crash, so if they try to crash, its never going to happen. They did it once, I'm thinking that was a fluke. So who is with me?

That Old Mr. Show bit (5, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616359)

"The United States can, should, and will BLOW UP THE MOON!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHpX5aa5Lz4 [youtube.com]

Re:That Old Mr. Show bit (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616799)

Nit: Chimps are apes, not "monkeys". Monkeys have tails.

Re:That Old Mr. Show bit (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617213)

"The United States can, should, and will BLOW UP THE MOON!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHpX5aa5Lz4 [youtube.com]

NO WAR FOR....water?

Lunar Pun Mission (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616387)

They should call this the Lunar Pun Mission. There are just too many jokes and innuendos with this probe.

is that a good idea? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616395)

Currently, the moon is slowing moving away from the Earth. Simple physics tell us that bombing it will push out its orbit... that will affect the tides and wind here on earth... seems like a bad idea.

Re:is that a good idea? (2, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616545)

Currently, the moon is slowing moving away from the Earth. Simple physics tell us that bombing it will push out its orbit... that will affect the tides and wind here on earth... seems like a bad idea.

The moon is smacked by meteors all the time, many much larger than any space probe could ever be. After all, it has a nasty case of acne scars. Most meteors are still usually too small to make any detectable difference. It's probably been hit by some biggies that perhaps could alter its orbit, but the average direction of the smackage either averages out or has a tendency already reflected in its current orbit. The largest impacts that created the round dark sea-like areas appear to have happened fairly soon after its formation.
     

Re:is that a good idea? (4, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616971)

Simple physics tells us that bombing it with any bomb we currently have or are likely to have in the forseeable future will make no measurable difference and probablly a lot less difference than the various natural rocks that have hit the moon over the centuries.

Re:is that a good idea? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617379)

bombing it with any bomb we currently have or are likely to have in the forseeable future will make no measurable difference and probablly a lot less difference than the various natural rocks that have hit the moon over the centuries./blockquote? I'm *pretty* sure that most natural rocks aren't radioactive. Pretty sure, but not positive.

Re:is that a good idea? (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617633)

You are in fact wrong. Not only are there significant amounts of natural rock that are radioactive naturally on earth, but the rocks in space have been bombarded by cosmic radiation for eons.

First a satelite... (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616403)

And now the moon! Ha! We're getting good at blowing things up... Hmmm... *searches closet for asbestos suit* Might need this...

Earth's Orbit? (1, Troll)

coreconcern (891742) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616405)

Isn't Earth's orbit intimately mingled with it's moon?? How precise can the potential impact be measured in relation to this fact? I think Earth's orbit is fine where it is...

Re:Earth's Orbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616501)

I don't think a small satellite crashing on that big ball of rock will have much impact on the said ball of rock orbit. You can get out of your nuclear shelter... The end of the world is coming but not from that,

Re:Earth's Orbit? (2, Informative)

MagdJTK (1275470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616523)

Well all mass exerts a gravitational pull on all mass, so yes they affect each other.

Are you afraid this will affect the Earth's orbit around the Sun? The change will be negligible --- the energy we'd need to mess up the orbits dangerously is far beyond us.

Re:Earth's Orbit? (2, Interesting)

devil6god7 (982064) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616527)

I hope none of the evidence left on the moon from the Apollo landings is disturbed by this crash! d6g7

Re:Earth's Orbit? (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616555)

the "bomb" weighs 5,000 pounds (2200 kg). It's most certainly been hit by heavier objects in its lifetime. The mass of the moon is ~ 7e1022 kg. Would you notice if a fly farted on you?

Re:Earth's Orbit? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616935)

African or European fly?

Re:Earth's Orbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617033)

The proper way to quote QFTHG is as follow:

"What do you mean, an african or european fly?"

Re:Earth's Orbit? (4, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617193)

The mass of the moon is ~ 7e1022 kg

I think you're mixing up 7x10^22 and 7e22 there; the Moon's mass most certainly is not 7e1022 kg. Estimates for the mass of the observable universe, for example, are around 2e52 kg [wikipedia.org] .

That said I agree with your point - this will have an utterly negligible affect on the orbital dynamics of the Moon.

Re:Earth's Orbit? (3, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617047)

Virtually all of the mass of this mission, except for maybe a little rocket propellant, will stay within the Earth-Moon system, so the center of gravity of the two won't change. In other words, no, this won't affect Earth's Orbit thanks to CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM!!

Re:Earth's Orbit? (1)

jdoss (802219) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617303)

Earth's rotation is more closely linked to the moon. Without the moon, we'd complete a day's rotation in something like 48 days instead (Google that to be sure). With such a slow rotation, wind would blow predominantly north-south. But blowing up something on the moon shouldn't be blowing up the moon... unless we're following Armageddon physics all of a sudden.

War is declared ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616423)

War is declared by Lunarians on Earthlings today after the discovered plans for polar bombings of their lush resorts.

Re:War is declared ... (2)

philspear (1142299) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616673)

Where is the "Whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag? If this article had ANYTHING to do with biology, it would have been up already.

The Time Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616483)

This reminds me of a scene in the move The Time Machine (2002 remake) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268695.

In that movie, construction was starting on the moon. To kick off the construction, a large bomb was set off. The result, the moon cracked in half and people eventually started to eat each other.

Re:The Time Machine (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616681)

In that movie, construction was starting on the moon. To kick off the construction, a large bomb was set off. The result, the moon cracked in half and people eventually started to eat each other.

Geez, a plot like that'd make me crack the DVD in half and eat it.
     

Re:The Time Machine (2, Interesting)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617391)

That is what I was thinking.

I heard a conspiracy theory that the renewed interest in the moon by NASA at the direction of George Bush was due to the discovery of Helium-3 there.

Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 [wikipedia.org]

My understanding of this is that this means is you can have fusion without radiation only dealing with heat and actually raw electricity as a by product. So it seems the energy generation is far greater than other forms of fusion. ... Or in other words.. Bush is invading the moon for a new kind of "oil".

Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remake? (0, Troll)

TTURabble (1164837) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616519)

The Article states that it will be a crash landing instead of actually "bombing" the moon in the classical sense. But still, seems kind of reckless considering how important the moon is to our own ecosystem.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616763)

My God. Has the IQ of Slashdot dropped twenty points in the last fifteen minutes?

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616859)

My God. Has the IQ of Slashdot dropped twenty points in the last fifteen minutes?

It's a bit hard to tell but I'm afraid you're on to something. We seem to be getting more "whoosh" posts before the joke.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616977)

Seriously. I saw an AC make the same comment first. I wrote it off as a troll attempt. Then I see three logged in users making the same point. I was about to make a reasoned retort, but couldn't get past the "How Fricking Stupid Do You Have to Be!?!?" shock. Very similar when I have to explain something technical to the COO.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (3, Funny)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616927)

You obviously don't know much about the science behind how they invented the moon. Because there isn't gravity on the moon, any small knock, no matter how small, could send it flying off into outer space. This ACTUALLY HAPPENED in a TV series called Space 1999 [wikipedia.org] .

Look up gravity on the internet, if you don't believe me. I don't like the idea of loosing the moon just for sake of an experiment.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616999)

Ummm... The "bomb" is small. If you look at the moon you can see craters from very big things that crashed into it previously.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617007)

The parent post is a perfect example of why, for the sake of my own sanity (and liver), I had to stop teaching science in college.

P.S. It's "lose", not "loose". And that's why I never even considered a career teaching English in college.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617059)

His post was a joke. Totally a joke.

And, technically, his use of "loosing" works in the sentence. It is certainly not what he intended, but it also works in a bizarre, funny way.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617153)

For God's sake man, why do you think that they had to send more than one Apollo mission? It was to balance things out. That jack-ass Aldrin started jumping up and down in his heavy space suit for the cameras. Before they had time to radio him to stop, much of the damage had already been done.

That other guy who dropped a hammer onto the surface had to drop a feather at the same time for the same reason.

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617081)

I find it's a shame, with all the old classics remakes we've seen for the past decade or so, that they missed the chance for a remake of Space 1999 (as a movie) in 1999.

Or maybe they're waiting for a remake called "Space 2099".

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617259)

A moon based disaster-adventure would be pretty cool. Even with near future tech, you don't need as implausible a premise as the Space 1999 one to isolate a group and place them in danger.

Actually, as a Hollywood studio made that Val Kilmer Mars movie, where they discovered that there was air on Mars after all, perhaps audiences would go for it?

Re:Wasn't this the plot of that Time Machine Remak (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617511)

I blame idle.slashdot.org

thinkofthemoonchildren (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616541)

Won't someone please think of the moon children?

Project running over schedule? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616593)

Wasn't this scheduled for September 13, 1999?

Bombing the Moon for water? (5, Funny)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616605)

You mean liberate the Moon, don't you?

And I find the 'water' reason to be pretty transparent. We all know that there's oil up there and this is yet another neo-con plan that's going to suck us into another war to boost Bush's ratings. But when images of those poor Amazon women up there start coming back, it's jut going to blowup in their faces like Iraq did, and further depress our economy.

Re:Bombing the Moon for water? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616755)

I have mod points, but I don't know whether to rate you -1 Off Topic or +1 Funny

Hopefully someone else can make the proper call as I do a quick search for Amazon moon women.

Re:Bombing the Moon for water? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617109)

A quick search revealed this [imdb.com] .

Thank you. (2, Insightful)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617201)

I have mod points, but I don't know whether to rate you -1 Off Topic or +1 Funny

Hopefully someone else can make the proper call as I do a quick search for Amazon moon women.

That's decent of you. I wish more folks would do that. When I first started, someone gave me a -1 Troll for what I thought was something quite funny. Well the deal is, even if I have a +5 Funny, modding me -1 whatever gives the comment an overall score of -1. And if you're just starting out, well, you post from then on at 0 or -1 if another didn't get or didn't like the joke.

Have they exceeded their authority? (0)

PainMeds (1301879) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616627)

Should NASA really be pursuing things that could ultimately fuck all of humanity up by breaking our tide? I'm not sure we should be giving so much authority to an organization hell bent on finding little green martians. Before anything is done that geographically impacts the moon, it seems like we ought to get congressional and presidential approval. It would seem to me that we would bomb the living hell out of China for trying to do the same thing.

Re:Have they exceeded their authority? (2, Funny)

GigG (887839) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616891)

What the hell is going on here? Did all of you people click the link for stupid pills offered in a spam e-mail?

Yes. i need then (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617231)

What the hell is going on here? Did all of you people click the link for stupid pills offered in a spam e-mail?

Yes. It's the only thing keeping me from fire bombing in this political and economic climate.

Re:Have they exceeded their authority? (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616909)

Should NASA really be pursuing things that could ultimately fuck all of humanity up by breaking our tide?

If you are indeed worried about this, perhaps a remedial course in physics is in order. You might start a couple of books before the ones on orbital mechanics.

If you're funn'in us - well, sorry - not quite enough caffeine here.

Re:Have they exceeded their authority? (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617493)

Orbital Mechanics, I don't need no orbital mechanics. Just ask yourself, the last time a jumbo jet crashed did it cause the earth to change its orbit?

Ralph Kramden - A Man Before His Time (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616631)

Bang! Zoom! Right to the Moon!

Re:Ralph Kramden - A Man Before His Time (2, Funny)

MikeXpop (614167) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617275)

"He wasn't an astronaut! He was a TV comedian. And he was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife."

Apparent issues (0, Redundant)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616683)

In the recent remake of the Time Machine, in order to make room for condominiums, they blew out part of the moon. Too much of the moon -- gravitational anomalies on Earth, falling meteors...

SPOILER

In Red Mars by Ben Bova, they accidentally wrap a space elevator cable around the planet Mars...this does indeed release some water, but anything within a couple miles of the cable is flattened.

--SPOILER

In an episode of the Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers, a supercollider is set up to encircle a small moon...the resulting collision of the particles tears the moon apart.

My point? It doesn't take real scientists to determine that you don't mess with the moon. I'm not even going to go into the whole werewolf advocacy groups...

Re:Apparent issues (2, Informative)

ContraMatter (1345373) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617207)

The Author was Kim Stanley Robinson, not Ben Bova. And the space elevator wrapping around Mars had no connection with water. We could nuke the moon with everything we got and it wouldn't do jack to our eco-system. I really hope these kinds of comments are sarcastic, noodley one help us if they aren't.

RIP Alexander Abian (-1, Troll)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616693)

Yes, yes, yes, we must get rid of that moronish idiotic and imbecile chunk of perverse piece of refuse THE MOON - once and for all!

THE MOON must go, must be eliminated!! Enough of billions of years of the evil presence of that piece of refuse with its morbid presence hanging above our heads - enough of that terrorizing spy in the ski! that Evil watchful eye that disgusting boring depressing piece of abomination.

We must radically change the surrounding cosmic scenario of our planet Earth, Enough of the same billion and billion of years of continuous misery of rotten decadent pestiferous and idiotical celestial setup surrounding our planet Earth.
RADICAL CHANGE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. THE MOST PRACTICAL THE MOST EFFECTIVE THE MOST URGENT RADICAL CHANGE IS TO BLOW UP THE MOON TO SMITHEREENS AND GET RID OF ITS EVIL PRESENCE ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Moon with its dull, stupid depressing condescending and disgusting boring presence had and has the most damaging influence on human life, behavior and actions. With its tides creating in the flow of blood especially in the brain of mankind, it has created a monstrous beast of human species. we must
BLOW UP THE MOON.

Do not worry, there is life and existence without MOON a much better a much healthier and interesting life. In fact the BLOWING UP OF THE MOON will jolt our planet earth and will get rid of the layers and layers of accumulated (during billion and billion of years) of filth, feculence, dregs and putridity on our planet Earth.

Politician, especially the UN representatives and the self appointed guardians of setting political systems "for better life" on the planet Earth, are only good for organizing banquets, cocktail parties and lavish hotel arrangements for the conduct of their useless efforts, meetings, conferences, and committees, committees, committees to "change dictatorships to democracies" First of all UN is the most undemocratical establishment which has the temerity, nerve and obnoxiousness of "Claiming to establish democracy in the world" The UN has a self appointed (and NOT ELECTED) FOR PERPETUITY A SECURITY COUNCIL WITH A VETO POWER! Do you understand that ? Self-appointed for perpetuity with VETO power !! and that UN professes to establish "Democracy"- it is like Hitler appointing himself to be the president of the ISRAEL!!! UN's claiming of being the guardian of democracy is an insult to the intelligence of any reasoning human being. It is a disgustingly phony, ludicrous and obnoxious claim!!! A total unabashed insidious lie!! VETO POWER BELONGS TO A SELF APPOINTED SUPERPOWERS FOR PERPETUITY!! What a masquerade of democracy is that UN what a disgusting mockery of humanity! UN cannot change life on Earth, No philosopher, no politician can change the life an Earth. To jolt the Earth into a truly radical change , the surrounding celestial scenario of the planet Earth must be radically changed and for that WE MUST
BLOW UP THE MOON

How to do it - very easily. There is an overabundance of nuclear fuel on the planet Earth (especially at the disposal of all those superpowers which ban the others of not creating new nuclear arsenal but which they themselves constantly augment their own nuclear arsenal. Would they let me inspect the nuclear production centers in France, Germany, U.S. Russia, England, China?? Would they let me inspect?!!)

So, I propose to locate all the nuclear explosive material on the MOON and BLOW UP THE MOON !!!! Just to change the 5 billion years of rotten celestial scenario surrounding the planet Earth - believe me no change can be worse that the present scenario!!!
BLOW UP THE MOON !

that is the slogan and the way to the most profound radical change!

Crash Test Dummies (1)

jhines (82154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616765)

Where won't they go next!

Fahrenheit? (2, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616789)

temperatures close to minus 300 F

1850 called. They want their unit of measure back.

Re:Fahrenheit? (4, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617073)

You know, while I'm generally in favor of the metric system over imperial, I've never cared nearly so much about the Celsius v. Fahrenheit debate.

Fahrenheit makes more sense in day to day contexts. 0 is very cold, 100 is very hot (both from a human experience point of view), and you have more precision on the temperatures in between. Now in this particular case it's so cold that it doesn't really matter; if I told you it was -184 C, or -300 F it wouldn't really change the fact that you can't conceive of the temperature as anything but "really, really cold".

Besides, who are you trying to chastise? The temperature was given in a quote from the article. Would you prefer Slashdot editors mangle quotes to conform to your prejudices?

Re:Fahrenheit? (1, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617195)

But don't you realize the having a decimal system based around the temperature of water freezing and boiling at a very specific atmospheric pressure makes the most sense? I mean CLEARLY that is better than the Fahrenheit scale which ignores this. And all those goofy fractions. Do you really like 32 9/16 degrees? Or would you rather have 0.3125 Celsius?

Clearly the Celsius scale is superior.

Re:Fahrenheit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617381)

32.5625 F doesn't exist?

Re:Fahrenheit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617419)

32.5625 F doesn't exist?

*Whooosh*

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617601)

I use the Kelvin scale [wikipedia.org] , you insensitive clod!

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617365)

Fahrenheit makes more sense in day to day contexts. 0 is very cold, 100 is very hot (both from a human experience point of view), and you have more precision on the temperatures in between.

Fahrenheit is a superior unit of measure. Each degree corresponds to the difference in temperature a human can sense. Celsius is arbitrary and much less precise.

The metric system got everything right except temperature.

Now in this particular case it's so cold that it doesn't really matter; if I told you it was -184 C, or -300 F it wouldn't really change the fact that you can't conceive of the temperature as anything but "really, really cold".

As the old story goes...a professor was lecturing that the Sun was 10,000,000 degrees. A student asked "Is that Celsius or Kelvin?" and he replied "What does it matter?"

Re:Fahrenheit? (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617479)

It only makes sense because you're used to it.

In Celsius 0 is also very cold, but at the same time more meaningfull ("what will happen to water today?" or "what can fall from the sky today?"). Same with 100, also very hot, and usefull even in the kitchen. (and both 0 and 100 can be easily calibrated on Earth). And no, 100 Fahrenheit isn't very usefull medically - it's a temperature of somebody with severe fewer; if it would be "normal"/"border one" - I would agree with that one.

As for precision - BS, even Celsius scale has way more precision than we need in day-to-day life; people usually think in terms such as "it's around zero today", "it's just above zero", "it's around 5", "a bit below 10", "low dozens" and so on...

PS. All this critique from somebody who's compatriot of Daniel Fahrenheit...

Re:Fahrenheit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617575)

Obviously it was a comment on TFA ... like most comments on Slashdot should be.

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617133)

Slashdot would upgrade to Celcius but it'd cost them 8 Shillings and twelvepence to upgrade their Internometer.

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

BeerCur (627281) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617179)

Yes I totally agree. We all should use the human temp scale; so lets see.... -300 F ~ -3.055 HT. Gee that's cold.

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617337)

Yes, how dare they use a scale that's rigidly defined in terms of kelvin! Godless metric communists!

Does 160 degrees Rankine make you happier?

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617625)

Actually, the 21st century left you a message in return. It mentioned that the guys using that crappy old measurement system successfully landed men on the moon repeatedly nearly 40 years ago. It asked how many 'metric system' countries can say the same?

Risk of retaliation (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616851)

The good news is that the Loonies can't do anything about it. I mean, all they could do is throw rocks at us, and what good would that do?

Re:Risk of retaliation (1)

ShadowBlasko (597519) | more than 6 years ago | (#24616923)

I've got a botnet keeping ol' Mike busy for awhile.

He'll be lucky if he can get a packet out, let alone get those rocks in the catapult on target.

TANSTAAFL!

Re:Risk of retaliation (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617113)

The moon sure is a harsh mistress.

Re:Risk of retaliation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616945)

+1 Heinlein

Re:Risk of retaliation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616983)

all they could do is throw rocks at us, and what good would that do?

Good thing we spent all those dollars back in the sixties. So, we would have some rocks of our own to throw back. Now that's foresight for you!

Re:Risk of retaliation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617023)

Ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlenn? All they did was throw rocks, and they won the war!

Re:Risk of retaliation (1)

deadmantyping (827232) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617311)

depends on how big the rocks are

Re:Risk of retaliation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617595)

www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm [www.imao.us]

A Realistic Plan for World Peace
a.k.a
Nuke the Moon
by Frank J. (originally written August 15th, 2002)

"Gotta nuke something."
-20th century philosopher Nelson Muntz

World peace cannot be achieved by sitting around on our duffs singing hippy songs to the moon. Peace can only be achieved through excessive acts of seemingly mindless violence. Who do bullies pick on in the playground? The giant, crazy looking guy who looks ready to snap and kill the person nearest or some harmless looking weenie who appears to do anything to avoid conflict? People pick on the weenie because people like to start fights they think they can win. In the same way, people will continue to attack America and our interests when they get the idea that they can piss off America without us immediately eradicating them and everyone around them in the most painful way possible.

Now, if I were president, here's what I would do. Next time some country does something we don't take a pining too, such as supporting terrorism or speaking French, I'd pick the dumbest reason for an attack, e.g., "A 'q' should always be followed by a 'u'. I don't make the rules, Iraq, but I will enforce them." The more irrational you look, the more scared the country will be that you will really hit them hard. I'd then give the country the old one-week notice until bombing starts. Then, after just twenty-four hours, I'd start bombing. When the stupid dictator calls to complain, I'd say, "I meant one week max. Oh, and by the way, ground troops - one week." I'm sure that would be enough to capitulate the average evildoer, but some extra measures could help intimidate others as well. Like, instead of just saturation bombing a city, super-saturation bomb it. After annihilating everything until nothing but ash is left, I'd nuke the ashes. It's that extra bit of extremely disproportionate use of force that makes other countries start to wonder if America "has it all together" and really worrying who we'll lash out against next.

Of course, Europe will start complaining, and Europe's bad mouthing of America gives comfort to our enemies. I mean, those guys values are so messed up they think calling someone a "cowboy" is an insult. Best idea would be to assassinate the leader of the first European country we hear a peep out of. This will probably make us look evil, though, when we want the image of crazy and violent. So, when the Europeans ask why, I'd claim to never have heard of the person: "I didn't even know France had a leader. Sure it wasn't suicide? Yeah, committing suicide with a sniper rifle would be hard, but not impossible if you had a five-hundred yard length of string to work the trigger." Assassination does seem a little extreme, but we're talking about Europe. I mean, what are they going to do other than quickly capitulate under a mild threat of force. We'll probably start seeing, "We all love America!" parades in bids to not be our next targets.

Now the world will be pretty convinced that America is frick'n nuts and just looking for a fight, but we need to really ingrain it into everyone's conscious so that no one will ever even contemplate crossing us. This requires making good use of our nukes. I know, nukes can kill millions of people, but they sure aren't doing anyone any good just sitting around. I mean, how many years has it been since we last dropped a bomb on someone? No one even thinks we'll actually use one now. Of course, using nukes shouldn't be done haphazardly; all uses have to be well planned out because the explosions are so cool looking that we'll want to give the press plenty of notice so they can get pictures of the mushroom cloud from all sorts of different angles. But what to nuke? Well, usually the idea is populated cities, but, by the beliefs of my morally superior religion, killing is wrong. So why can't we be more creative than nuking people. My idea is to nuke the moon; just say we thought we saw moon people or something. There is no one actually there to kill (unless we time it poorly) and everyone in the world could see the results. And all the other countries would exclaim, "Holy @$#%! They are nuking the moon! America has gone insane! I better go eat at McDonald's before they think I don't like them."

But why stop there. We've got like tons of national parks; we surely wouldn't miss just one if we nuked it. Our excuse will be that we heard a drug dealer was hiding there. Then the foreign nations would be like, "Sacre bleu! These Americans are nuking themselves! Surely they will think nothing of bombing us! Let's adapt their vapid culture as our own so they might consider us one of them."

Now all other countries will be completely freaked out and never even dream of messing with us. They'll say the name of America with hushed whispers and always praise us in public for fear of reprisal. We'd be like an Old Testament god to them; perhaps they would even start worshiping us - actually, we should make that a condition of favored trade status. Not only will we have ensured peace for ourselves, but we can also now easily end any conflict between other countries. We see two nations warring over some territory, all we'll have to do is say, "Hey, break it up," and they'll be racing to concede to each other rather than get on the bad side of the "crazy, homicidal Americans." And, if people are being oppressed by an evil government, all we'll have to do is say, "Hey you! Stop being communist!" and the next day they'll have elections, capitalism, and free-press to keep from having their country turned into a parking lot. It will be that easy to motivate our fellow man, because there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.

Now all that's needed to keep peace is to come up with new and creative ways of looking insane and belligerent without actually harming anyone. Missile defense is probably a good step in that direction. Next time some country steps out of line, we launch a nuclear missile at them. Just seconds before it hits, we blow it up with our missile defense so that everyone there sees the huge explosion in the sky. Then the president would just call up their leader and say, "Hey, we lost sight of our SDI test. Did you see if it worked?"

By now, you're probably saying, "Great idea. But how to do we pay for all these random acts of violence?" Just create an "Other Country Tax", a tax for being a country other than the U.S. After implementing my plan, all the countries will be eager to pay the money, and probably add a nice tip to win favor.

So there you have it, a real peace plan that could actually work. Warmongering pacifists want us to act all nice such that countries think we're rational and won't kill everyone with a blind fury, thus making it possible they might actually attack us and draw us into a war. But, if America follows my idea and lashes out at the slightest provocation with unmeasured vengeance, there can be peace. So there's the choice: either be a homicidal maniac thus ensuring peace and love in the world, or be some pacifist hippy while the streets flow with the blood of the innocent.

Oblig Aliens Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24616865)

It's the only way to be sure.

sounds like a warped 60s slogan (1, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617005)

"stop the nukes"

"yeah yeah right on!"

"save the whales"

"you got that right brother!"

"bomb the moon"

"right... i mean, what?"

"bomb the moon with love, man"

"oh right, right, bomb the moon with love!"

"nuke the whales"

"ummm..."

Re:sounds like a warped 60s slogan (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617639)

Nuke a gay whale for Jesus!

Better name... (1)

lazycam (1007621) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617041)

How about Lunar Crater Creating Observation and Sensing Satellite.

This is Awesome (5, Insightful)

areReady (1186871) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617221)

Somehow, this mission strikes me as one of the coolest things NASA's done in a while. It's a struggling unit of the organization, working with spare parts from scrapped projects, jury-rigging a satellite together that will tow the spent upper stage of a rocket to the moon and smash the chunk of metal otherwise slated to be space debris into the closest heavenly body to send an Earth-visible (with a decent telescope) plume from one of its poles. Finally, it will analyze the plume to figure out if there's ice there.

Totally. Awesome

Tricky shot (2, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617249)

Apparently to make this work NASA will have to hit the opening of a thermal vent that's less than 2 meters across at the end of a canyon lined with defensive gun placements.

Many NASAians died getting us this information.

Sigh... (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617307)

...did we learn nothing from Godzilla!?!?

Should be okay - lots of practice on Mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24617343)

I understand that Iraq hid their weapons of mass distruction on the moon so it should be okay - nothing to see here move on!

no sharks? (1)

Numbah One (821914) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617499)

couldn't they use some frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers instead?

Another "Shock-and-Awe" (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 6 years ago | (#24617521)

demonstration of Aerospace Dominance, followed closely by a search for WMD*.

*Water of Moist Dampening

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>