If you haven't already heard, NASA is planning to explode a bomb shot by a missile on the moon. The purpose? To have the explosion project particles into space so that we can detect them and find out whether or not there is water on our moon.
Why? So we can consume it. Shipping water to the moon is very costly and difficult. If we find water there, astronauts can travel there and filter whatever water they need. Sounds plausible enough right?
Here is my beef.
- We are struggling financially as a planet. Setting off insanely expensive bombs to find out whether or not we can save money in the future seems counter-intuitive to me.
- We are eventually going to the moon anyway. How about the next time we take a trip, one of the expeditions goes on a search?
- If it turns out there is a little tiny bit of water on the moon, why are we so anxious to eject it into space?
- We don't truly understand gravity (http://tinyurl.com/mcq2u6). Who is to say things won't react strangely on the moon when we nuke it?
My concerns?
1. Do we truly know the consistency of the moon? What if the moon is a delicate fossil and we nuke it collapsing it into a shell of its former self or shattering it into our own little asteroid belt or ring. That sort of disaster would be catastrophic for our environment and female ovulation schedules. Dare I say it? Year long PMS???? XO2. Space is vast and empty, what if the moon reacts like a balloon and the propulsion from the explosion ejects the matter from it and the dust is sucked out into space by momentum alone, escaping the light moon's gravity?
3. What if that same propulsion is enough force, on the moon, to push it just one inch farther away from the Earth. That can do insurmountable damage.
4. What if all goes well and instead we only consume all the water on the planet. Water is HEAVY. NASA understands this and is why they don't want to ship it. That weight adds to the moons mass. What happens if we change that delicate balance?
I believe this is just a stupid idea designed to keep scientists busy, employed and and the media interested. I was able to get my hands on a top secret NASA diagram and I have uploaded it risking my freedom. Enjoy.Shoot the moon!
P.S. That's not a banana eating a celery stick.
More info on the impact.
...and even more info.
7 comments:
Ever see this show?
Three Moons Over Milford
"The page you were looking for
hasn't been found."
It doesn't sound familiar. I did a search by name and it came up with a pretty harsh review. Does it have my same terrible humor or something?
"Listed all over as a 'quirky' comedy, the writers must have hemorrhoids after the strain of forcing 'quirkiness' without creativity, intelligence or any semblance of real humor."
Well, we are still around. I'm glad I read your blogs. Your titles say one thing, but the story is another :D
Yes I'm guilty of that. XD Sometimes I think I put way too much thought into the titles. Sometimes they end up so abstract I have to explain them. Remember the "Girls would make terrible goalies" one from last year? XD
NPR reported this morning that they were 'crashing a satellite' into the moon. Is this the equivelent to a missile? Are they sugar-coating the strength of impact?
Sorry, klutzed on the link and left a second "/" at the end.
Should be:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487229/
The premise was the moon is broken into three pieces by an impact and, of course, will eventually separate and the pieces will impact the earth causing major havoc and destruction. Meanwhile, life goes on in Milford. But the shot at the moon reminded me of the show.
In my neck of the woods, there was no moon showing early enough the morning of the impact. It showed up later, a half moon. In daylight, it looked like the bottom half had disappeared.
Not doing this would mean as much to our overall financial picture as not going to a movie would for the average citizen about to lose his house.
>Jewlover2: Sounds like you were right. Depends on the news sources you quote. "Bomb" was more dramatic and probably why most news outlets chose that term.
>Douglas: 79 million dollar movie.
Post a Comment