LETS NUKE THE MOON TO FIND WATER.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
Lets nuke the moon to find water. If we nuke the moon we may find water in the mushroom plume. What's the big deal we have nuked Gods Good Earth already many times why not Gods Good Moon? I don't see the harm in it no life exist there anyways yet! Nagasaki and Hiroshoma have many people living there now many years after the explosions. Even if it cost more to find out if water exists it is still worth trying the experiment.Any thoughts?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
This is completely unrelated to a Mission or Launch so will be moved elesewhere.
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
I'm sure we can devise less destructive experiments for finding traces of water on the Moon. Besides, have you ever heard of the treaty banning the detonation of nuclear bombs in space?

'Nuke The Moon' would be a good name for a heavy-metal rock band though. "Coming to the Arena December 17th, Nuke The Moon!!"
 
C

Cpickens89

Guest
you would be suprised what a nuke or an atomic bomb would to us if it went off in space


not a very smart idea
 
M

mark_d_s

Guest
Ignore the detractors... I think it's a fine idea.

And when we've properly developed space nukes, we could go straight to Europa and nuke our way down through the ice - we'd easily find alien life that way - they'd be the ones waving little white alien flags!

"To all Europans, we are from Earth - we come in Peace" KAAAABOOOOM :D
 
S

Smersh

Guest
In order to nuke the moon it would be neccessary to launch weapons grade plutonium, in the form of warheads, into space. There would be an enormous protest by environmentalists, worried that an accident on launch would cause a radiation disaster here on Earth.

In any case, I thought we'd already discovered the presence of water on the moon when it was detected by the Indian spacecraft recently, hadn't we? (Even if the LCROSS / LRO experiment failed, although I'm not sure if it did.) Why would it even be neccessary to nuke the moon?
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
cyclonebuster":o0qbtol1 said:
We would be nuking the moon not space.
Doesn't matter; the treaty applies to everything above a certain altitude. The Moon's offlimit according to the treaty.

Besides, there are cheaper ways to do it, as LCROSS has just demonstrated by slamming a spent rocket stage into the Moon. (Hey, it was kind of even green, because it was *recycling*! :p ) Why bother using a nuke? Kinetic energy works fine, is much cheaper, is much more reliable, and doesn't come with all that pesky politics.
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
Why use a nuke? Because you get a bigger and deeper hole in the moon perhaps the crater will fill in with water on the bottom of it afterwards.
 
M

mark_d_s

Guest
cyclonebuster":2j5ef297 said:
Why use a nuke? Because you get a bigger and deeper hole in the moon perhaps the crater will fill in with water on the bottom of it afterwards.
Except liquid water can't exist in a vacuum. And a nuke would destroy all traces of it anyway...
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
mark_d_s":2wbnqczq said:
cyclonebuster":2wbnqczq said:
Why use a nuke? Because you get a bigger and deeper hole in the moon perhaps the crater will fill in with water on the bottom of it afterwards.
Except liquid water can't exist in a vacuum. And a nuke would destroy all traces of it anyway...

So it turns to ice on the bottom of the crater! Also that depends on the temperature of the water. It could be vapor solid or liquid.
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
A second part of the mission could fly a sample return back to Earth. As the plume would be much higher a second craft could fly through the plume with Aerogel panels and the Aerogel would capture moon minerals and return them back to Earth to be studied. Who knows what the heck we may find?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
cyclonebuster":20m8qmk5 said:
Why use a nuke? Because you get a bigger and deeper hole in the moon perhaps the crater will fill in with water on the bottom of it afterwards.
Are you sure about that? How big a nuke does it have to be? How far does it need to be buried? How will you place it at that depth? How much would such a mission cost? What is the cost/benefit ratio between a cheap kinetic mission (which cost 76 million) vs a lander with a nuke aboard, with the tools to bury a nuke at depth (450 million?). How much more scientific data would be gained? Where would you land it? Why? etc, etc,etc....
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
cyclonebuster":1nxwc5wm said:
A second part of the mission could fly a sample return back to Earth. As the plume would be much higher a second craft could fly through the plume with Aerogel panels and the Aerogel would capture moon minerals and return them back to Earth to be studied. Who knows what the heck we may find?
Now you're just getting silly. You've added at least another 50 million to the mission. How much time will elapse after the explosion so that the spacecraft won't be disabled by the EMP but will still have time to sample the plume???
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
MeteorWayne":1dq92mfn said:
cyclonebuster":1dq92mfn said:
A second part of the mission could fly a sample return back to Earth. As the plume would be much higher a second craft could fly through the plume with Aerogel panels and the Aerogel would capture moon minerals and return them back to Earth to be studied. Who knows what the heck we may find?
Now you're just getting silly. You've added at least another 50 million to the mission. How much time will elapse after the explosion so that the spacecraft won't be disabled by the EMP but will still have time to sample the plume???
Three to four mins should work. The money may well be worth the investment. How much money did it cost Columbus to cross the Atlantic?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I repeat, now you're just getting silly. How far away would the spacecraft be 4 minutes away? What would the EMP field be at that distance at that time? How much would the mission cost, and where would that amount come from in our current budget?

You are floating "ideas" with no realistic grounding.

To reinforce the point, you need a lander with a nuke aboard, that can bury it to a predetermined depth. How much would such a mission cost? I'm guessing 500 million. (with the follow on spacecraft). What is your estimate?
 
S

StarRider1701

Guest
MeteorWayne":2i9ayo6s said:
Are you sure about that? How big a nuke does it have to be? How far does it need to be buried? How will you place it at that depth? How much would such a mission cost? What is the cost/benefit ratio between a cheap kinetic mission (which cost 76 million) vs a lander with a nuke aboard, with the tools to bury a nuke at depth (450 million?). How much more scientific data would be gained? Where would you land it? Why? etc, etc,etc....
OH come on MW, lets stop forgetting that we already have bombs and missiles capable of burrowing into the ground prior to detonation. Totally no need to land anything, just pick a nice soft spot in the regolith and fire a missile.
I too think this "nuke the moon" idea is a stupid waste, but lets not totally ignore our weapons capabilities and go out of the way to make the idea artificially too expensive using lame excuses.

I agree that it would not give us significantly more info than a kinetic mission would. Not worth the expense or the outcry from the woo woo idiots who think anything nuclear will make them glow in the dark!
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
StarRider1701":1qkhy17i said:
MeteorWayne":1qkhy17i said:
Are you sure about that? How big a nuke does it have to be? How far does it need to be buried? How will you place it at that depth? How much would such a mission cost? What is the cost/benefit ratio between a cheap kinetic mission (which cost 76 million) vs a lander with a nuke aboard, with the tools to bury a nuke at depth (450 million?). How much more scientific data would be gained? Where would you land it? Why? etc, etc,etc....
OH come on MW, lets stop forgetting that we already have bombs and missiles capable of burrowing into the ground prior to detonation. Totally no need to land anything, just pick a nice soft spot in the regolith and fire a missile.
I too think this "nuke the moon" idea is a stupid waste, but lets not totally ignore our weapons capabilities and go out of the way to make the idea artificially too expensive using lame excuses.

I agree that it would not give us significantly more info than a kinetic mission would. Not worth the expense or the outcry from the woo woo idiots who think anything nuclear will make them glow in the dark!
A bigger deeper hole may hit an aquafer! Go NUKE!
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Congratulations. You have now made this thread silly enough to be ignored (barring even sillier claims)

You have refused to even take a guess as to how much such a mission would cost. Or how it would be paid for out of the existing budget.
You have refused to address the fact such a mission would violate existing "nukes in space" treaties.
You have refused to explain what the scientific gain would be compared the the extremely cheap kinetic impact mission just performed would be.

And finally, you have now trashed the credibility of anything you post here at SDC!

Nice job!!
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
MeteorWayne":2tlia05j said:
Congratulations. You have now made this thread silly enough to be ignored (barring even sillier claims)

You have refused to even take a guess as to how much such a mission would cost. Or how it would be paid for out of the existing budget.
You have refused to address the fact such a mission would violate existing "nukes in space" treaties.

And finally, you have now trashed the credibility of anything you post here at SDC!

Nice job!!
Doesn't matter it is just an idea! Besides treaties are made to be broken. :lol: You know what is even more silly? Nuking Gods Good Earth! How many times have we done that? :roll:
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
That's balony. Treaties are made to be kept. they are broken, and usually those who break them pay the consquences down the timeline.
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
MeteorWayne":2gwdbtlf said:
That's balony. Treaties are made to be kept. they are broken, and usually those who break them pay the consquences down the timeline.
LOL! Like North Korea and Pakistan keep to the treaties? :lol:
 
S

StarRider1701

Guest
MeteorWayne":2v71u6hc said:
That's balony. Treaties are made to be kept. they are broken, and usually those who break them pay the consquences down the timeline.
We've NEVER kept even ONE teaty we've ever signed with the Native American people. Wake up to the reality that we are no different than any other nation. If it suits our purpose, we'll abide by a treaty. If not, ooops.

And what's up with the "Holier than thou" attitude that this one little thread in the Unexplained area somehow upsets the credibility of the entire SDC post! OK, so you're a Mod, MW. But people are entitled to thier opinions whether you like or agree with them or not. How about taking a few steps down from that way too high horse, dude?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I think it's sad, myself. The treaty issue is a sidebar; the real issue is that the original premise is silly and unscientific, and as of now, the OP still hasn't explained how such an expensive (and politically untenable) mission would gain more scientific data than a kinetic impact on the cheap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts