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!