h a l f b a k e r yWe are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Some of our brilliant legislators here in the states are trying to establish a National Park on the moon <link>.
What has not been mentioned is that, to establish a "National" Park, it is assumed that a nation owns that real estate.
Once this happens, every other country will be eager to join
in the land grab.
Eventually, as the moon population expands, it will become apparent that the land on the other side of the moon should have a view of the earth as well.
Likewise, as the moon population expands, there will be a natural movement toward self governance, and a desire to rename their own countries.
In an effort to assuage tender feelings on the matter, I present here two ideas:
1) Strapping on rockets around the periphery of the moon, fire them all at once to get the moon to turn fast/slow enough to approximate a 24 hour day, more or less; understanding that once the pesky earth gets in the way there will be longer periods of night and/or day. This way, people on the back side of the moon gets to see earth occasionally. (It is conceded that the moon taxing authority will see this as an opportunity to jack up the tax rate)
2) Name your moonie country anything you please after demanding autonomy from earth; however, any suggested country names that rhyme with "underpants" should be immediately disallowed and the contingent supporting said name should be sent back for re-grooving. This should finally, mercifully, put an end (at least on the moon) to the schoolyard taunt "...I see London, I see France, ..." <link>.
Hey, Let's Stake Out a National Park On The Moon!! Said No One EVER, Until Now...
http://thehill.com/...al-park-on-the-moon
[Grogster, Jul 22 2013]
Schoolyard Taunt, Sung By Well-Traveled Children, Apparently.
http://www.playgrou...n-i-see-france.html
[Grogster, Jul 22 2013]
Useful Illustrations, Methinks
http://science.hows...k-side-of-moon2.htm
[Grogster, Jul 23 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Screw that!
Hollow it out, give it spin, and live on the inside with a simulated 1 Earth G and a breathable atmosphere, y'know... the way God intended. |
|
| |
//Hollow it out, give it spin// |
|
| |
[2fries] has the right idea. Using a mass driver to fling
the shite mined from the moon would impart rotational
forces and the detritus could be sent to Earth for
processing of minerals. Win/Win... |
|
| |
// the shite mined from the moon // |
|
| |
Ah, so it's made of french cheese, then ? |
|
| |
Ah yes, and my new job is going to be The Interplanetary Realtor...selling these planet lots will make me a millionaire! |
|
| |
//Strapping on rockets around the periphery of
the moon, fire them all at once to get the moon
to turn fast/slow enough to approximate a 24 hour
day// |
|
| |
Interestingly, to set the moon spinning at 1
revolution per 24hrs would need about 5x10^23J of
energy. |
|
| |
A decent rocket engine puts out about 200MW of
power, so a single engine running continuously
would take a mere 76 million years to spin the
moon up. Of course, using multiple rockets would
shorten this proportionately. |
|
| |
// Hollow it out, give it spin, and live on the inside with a simulated 1 Earth G and a breathable atmosphere, y'know... the way God intended. // |
|
| |
"Your" moon is about 1750 km in radius (we don't want to get involved in disputes about ownership, hence the quotation marks). |
|
| |
Hollowing it out, while leaving a 200km thick crust, will provide the space required. But to sustain a nominal 1g (about 10 Newtons) at the inner surface, a translational speed of 4000 m/s at the equator is needed, and the poles will still be zero-g regions (which could be kind of neat). |
|
| |
This gives a period of rotation of about 45 minutes, rather faster than the rather sedate 670-odd hours of the current system. |
|
| |
On the plus side, no problem with getting rid of the debris from the mining operation. Just dump it on the surface and the centripetal force due to rotation will fling it out into space. We suggest that small chunks are better than big ones, as a proportion will inevitably be captured by your planet's gravity and immediately decide to go "running home to Momma". Small lumps give pretty meteorite shows; big lumps could be very loud and expensive. |
|
| |
Access to and from the sphere would have to be via the poles, and even then will be a tricky manouver. However, "holes in the poles" won't cause problems, as the 1g force at the equator will "stick" the synthetic atmosphere to the walls, quite neatly. |
|
| |
The surface regolith would need to be secured as the Moons' surface area expanded so as not to decrease too much Lunar mass and effect ocean tides here on Earth.
Initial spin could be imparted by regular bombardments of given tangential targets utilizing solar tower powered magnetic rail guns firing our disintegrated land-fill waste for raw materials before any rocket engines needed to fire up, which would have the added bonus of beginning excavation towards the Lunar core. |
|
| |
A simulated central "Sun" with a timed 24 hour revolving shade would keep circadian rhythms nicely in-sync... even though you'd be able to see people walking upside-down several miles above your head. |
|
| |
It would be so cool. You could totally pull an Icarus and have to make sure you don't fly too close to the sun under your own power. |
|
| |
Of course that only applies if it turns out that the Moon isn't a hollow Titanium sphere after all... |
|
| |
//Doesn't the moon present the same face to the earth all the time// |
|
| |
Turns out it's a bit more complicated than that, dang it... See Useful Illustrations in <link> |
|
| |
Excellent idea! And why can't we use the moon's innards to make yet another moon? How hard could it be to make another one? Step One: Pack Dirt into a Giant Ball, Step Two: Add decorative pock marks on surface to personal taste. Hey, this astrophysics stuff is easy-peasy once you quit obsessing over trifling details... |
|
| |
Once you get enough mass in the one place it
will naturally form a sphere because of
gravity. |
|
| |
There's probably enough material mined from inside moon#1 to create a
second hollow sphere of the same size. Positioned in a similar orbit but
diametrically opposite to the first residents of Earth could have an
almost constant moonlight from one or other. How romantic! |
|
| |
The second moon would also create double tides (assuming the
removal of so much of the moon's mass left it still able to exert
gravitational force on the oceans). I haven't worked out whether this
would mean double the frequency or double the height, or both.
Either way there's the added bonus of releasing some natural harbours
presently too shallow to accommodate large boats (without them
having to wait until some ungodly hour before being able to dock/set
sail). |
|
| |
The tides would be pretty much the same.
The mass hasn't changed, therefore the force
is the same; as long as the two satellites are
exactly opposed the tides shouldn't change
noticeably. |
|
| |
Whether the orbits will be stable is another
question altogether. |
|
| |
But what this would do is have interesting
consequences for your planet's orbital
behaaviour. The moon does not orbit the
earth; instead, they rotate about a common
cebtre of mass (which is actually inside the
earth's surface). If you split the moon into
two diametrically opposed but identical
bodies (considered as point masses) then the
common centre of mass of the moon1- earth
- moon 2 system actually will be the centre of
mass of the earth. |
|
| |
The effect of this upon existing earth- sun
orbital phenomena (such as the precession of
teh equinoxes) is left as an exercise to the
reader. |
|
| |
//turns out that the Moon isn't a hollow Titanium sphere |
|
| |