There are many left over nuclear weapons which need to be put to use. There is no good reason for all planetary bodies to be the same shape; there are many reasons for us to use our vast power to create the most magnificent abstract sculpture in the sky. It would intimidate our earthly enemies, and be a sure sign to extraterrestrials that we are both scientifically and aesthetically advanced. I think the moon should be triangular- or perhaps more accurately pyramidal. It would be well within our current technological capabilities using thermonuclear weapons and shaped charges and considering the rigidity of the material the moon is made of. Careful calculations would avoid any debris from hitting earth beyond perhaps an abnormal number of shooting stars. The smooth, flat faces of the moon would turn slowly in the night sky with varying degrees of reflected sunlight. The tides would be decreased slightly and weather would stabilize. earthquakes would become marginally more infrequent. Everyone would benefit.
-- adeps, May 30 2002

Prometheus and Pandora http://www.seds.org...lanets/pandora.html
Irregularly shaped satellites of Saturn. They are also shepherd moons, which is just damn cool. [waugsqueke, May 30 2002]

Statite http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/statite
[trixie, May 31 2002]

Libration Points http://www.geom.umn...graw/MATH1/lib.html
[trixie, May 31 2002]

L5 Society http://www.azstarne...t/tucl5/l5dream.htm
the cult of heinlein [trixie, May 31 2002]

"When the moon hits your eye
Like a big (piece of) pizza pie..."
-- phoenix, May 30 2002


[It would intimidate our earthly enemies...] Sort of like the nation cheekily bending over and dropping its pants?

Or wait until it's halfmoon and then split it across the middle...ta ta!two wedges of cheese.
-- FarmerJohn, May 30 2002


well thats it then folks, all our problems solved. it might even help me to lose weight and stop my cat missing the litter tray, who knows.
-- po, May 30 2002


<phone> Hello....Is that the museum of mistakes?.....how much space you got? </phone>
-- stupop, May 30 2002


Would this effect the tides? (Would we start getting geometric waves?)
-- mcscotland, May 30 2002


The reasons for all planetary bodies to be the same shape are close to zero, relatively, I guess, but they seem to be pretty all-overriding per capita. Keeping in orbit, preventing frequent meteor showers, and all that nonsense, you know.
-- jester, May 30 2002


We should change the moon's orbit, so it's always illuminating the dark side of the earth. If it had an orbital period of 365 days that should work, as long as it's in the right place to begin with. We could also paint it with reflective paint.
-- pottedstu, May 30 2002


Do you woik in a cheese shop?
-- drew, May 30 2002


stupop, I just want to know your annotation really made me laugh.
-- beauxeault, May 30 2002


How about tetrahedral? That way, whatever axis it was on, we'd have the same shape.
-- NickTheGreat, May 30 2002


a) Leave the moon alone, please.
b) Above a certain mass, a planetoid will naturally be pulled into a spherical shape by its own gravational forces. There are plenty of solar system satellites that are below this mass, and thus have irregular shapes. Saturn's Prometheus and Pandora are two good examples of such moons (see link).
-- waugsqueke, May 30 2002


It is true there are irregular asteroids and the like, but none of these was designed by conscious creatures. It would effect the tides only by making them shallower because the mass of the moon would be less, perhaps enough less that it would not be pulled into a spherical shape. even if it was, it would happen very slowly. a tetrahedral shape would certainly be something to consider! also reflective paint!
-- adeps, May 30 2002


I'd support this. Though, not in the shape of a pyramid or tetrahedron, as Richard C. Hoagland would never shut up then.
-- rapid transit, May 10 2003


<There is no good reason for all planetary bodies to be the same shape>

Tell that to the big guy in charge.
How about Moont Rushmore while were at it.
-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, May 10 2003


//There is no good reason for all planetary bodies to be the same shape//
There are precisely two, actually:

1. Gravity exists
2. Planetary bodies are not made of infinitely strong material.

Given those two rules and enough time, everything large enough becomes spherical.
-- krelnik, May 10 2003


// Would this effect the tides?//
// It would effect the tides only by ...//

(grammar) affect. This is tricky as both words can be used as noun or verb, but the most common uses by a long way are affect (verb) and effect (noun). OK, OK, I'm off to the pedants section right now.
-- OnionBread, May 20 2003


No, you're quite write.
-- snarfyguy, May 20 2003


I like the moon as it is. If you start chucking thermonuclear missiles at it, I'm coming over to your house with a big baseball bat.
-- saker, May 21 2003


[saker], you might want to wait until the last of the nukes has been detonated on the moon before you threaten violence against those who possess them. Ahem.
-- BigBrother, May 21 2003


<innocent> What? It wasn't a threat! It was a "Hey, put down that intercontinental thermonuclear device a minute, will ya, and let's go to the park for a nice game of baseball!" </innocent>
-- saker, May 21 2003


Re: paint the moon with reflective paint. The albedo of the moon is 0.07, about the same as that of coal dust--it only seems bright compared to the blackness of space around it. If you painted a big shape on the moon--or just dumped powder--to bring the albedo up to 0.8 or 0.9, it's quite possible that the unpainted portion would appear to 'disappear' in comparison. (This is the same reason that the stars 'disappear' during the day.)

So you could make the moon appear to be a triangle without affecting the tides at all.
-- govtlackey, May 21 2003


If you take all that mass from the moon... wouldn't this affect its orbit around earth?... and what if moon escapes from its orbit? ... that would defnitivle affect the tides... and earthcuakes.. and polar ice... womens period.. (HAHAHA).. and lots of things.
-- NickHunter, Jun 20 2003


//Would we start getting geometric waves?// <Must resist Sine wave pun>

I say no. Think how many mistakes our military and our government have made. Do you trust them with thermonuclear weapons on something that affects the Earth that intimately? The effects could be dangerous! [Note to those confusing affect and effect: affect is a verb. Effect can be a noun or a verb, but the noun is much more common.
-- PsychoBassoonist, Jun 20 2003


Re the Moon escaping Earth orbit: The moon has already escaped! It orbits far enough away from the Earth that the Sun exerts a stronger gravitic force on the Moon than does the Earth. Thus, the moon doesn't "orbit" the Earth: it shares Earth's solar orbit. It is the only planetary satellite of which this may be said, and the point has no real-world consequences, its just fun to know it. (Source: Issac Asimov, essay for Scientifc American [?], many many years ago.)
-- gardnertoo, Aug 28 2003


Burglary would increase. Besides, our moon isn't -really- spherical anyway.

Btw, [gardnertoo], are you/Asimov saying that -- ignoring the sun and the rest of the cosmos for a moment -- the moon and earth effectively orbit a mass center point saliently outside the surfaces of both? Supposedly, the equivalent is true of our solar system as a whole occasionally, i.e. its center of mass sometimes wanders outside the sun.
-- n-pearson, Aug 28 2003


[n-pearson] No, the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is within the Earth, at 4,650 km from Earth's center. Earth's diameter (edited - originally said radius) is 12,700 km. So the EM c.o.g. is about 1700km below the surface.
-- gardnertoo, Aug 29 2003


Have to fishbone this idea - This would eliminate total lunar eclipses, and that would be a shame.
-- gardnertoo, Aug 30 2003


[gardnertoo] - not if you reshape the sun as well.
-- PeterSilly, Aug 30 2003


Or just move the moon a bit closer to the earth.
-- RobertKidney, Aug 30 2003


"Diamonds in the sky for Lucy"

--just doesn't ring.

Anyway, bringing the moon closer could be done with articulated blasting on the back side. Wouldn't want to be the engineer that misses a decimal place on this job. Guess it wouldn't matter if I was that engineer.
-- Tiger Lily, Aug 30 2003


People of the Earth would have to rewrite all of the songs about the moon.

"There's a Isosceles triangle out tonight..." "Blue triangle..."
-- fugazi, Aug 30 2003


Would we really? It's not 'Blue Disk of Kentucky', and Tin Pan Alley hasn't yet hackneyed that sliver/june rhyme...
-- n-pearson, Aug 31 2003


so maybe you're a good person to ask who wrote "The moon rules, #1" on my car with a key?
-- jivetalkinrobot, Sep 03 2003


Uh, I didn't see -nuttin-.
-- n-pearson, Sep 04 2003


As long as it's a Platonic perfect solid, i'm good, besides we could use the extra cheese down here to feed the hungry.
-- bevnap, Sep 04 2003


Man on the moon gets a nose job.
-- DesertFox, May 05 2004


I agree with the reasons why it wouldn't work, but if you really insist on giving it a try then i suggest two rockets with a big piece of cheese wire lashed between them rather than nuking it (in case we try to go live there anytime soon).
-- MikeOliver, May 06 2004


you do know its not actually made of cheese mike, right?
-- etherman, May 06 2004


I thought it was made of cabbage.
-- skinflaps, May 06 2004


Are you sure [ether]?
I was wanting a piece of the bit they cut off!
-- MikeOliver, May 06 2004



random, halfbakery