Nasa returning to the moon

[porchrat]

long-winded explanation for Porchrat.


The Earth orbits around the sun (and not around the moon).

Duh

That means the earth is bound by the gravitational force of the sun (and not the moon)

Therefore the moon's gravity doesn't have an effect on Earth and can't influence tides except the neap and spring? *BWOOP* inferring something stupid alert *BWOOP*

Seeing as the Earth is a "satellite" of the sun it is only reasonably (and logic) to state that it is in fact the sun's gravity that dictates tides on Earth.

Nope. The moon accounts for a massive portion of the gravitational force influencing the tides. It in conjunction with with the sun is the major determinate of tides but the moon does most of the work. You know gravitational force is inversely proportional to distance between the objects right? Try again.

The moon's gravity merely exacerbates (spring tide) or cancels-out (neap tide) the existing gravitational pull of the sun.

Nope. See above.

No moon = we'll still have tides.

Sure but they would be so very very tiny so as not to matter. Completely different to how they are now.

Only spring and neap tides will be absent.

Wrong again. Stop being a moron.


I mean seriously did you not read your own fscking links you provided?
From Wikipedia THE FIRST FREAKING SENTENCE!!!:

Tides are the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun and the rotation of the Earth.

Not spring tides, not neap tides. Tides. Fullstop. Oops.

Oh look here is another sentence in the very next paragraph:

The times and amplitude of the tides at the coast are influenced by the alignment of the Sun and Moon

Again ALL tides. Not just neap and spring tides. Oopsx2.


Oh look Wikipedia even provided a diagram to help morons like you that don't like reading big words:

Oh look, the moon causing high and low tides... not just spring and neap tides. Oopsx3.

Now crawl back into your cave of ignorance where you think the moon is only responsible for neap and spring tides and leave those of us that can read to our books and reliable information.

 

[zippy]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

Tidal physics was important in the early development of heliocentrism and celestial mechanics, with the existence of two daily tides being explained by the Moon's gravity. Later the daily tides were explained more precisely by the interaction of the Moon's gravity and the Sun's gravity to cause the variation of tides

What we do without wikipedia

 

[porchrat]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide



What we do without wikipedia

Be like bubba

 

[waz7710]

The best plan is to actually tackle building a lunar base, that make way more sense than the ISS or measuring the gravity, etc. with knowledge learnt from building away from our planet will prove more useful in the long run. Don't understand the wasted money on other trivial endeavours....there is a huge rock just waiting to be "built" on and man cant destroy it any further

 

[Ou grote]

The best plan is to actually tackle building a lunar base, that make way more sense than the ISS or measuring the gravity, etc. with knowledge learnt from building away from our planet will prove more useful in the long run. Don't understand the wasted money on other trivial endeavours....there is a huge rock just waiting to be "built" on and man cant destroy it any further

It's full of craters caused by various space objects hitting the surface, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there.

 

[hawker]

It's full of craters caused by various space objects hitting the surface, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there.

Fark that. I'd love to be one of the first people to live on the moon.

 

[porchrat]

The best plan is to actually tackle building a lunar base, that make way more sense than the ISS or measuring the gravity, etc. with knowledge learnt from building away from our planet will prove more useful in the long run. Don't understand the wasted money on other trivial endeavours....there is a huge rock just waiting to be "built" on and man cant destroy it any further

 

[waynegohl]

when was the last time they picked up anything hitting the moon that was not man made?

 

[porchrat]

when was the last time they picked up anything hitting the moon that was not man made?

There was one on in May 2 2006. I don't know if that is the most recent one but it was the best ever recording of one.

Stuff is constantly smacking the Moon. Unlike Earth it doesn't have an atmosphere that constantly burns up all the small things.

 

[waynegohl]

There was one on in May 2 2006. I don't know if that is the most recent one but it was the best ever recording of one.

Stuff is constantly smacking the Moon. Unlike Earth it doesn't have an atmosphere that constantly burns up all the small things.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/13jun_lunarsporadic/

went to look and got this page.

 

[Raiders]

The best plan is to actually tackle building a lunar base, that make way more sense than the ISS

I was watching a program long ago, about space explorations.
The IIS is a stepping stone to the moon. The distance from earth to the moon is just to great to be cost effective. After the moon base it's back to space for a bigger space station that have productions capabilities using minerals from the moon. This space stations would be orbiting further out than the moon. Then its interplanetary travels.
Ships that can travel between planets has already been designed, never build. Some of these ships require engines that uses nuclear power. These ships would never enter the earth atmosphere due to restrictions.
There was another 'conspiracy' program that talked about Mars landers having been possible for the last decade. These landers apparently would cost less than launching the shuttle to space, however it worked in tandems. Needed to launch a unmanned lander to mars first. The lander would collect... resources and refuel itself. Then the second lander a few years later would launch. The crew would switch landers on Mars and fly back. Apparently it would cut out some of the development departments at NASA and the project was shelved.

 

[porchrat]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/13jun_lunarsporadic/

went to look and got this page.

That is the impact I'm talking about. I remember watching that little video thing before.

As it says in the article we're lucky here on Earth that we have our atmosphere to protect us from things like that.

 

[waynegohl]

Could other planets with an atmosphere be hiding something on them that needs protecting or is it that this planet with its atmosphere just so happens to have something on it that needs protecting?

 

[porchrat]

Could other planets with an atmosphere be hiding something on them that needs protecting or is it that this planet with its atmosphere just so happens to have something on it that needs protecting?

From my limited understanding of these sorts of things (I'm just a casual reader) whether or not a planet is able to retain an atmosphere depends on many factors:
1) It's mass - it needs to be able to hold onto those gasses and stop them floating off into space.
2) The ratio of the heat of it's star to the planet's distance from it - planets close in to a hot star will have their atmosphere's burnt up by the intense heat.

 

[bubbatentoe]

my 5 cents:
No static telescope (Hubbble included) has the resolution to show the moon landing sites in detail.

With current tech it's not possible to leave people on the moon.
Except if they happen to find water - one of the best shields against radiation.

Anything without a planets magnetic shield & atmosphere is "radioactive" due to solar & cosmic radiation (cosmic/solar wind)
All shuttle missions (except Hubble) were in low earth orbit. (inside the Earth's magnetic "shield" which protects from solar & cosmic wind particles)

Experience 1 solar flare = cellular mutations brought on by radiation = a horrible painful death similar to victims of Chernobyl.

Atmosphere requires a liquid which turns to gas when on/near the surface.
The balance between gravity, heat, cold & amount of liquid being turned into gas needs to be perfect or the atmosphere will simply escape into space or turn back into liquid.

Proximity to a star dictates the shape of atmosphere.
Mercury for instance (very close to the Sun) has a comet-like tail atmosphere (being blasted away from the sun).

Most all planets have atmosphere.
Some are 10000th what we have and some are 1000x what we have. (pressure-wise)
None (so far) are "breathable" other than our own.

The moon's "atmosphere" consists of radon & helium that originate from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle.
The moon is 100% radioactive and the most dangerous environment ever visited.

Staying there long term is currently more science fiction than fact.
No matter what Obama says in pre-election US$-about-to-fail speeches.

 

[porchrat]

Good point bubba.

Totally forgot about the Moon's lack of a functional equivalent of the Earth's magnetosphere.