Slashdot Mirror


Bombing the Moon for Water

s20451 writes "In 1998, NASA scientists deliberately crashed the Lunar Prospector into the Moon, in a failed attempt to detect traces of water allegedly hiding in deep craters at the lunar south pole. Now the BBC is reporting a new proposal to attack the lunar poles with "Bunker Buster" missiles to liberate a detectable amount of water. Called Polar Night, the mission is being proposed as part of the "Discovery" series of probes."

354 of 517 comments (clear)

  1. What is this MSNBC? by OwnerOfWhinyCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    They aren't going to attack the poles with "Bunker Buster" missles.

    They're going to emplant "scientific equipment" "...a few meters below the surface of the moon."
    Using "...probes are based on bunker-buster penetrators."

    And when compared with the cost of sending up a [wo]man to dig a six foot hole for the same information, it sounds terrific. Let's Terraform!

    1. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Aerolith_alpha · · Score: 1

      next they're going to want to fire a moab up there... then we'll REALLY see the water vapor when it blows up into a huge dust cloud.

      --


      mov ax, 13h
      int 10h
    2. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ok, "implant"
      To the misspelling untolerant, I apologize. :)

    3. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      No, MSNBC would just embed reporters on the moon surface equipped with "video phones".

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    4. Re:What is this MSNBC? by spongman · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think they've just run out of places to look for Osama Bin Laden.

    5. Re:What is this MSNBC? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      yeah cause there isn't mass looting in baghdad and loads of people suffering in poorly equipped hospitals.

    6. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Shoten · · Score: 4, Funny

      NASA could probably sell this better to the current Administration if they ran with the bombs concept, and said that bin Laden might be hiding on the moon :)

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    7. Re:What is this MSNBC? by barnaclebarnes · · Score: 1
      And when compared with the cost of sending up a [wo]man to dig a six foot hole for the same information, it sounds terrific.

      They couldn't risk putting humans up there. They may get SARS.

      /b

      --
      [Please type your sig here.]
    8. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dead babies make good soup!

    9. Re:What is this MSNBC? by mahler3 · · Score: 2, Funny
      This isn't really news. The secret Bush administration plot to bomb the moon was scooped, months ago, by that fine investigative cartoonist, Tom Tomorrow.

      Or, consider another possibility:

      "In other news today, a U.S. scientific mission to search for lunar water deposits revealed that the moon actually has a vast, hollow void in its center, occupying nearly 90 percent of the volume of the moon as a whole. This void is (or was) filled with water. Unfortunately, the hole left in the moon's north pole by the mission's explosive primary payload is allowing the water to rapidly boil off into space. Mission scientists estimate that it will be completely empty within a year.

      "Meanwhile, officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are said to be studying the feasibility of depositing nuclear waste in the now-vacant interior of the moon. Frightened residents of countries over which the moon passes are reportedly organizing to oppose this effort."

    10. Re:What is this MSNBC? by caouchouc · · Score: 1

      If they take their helmets off, there'll be nothing A about the RS.

    11. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Aexia · · Score: 1

      >> I don't recall anybody denying either of those.

      Rumsfeld did.

    12. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, copying and pasting links breaks sometimes.

      Try using google, that's where I got them.

      "Al Jazeera West" *IS* a bit extreme, but when countering the brainless, anti-US, foaming-at-the-mouth, euro-centric, quai-socialist bullshit that passes for the norm here, it's pretty tame.

      Being Conservative (or even moderate) on /. is fun. It's kind of like playing Doom at nightmare setting, without a mouse...

    13. Re:What is this MSNBC? by maomoondog · · Score: 1

      Man, your links couldn't be deeper into spin if you tried. I had to click 5 or 6 times on some of them to find anything that wasn't a conservative blog or column. Other people saying the same unsupported crap you said does not constitute "facts" unless that facts is that someone else is dumb enough to agree with you.

    14. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      As has been demanded of me: state your sources.

    15. Re:What is this MSNBC? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Did you try finding your own facts? I am yet to hear any doubters come up with *ANYTHING* claiming my statements were false (except their whining).

      I heard my original statements in passing on TV news. I looked up links confirming them using google.

      Come up with something to counter them and we'll talk.

      BTW, I sure as hell would believe something in a conservative column before most of the tripe liberals spread. Conservatives get called on their facts so generally have sources. Liberals don't get called, so they don't do their homework.

  2. space treaties? by evilWurst · · Score: 1

    What about those treaties about not putting weapons in space?

    1. Re:space treaties? by japhar81 · · Score: 1

      IF anyone dares to complain, we'll just drop bunker-busters on them instead. Damned terrorists...

    2. Re:space treaties? by fgb · · Score: 1

      Those treaties ban the use of nuclear bombs in space, ironically the only place that nuclear explosions can be put to constructive use.

    3. Re:space treaties? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are also treaties on "Peaceful Uses of Outer Space" (http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/gares/html/ gares_14_1472.html) separate from the orbital nuclear ban. The nuclear ban itself is quite ambiguous:

      "States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;"

      Note that WMD phrase again (this is from 1966).

      There's another one specifically about the moon which I think has not been signed by the US, which prohibits the use of the moon for other than peaceful purposes.

      That said, the use of a large explosion for peaceful means probably wouldn't be banned.

    4. Re:space treaties? by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      The treaty "applied to outer space and celestial bodies." But the intent was to curb strategiec superiority, not research. The distinction being, we're not storing bunker busters on the moon, we're using bunker busters on the moon.

      The difference is the fact that we're not planning on firing them from the moon at a target on earth. Big difference. That's what the treaty is for.

      Read it yourself:

      Narrative

      I think it's rather humorous how many countries actually signed it. Imagine being the prime minister (or whoever signed the damn thing) of Afghanistan. Think they even read it?

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    5. Re:space treaties? by acb · · Score: 1

      Treaties? We don't need no stinkin' treaties. We're America, for cryin' out loud!

    6. Re:space treaties? by mpe · · Score: 1

      The difference is the fact that we're not planning on firing them from the moon at a target on earth. Big difference.

      What about factoring the US military's well known level of accuracy in the targeting of weapons...

    7. Re:space treaties? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Yes, I should have made that clear: thanks.

  3. Aha! by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Funny

    First Iraq, then North Korea, and now the moon! The Lunans are conspiring against our interests abroad! Conspiracy, I say!

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Aha! by geggibus · · Score: 1

      It's no conspiracy, the lunatics are hiding Saddam! .. CIA got this information by wiretapping some Lunatics which has infiltrated the US Government..

    2. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd hate to be the one that unleashes Zemus/Zeromus from the moon! He's evil I tell you... eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllle!

    3. Re:Aha! by trikberg · · Score: 1

      Lunans? The inhabitants of the moon are called Lunatics. Don't they teach kids anything in school anymore? *grumble*

      --
      This post is free (as in cheese in a mousetrap).
    4. Re:Aha! by GuidoJ · · Score: 1

      No, you don't get it. This is just the new way of NASA to acquire budget from the Bush administration for their next mission to the moon. They even might have a chance to succeed, if you ask me.

    5. Re:Aha! by Homebrewed · · Score: 1

      Methinks our fearless "leaders" might be served to use our tax dollars to purchase a supply of the various "organ enlargment" supplements that I see advertised so regularly in my daily email.

      They're *much* cheaper than this proposal-- and about as useful....

    6. Re:Aha! by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Lunatics? Nonsense! They're obviously trying to prevent Matthew Looney's Invasion of the Earth!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:Aha! by lmfr · · Score: 1

      Selenites.

  4. Liberate the water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    new proposal to attack the lunar poles with "Bunker Buster" missiles to liberate a detectable amount of water.

    We must free the water from its evil ruler Saddam Moonsein.

    1. Re:Liberate the water? by Per+Wigren · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is he the real Saddam? ;-)

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    2. Re:Liberate the water? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

      "We must free the water from its evil ruler Saddam Moonsein."

      Shut your black hole, you.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Liberate the water? by tunabomber · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Anonymous Zionist Coward says that it's about freedom, but they're really looking for oil.

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  5. The outrage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should give UN weapons inspectors more time!

    1. Re:The outrage! by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      No, they should not. The moon has had millions of years to come clean.

    2. Re:The outrage! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I think you mean UN water inspectors!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. In related news... by DennisZeMenace · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Moon has been added to the infamous "Axis of Evil" group...

    1. Re:In related news... by dekashizl · · Score: 1

      The Moon has been added to the infamous "Axis of Evil" group...

      Err.. More like the "Axis of Lunacy".

    2. Re:In related news... by dmccarty · · Score: 1

      Axis of Evil Expands Mon Feb 3, 09:37 AM ET GENEVA (Reuters) Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," officials from Libya, China and Syria today announced that they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be "more evil than that silly Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis Mr. Bush warned of in his State of the Union address." Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new Axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "They are just as evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Everybody knows we're the best evils--uh, best at being evil, that is." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded that they had at one time asked if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," moped Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An axis can't have more than three countries", explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. (Ours is wicked and cool.)" International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift. Within minutes, France unconditionally surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what has become a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan and Serbia announced that they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to couple with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really as Just Generally Disagreeable." With the criteria suddenly expanding and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't Really Evil but Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics, Either." While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps poking fun, a cautious Bush administration granted approval for most axes, although it rejected the establishment of the "Axis of Countries Whose Names End in 'Guay", accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Senior officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Mexiguay denied the charges.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  7. first.. by EugeneK · · Score: 5, Funny

    .....the US has to make up some stuff about how the moon has WMD, supports terrorism, and insinuate that it was somehow involved in 9/11.

    1. Re:first.. by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Luna is a rogue state, did they join the coalition against terrorism ?, do we need any more proof ?.

    2. Re:first.. by capnjack41 · · Score: 1
      I think we got it wrong...we use the bunker busters when we want someone's oil, not water.

      [KIDDING! JOKE.]

    3. Re:first.. by Santos+L.+Halper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't buy this crap that we are bombing it for water. We are bombing it for oil, pure and simple.

      --

      "Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee." --Bender
    4. Re:first.. by yoder · · Score: 2, Funny

      The moon tried to kill my dad...

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    5. Re:first.. by daveo0331 · · Score: 2, Funny

      President Bush has accused the Moon of aiding and abetting the Iraqi regime by lighting up the battlefield at night, nullifying the US advantage in night-vision technology.

      In response, the President has ordered the USS Kitty Hawk to deploy to the Sea of Tranquility.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    6. Re:first.. by varjag · · Score: 1

      ..and insinuate that it was somehow involved in 9/11.

      Well.. the night before it was up there.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  8. Yeah, but why? by EdgeShadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I fail to see the benefits of exposing trace amounts of water from the moon at the cost of destroying a small portion of it. The fact that we've already detected it proves it's there.

    1. Re:Yeah, but why? by inertia187 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the BBC article:
      • What is the nature of the deposit?
      • What is the source of the water?
      • Are other ices besides water ice present?
      • Is the hydrogen actually in the form of water ice, or is
      • it hydrogen from the solar wind?

      So, we want to know more. And this is one way to do it.
      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    2. Re:Yeah, but why? by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      destroying it? you are aware its a big rock right? and pretty much all a bomb will do is move a couple of rocks from point A to point B in hopes that somewhere among that debris is water. Ive seen similar sentiments in a few posts now, and I hope everyone realizes that the moon, while smaller than the earth, is still what most would consider really f****** big in non scientific terms. This bomb is going to have zero impact on the moon, and the non-business as usual will continue on the moon. I am sure any damage this bomb does will be orders of magnitude smaller than meteors that crash into it.

    3. Re:Yeah, but why? by trp0 · · Score: 1

      Since I'm at work, I don't actually have time to read the article right now, but I'm curious what the implications are for detonating things on the moon. Is there any potential for disrupting the moon's orbit? Sure it's big, but I'd hate to have them fuck up the earth because they end up pushing the moon into a different orbit and disrupting the tides, etc.

    4. Re:Yeah, but why? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I read the article and it said nothing about exploding anything on the moon. The "bunker buster" part was about the technology to impact the shell into the surface of the moon and keep the equipment inside intact. The intent was to then have instruments inside the "warhead" take measurements from under the surface.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:Yeah, but why? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      " Is there any potential for disrupting the moon's orbit?"

      Good LORD we need better physics education.Worldwide, if possible.

      No offense, dude. Your teachers sucked.

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    6. Re:Yeah, but why? by apsmith · · Score: 1

      (Sigh, another interesting story I miss until it's been overwhelmed with dumb comments - not to disparage yours here, it's a good question...)

      The detection of water on the Moon so far has been pretty indirect - various kinds of radar and neutron or other remote analysis from orbit, plus some plausibility arguments based on the Moon's orientation and orbit. We are pretty confident about it, but on the other hand, direct beats indirect any day, which is the reason for this and a variety of other missions being planned.

      More info on other missions (I just added this one to the list!) available from the Moon Society.

      --

      Energy: time to change the picture.

    7. Re:Yeah, but why? by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      "I can't think of any VWs (Beetles, or other) in space."

      Crap. Something else I need to add to my evil supervillian todo list! (Would a manhole cover be a suitable substitute?)

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. Hey! by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guess what I just found out! It ends up there is lots of water on earth, and it's not even protected by rocks. No need to blow the place up to get it! ^^

    okay, anyway, the only purpose for looking for water is to find life on the moon. By using missiles to release the water, we blow up any life we may have found, just a thought....

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
    1. Re:Hey! by KDan · · Score: 1

      The water on Earth is getting more polluted day by day. Water in asteroids (and probably the moon) is ultra-pure compared to oceans, rivers, etc.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The purpose for looking for water on the moon is that it would be nice to have if a permanent base is to be built there.

    3. Re:Hey! by meridian-gh · · Score: 5, Informative
      Life?

      More like fuel. Hydrogen and Oxygen. Guess what the shuttle engines run off of?

      If we discovered water in any signifigant quantity on the moon, it would (someday) make getting there and back much cheaper and easier. Instead of packing the gas with us, we can stop at the ol' lunar gas station. It is so hellaciously expensive to put things in orbit, every pound saved is a penny earned.

      It could also make construction of spacecraft on the moon or in orbit a possibility. Again, the less we have to bring up with us, the better.

      Regards,

      Meri

    4. Re:Hey! by dslpwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *buzzzzzz!* "Thanks for playing! Try again later." The purpose is not to discover life on the Moon, it is to verify the presence of water. With known supplies of water-ice on the moon, semi-permanent, and permanent bases can be set-up without having to ship really expensive water and air to the moon.

      --
      www.robot-invasion.com smart-assed political news, humor, and commentary
    5. Re:Hey! by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 1
      The water on Earth is getting more polluted day by day. Water in asteroids (and probably the moon) is ultra-pure compared to oceans, rivers, etc.
      So, an H2O molecule on the Moon is purer than an H2O molecule on Earth?
      I get it! You think that water on Earth is not ultra-pure anymore because it has somehow been diluted, right?
    6. Re:Hey! by KDan · · Score: 1

      The other stuff which is mixed in with the H2O is the problem. Grains of dust are easier to filter out of the water than spills from oil tankers, factory waste, etc.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    7. Re:Hey! by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it would take more energy to disassociate the water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get in the form of fuel. There still is no free lunch.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    8. Re:Hey! by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      Would this also make hydrogen power more viable, since one of the seemingly insurmountable problems is the expense of extracting it?

      This abundant, unavailable hydrogen thing make me laugh, kind of like "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink".

    9. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "By using missiles to release the water, we blow up any life we may have found, just a thought...."

      RTFA. THEY ARE NOT USING ANY EXPLOSIVES!!!!!!

      They are using TECHNOLOGY derived from "bunker buster" bombs to have the sensors penetrate several meters into the surface.

    10. Re:Hey! by RocketRick · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Gauchito wrote:

      This abundant, unavailable hydrogen thing make me laugh, kind of like "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink".

      OK, pet peeve time. If you're going to quote poetry, at least quote it correctly:


      Water, water, everywhere,
      And all the boards did shrink;
      Water, water, everywhere,
      Nor any drop to drink.

      From "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", by Samuel Taylor Coleridge


      - Rick "Pedant" Dickinson
    11. Re:Hey! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's still more inefficient to store solar energy in batteries ( in the lunar environment, it's be pretty easy to store O and H as liquids, just shade them from sunlight.)

      The energy equation is moot when you get the energy for the cost of the infrastructure and maintenance. It's not the same problem as on earth (ie, the US) where we have to replace an infrastructure with something new. On the moon it's an entirely different problem to which solutions such as electrolyzation lend themselves well.

      Yeah, there are no hydrogen wells. But we're still ignoring the energy well (ie, Sol).

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    12. Re:Hey! by GusCubed · · Score: 1

      You can't seriously think that water on the moon will become a viable source of clean water for us on earth? can you? really?

      The energy, let alone the $$$s that you will expend going to the moon and hauling back water would be more than enough to purify and distill a helluva lot of water on earth.

      Water on the moon would be useful for a colony, cos, you won't have to haul it up there from here. You can use it (providing you have the energy) to provide you with oxygen and hydrogen/deuterium/tritium (apparently the moon's regolith is full of tritium too), or as reaction mass for the fleet of space arks that I am currently building in my lunar-orbiting shipyard. Do you want to come too? Because I've heard the world is about to end, something to do with a huge intergallactic space-goat. I think I might have a space on the 'B' ark for you. you don't mind going first do you? We need people with bright ideas about ultra-pure water from space on our new home

      Anyway, it's all about energy and don't let anyone tell you that water from space is any different from water on earth - especially if they're homeopaths

      --
      =#= Man, you are such a loser! Why can't you be an individual, like the rest of us?
    13. Re:Hey! by bigboard · · Score: 1

      I believe he was quoting the Iron Maiden song. :)

      --
      Cynicism is the natural defence of the romantic.
    14. Re:Hey! by KDan · · Score: 1

      Nah, I don't really think they'll use water from the moon. Seems too hard to extract. They could maybe do the water-asteroid-lobbing thing once space travel gets cheap enough (not in this century, then)... I think we'll be having serious water shortages way before that becomes practical though.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
  10. The moon has WMDs! by KDan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Really, my... fellow americans. *stares at camera* I strongly believe that the moon is currently harbouring all kinds... of weapons of mass destruction. They most definitely have nucular weapon facilities. They are a threat to our way of life, to our liberty... and to the liberty... of all the free people of the Earth *blank stare* And so it is with great sadness, but firmness of purpose, that we must carry on, with the help of God, and rid the solar system of weapons of mass destruction.

    George

    --
    Carpe Diem
    1. Re:The moon has WMDs! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I hope Dubya hasn't read Heinlein. Be afraid...be very afraid, GWB....we might
      be able to dump 100t grain loads on your head if you continue with the space
      program....

      OH GOD WHAT AM I SAYING!

      *runs away in fear and shame*

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  11. Bang! Zoom! To the Moon! by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Childlike behaviour.

    Simply put: if you didn't get any exciting results by hitting it, hit it again, harder.

    (This was basically how I learned about ants, broken glass and blood as a tyke. Smack ants with a bottle. Smack them harder and it broken, cutting two fingers rather badly. Besides the lesson about how glass brakes into sharp bits, I learned the proper way to smack ants was with a hammer.)

    So we discover bunker buster bombs (though delivered by jets and carrying large warheads) are pretty effective at turning over the garden, buildings, toppling dictators (he's not really dead, y'know, he just started the evening shift down the street at 7-11, relieving Elvis), etc. Fun, just like smacking ants! Now hitting the moon with a small probe was pretty exciting, but the novelty wore off. Hit the moon with a bigger hammer and see what happens! That's probably really and exciting idea, but like the ants probably felt (assuming they could) indigant about their fellows being hammered, I'm not at all down with someone smacking the moon just to see what color dust they kick up.

    Maybe I subscribe (now that I'm older, don't hammer ants (as much) anymore) to the school of learn what you can without being destructive. I'd be someone bummed if after a few years of these rascals rationalizing and throwing bombs at the moon if it changed its appearance. In other words, there's gotta be a better way, try a little harder to figure it out without resulting to violence against my bud the moon.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  12. This just in from the Iraqi Information Ministry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is no moon. There never was a moon. We are winning the war. The moon is painted on the sky by evil Americans to confuse us. There is no moon.

  13. Good idea... by sevensharpnine · · Score: 4, Funny

    And in related news, NASA officials recently announced an exploratory campaign will be taking place in Syria next week.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
  14. NASA will make sure... by blind_abraxas · · Score: 1

    ...to get all UN Inspectors off the moon before the ground assault begins?

    --
    one two three four five ?!! That's the combination on my luggage!
  15. MWAHAHAHA!!! by HughJampton · · Score: 1

    And after bombing the moon, I plan to extract oranges from the SUN with my huge beowulf cluster! YES! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters imagine YOU!
  16. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bombing the moon? Finally: some astronomy that the Bush camp can get behind.

  17. But what do the Dixie Chicks think? by jj_johny · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I am so ashamed to be from the same state that Johnson space center is in." - Natalie Maines

    1. Re:But what do the Dixie Chicks think? by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Teehee, she said Johnson

    2. Re:But what do the Dixie Chicks think? by hotgazpacho · · Score: 1

      Speaking of Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks:

      The Dixie Chicks pose nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly magazine released on April 24, 2003.

    3. Re:But what do the Dixie Chicks think? by NedTheNerd · · Score: 1

      Oh i wouldnt be supprised if the johnson space center felt the same way bwa ha ha ha

  18. Are you suggesting we blow up the moon? by _pi-away · · Score: 1

    Would you miss it? really?

    --

    "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
    1. Re:Are you suggesting we blow up the moon? by bhsurfer · · Score: 1
      Oh, I dunno. If the resultant tidal shifts eliminated Florida and California it could actually be pretty cool... Bill Hicks' "Arizona Bay" come true...

      I wouldn't have to go near as far to watch frat guys get sunburned and drunk...

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
    2. Re:Are you suggesting we blow up the moon? by ftvcs · · Score: 1

      Austin Powers 2 - The Spy Who Shagged Me:

      President: C'mon, let me nuke that bastard.
      Commander Gilmour: You want to blow up the moon?
      President: Would you really miss it that much?

      source

  19. Who else here.. by stuckatwork · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...pictured Slim Pickens on a bomb in a space suit riding towards the moon yelling "whoo hoo", a la Dr. Strangelove?

    1. Re:Who else here.. by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      ...pictured Slim Pickens on a bomb in a space suit riding towards the moon yelling "whoo hoo", a la Dr. Strangelove?

      In space, no one can hear a hillbilly scream.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:Who else here.. by amorsen · · Score: 1
      Any place is within walking distance if you've got the time.

      The subject of this article is not within walking distance for me, no matter how much time I have.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  20. Look at the second picture... by sczimme · · Score: 1


    It's the one in the 'Shock testing' section.

    I sure hope the safety is on... Either way, I don't think I would stand directly under that thing.

    (Apologies to those of you who get there after the site has died and can't see the pictures. I'm just an insensitive clod.)

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  21. hmm by abhisarda · · Score: 1, Interesting

    they will use bunker busting bombs.. the point is that these bombs are used against man-made structures.. and they are much easier to penetrate than solid ground.

    The bomb might have to be a nuclear one. Another question is about the delivery capability. Moon does'nt have oxygen. Therefore this bomb will need to have its own oxygen system.

    The place they bomb and the place where the spacecraft is located has to be some distance apart. The dust(?) created from this bomb will linger far longer than earth because of moon's gravity.

    1. Re:hmm by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, it strikes me as a silly idea. But you've got some facts wrong:

      Most bombs work fine in the absence of external oxygen.

      Bunker busters are designed to penetrate the rock above bunkers, as well as the bunkers themselves. (most "safety bunkers" are carved out of the bedrock).

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    2. Re:hmm by nate1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you even read the article? There aren't going to be any explosives at all on these missions (if approved). They use the PENETRATION technology of "Bunker Busters" to bury sensors under the moon's surface, and those sensors look for water/life/whatever and send the data home.

      And by the way, bombs don't generally need atmospheric oxygen, the oxidizer is part of the explosive compound.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    3. Re:hmm by phoenixTMW · · Score: 1

      They're not bombing anything. NO EXPLOSIVES.

      RTFA.

    4. Re:hmm by writertype · · Score: 1

      Bah! You and your foolish logic have added nothing to our amusement!

    5. Re:hmm by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      There aren't going to be any explosives at all on these missions (if approved). They use the PENETRATION technology

      And what do you think makes the technology penetrate exactly?

      That's right: explosives.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:hmm by I'm+A+Librarian · · Score: 1
      they will use bunker busting bombs..

      No they won't. They're suggesting getting instruments into the ground with methods that are similar to those bombs.

      the point is that these bombs are used against man-made structures.. and they are much easier to penetrate than solid ground.

      Do you mean that that is your point? I don't know if concrete bunkers are easier to penetrate than the surface of the Moon, do you? I imagine that these guys have probably thought of that.

      The bomb might have to be a nuclear one.

      No, it won't.

      Another question is about the delivery capability. Moon does'nt have oxygen. Therefore this bomb will need to have its own oxygen system.

      Most bombs do. That's kind of one point of explosives. But again, this is not a bomb.

      The place they bomb and the place where the spacecraft is located has to be some distance apart.

      Yeah. The lunar orbiter that fires these missles will probably still be in orbit. I guess that's where they get the name "orbiter."

      The dust(?) created from this bomb will linger far longer than earth because of moon's gravity.

      Possibly.


      It sounds like you need to read the referenced article a little more closely.

    7. Re:hmm by Nix0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      Moon does'nt have oxygen. Therefore this bomb will need to have its own oxygen system.

      Umm, the vast majority of conventional munitions have their own oxidizing agent, with very few exceptions( such as the fuel-air bomb ).

      If a substance's oxidation rate is dependent on its contact with atmospheric oxygen, it would be far more likely to "burn" than "explode".

      The dust(?) created from this bomb will linger far longer than earth because of moon's gravity.

      Another problem with your reasoning. The specific reason that dust "lingers" on earth is buoyant forces BY THE AIR upon very small dust particles. the moon's gravity well is smaller than that of the Earth, but the fact that F=ma will prevail without impedance by an atmosphere will make the "dust" settle rather quickly.

    8. Re:hmm by Drakonian · · Score: 4, Funny
      Did you even read the article?

      You're new here aren't you? ;)

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    9. Re:hmm by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      The so called technology consists basically of two key inovations:

      1) Use a pointy tip made of somethign hard.
      2) Throw it faster.

      In related news it has been announced that the US military has patented their new technology 'the wheel'. A spokesman said 'we couldn't believe, like, that this thing hadn't been thought of before'.

      --
      Beep beep.
    10. Re:hmm by Havokmon · · Score: 1
      There aren't going to be any explosives at all on these missions (if approved). They use the PENETRATION technology
      And what do you think makes the technology penetrate exactly?
      That's right: explosives.

      Thank you, I'll be relieving you of your girlfriend now..

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    11. Re:hmm by mfrank · · Score: 1

      WTF? The only "explosives" involved is the rocket fuel to de-orbit the probe. Kinetic energy is what causes the probe to penetrate. Jeez, I didn't even read the friggin article and I know that.

      Bunker busters use kinetic energy to get way down in the ground. Then they blow up. They omit the blowing up part from these probes, because that would be bad for the sensors.

    12. Re:hmm by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Bunker busters use kinetic energy to get way down in the ground. Then they blow up. They omit the blowing up part from these probes, because that would be bad for the sensors.

      Damn, that's what's been throwing our results off! We get T-2 to impact, T-1, then just static! ;)

      -T

    13. Re:hmm by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      "They omit the blowing up part from these probes, because that would be bad for the sensors."

      Actually, thinking of the decelleration these sensors are going to need to survive, I think they left out the "blowing up" part of the mission because it was redundant!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    14. Re:hmm by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      Another problem with your reasoning. The specific reason that dust "lingers" on earth is buoyant forces BY THE AIR upon very small dust particles. the moon's gravity well is smaller than that of the Earth, but the fact that F=ma will prevail without impedance by an atmosphere will make the "dust" settle rather quickly

      a little problem there, on moon the acceleration due to gravity is about six times less. so on the whole the dust will settle slower. atmospheric impedence is very small compared to the acceleration due to gravity unless there are heavy winds.

    15. Re:hmm by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Okay, imagine two bomb blasts, one on the surface of the Moon, and one on the surface of the Earth.

      The Moon blast ejects enough dust, dirt, and other matter so that the most energetic particles reach the top of their trajectory in (say) one minute. Exactly one minute after that, every particle from the explosion has landed on the lunar surface.

      The Earth blast produces the same amount of energy. The large ejecta from the explosion (e.g. chunks of earth) fly through the air but land within, maybe 10-15 seconds. The smaller ejecta -- the dust -- spread out massively and encounter tremendous air resistance, relative to the mass of the dust. The entire dust cloud is stationary, relative to the center of the explosion, within a couple of seconds. However, instead of settling back down to earth immediately, minor currents in the air are able to carry the dust around, keeping it from hitting the ground, for a few hours. The larger pieces of dust fall to earth faster, but the smaller pieces stay aloft indefinitely. (Ever watched the air in a beam of sunlight? Those little motes dancing about, and often moving UP, are dust.)

      The upshot is that 100% of the Moon blast ejecta land within a short period. 99% of the Earth blast ejecta land even faster, but the remaining 1% stays aloft, and widely distributed, for hours.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    16. Re:hmm by conradp · · Score: 1

      a little problem there, on moon the acceleration due to gravity is about six times less. so on the whole the dust will settle slower. atmospheric impedence is very small compared to the acceleration due to gravity unless there are heavy winds.

      This is wrong. Do the math. It's simple high school physics.

      In the absense of atmosphere on earth, everything would fall according to the equation d = 1/2 g t^2, where g is 9.8 meter/sec^2. So dust reaching a height of 5 meters would settle to the earth in almost exactly 1 second. (Simple arithmetic, verify it yourself.) Go outside and play in the dirt, I'd say that in the presense of atmosphere dust takes much, much longer that 1 second to settle.

      On the moon the same equation applies but g = 1.6 meter/sec^2 (about 1/6 the force of gravity on earth.) So dust reaching a height of 5 meters would settle in about 2.5 seconds.

      In fact dust reaching heights of 500 meters would settle in about 25 seconds, whereas on earth due to the atmosphere dust reaching such heights would probably linger in the air for hours.

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
    17. Re:hmm by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      We formally request that you cease and desist from discussions of this nature. Both of the intellectual properties you mentioned are vital assets to my company, and unless you act in a manner conducent to the protection of our trade secrets, patents, and effective content control mechanisms, we will be forced to prosecute you to the fullest extent of all applicable laws.

    18. Re:hmm by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      not true, if you have a cloud of dust, there are other forces apart from simple gravity, there is the drag coefficient due to the atmosphere and cohesive forces due to collisions between dust particles. All I'm saying is these effects do not account for the 1/6 drop in the acceleration due to gravity between the earth and the moon. Mind you the cohesive forces will also operate on the moon, though the atmospheric drag will not be present. The math is not as simple as you present.

      As such there is always a residual dust presence in the atmosphere. You can always argue whether all the dust is settled or is there residual amount of the original dust cloud still floating around.

      Case in point is the martian dust clouds, which take months to settle, there are no comparable events on earth in recent times apart from the krakatoa explosion.

    19. Re:hmm by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      have you considered the fact that the top of the trajectory on moon will be higher and the rate of descent of the particles will be much slower than on earth.

      You might've heard of large dust storms on mars which has a lower gravity than earth but also has some sort of atmosphere unlike the moon where you have dust storms lasting years. There are huge dust storms on earth in deserts, but they never last as long. I'm afraid you're overestimating the effect of the atmospheric drag coefficient w.r.t to gravity.

    20. Re:hmm by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      have you considered the fact that the top of the trajectory on moon will be higher
      Yes. Without taking the atmosphere into account, the highest particle trajectory would be six times higher on the Moon than it is on Earth, and it would take six times longer for the Moon ejecta to land than it would for the Earth ejecta to land. With an initial velocity of 50 m/s straight up, the moon ejecta would all have landed after 61.8 seconds. The earth ejecta would all have landed after 10.2 seconds, one-sixth of the time. (Remember, this is without atmospheric effects.)

      Now add the atmosphere. Well, the Moon has none, so all its ejecta still land after 61.8 seconds. On Earth, however, large volume of air is now full of dust, which will take, as an absolute minimum, several minutes to settle (and more likely, some of the dust will remain airborne for hours -- not because it's falling slowly, but because it's so light that even tiny air currents will keep it aloft).

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    21. Re:hmm by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      yeah, i guess the dust cloud on the moon will not have an opportunity to spread because there's no medium for it to spread. i was looking at a too restrictive case where the only upward force is a constant atmospheric drag. If you include air currents in the model, it get a little too complicated... damn! i'm thinking like a theoretician :)

    22. Re:hmm by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      my apologies for replying to my own post, but i hadn't considered the effects of air currents when i wrote the previous post. mars has some atmosphere and the dust will settle slower on mars since the gravity is lesser, but the moon doesn't. so my analogy of comparing moon to mars in incorrect. Dust on moon would indeed settle faster than on earth, but the math isn't all that simple as the earlier poster presented.

    23. Re:hmm by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      damn! i'm thinking like a theoretician :)
      Repent! Repent, and ye shall be saved! Whoa, sorry, got carried away there a second. :)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    24. Re:hmm by mfrank · · Score: 1

      You may want to read about the atmospheric probe part of the Galileo mission to Jupiter. You'd be surprised at what they can design things to handle :)

  22. global warming? by iosmart · · Score: 1

    man, some people have too much monaaay. i thought we were experiencing global warming? the water'll still be good! and just how are they planning to bring it all back to earth if they find some? each missle costs $145,000 too!

    1. Re:global warming? by dslpwr · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be to bring it to Earth. Finding water on the Moon would mean we don't need to ship any of it there. Any kind of lunar base would require water and oxygen, things more cheaply refined on location than shipped.

      --
      www.robot-invasion.com smart-assed political news, humor, and commentary
  23. Lets hope... by c_oflynn · · Score: 1

    They work better than the probes they sent to mars...

  24. Bastards !!!! by forged · · Score: 1

    So long as they won't fire their probes in my property I'm fine with the idea. Altough it really does sound corny.

    1. Re:Bastards !!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It sounds corny because of the lame ass "i hate america and the space program" spin the slashbot who posted the article put on it.

      They want to know if there's traces of water on the moon. They think if there is, it's buried at the poles. They would have to dig it up slightly to get to it.

      Crashing a device into the moon would do no more (and most likely much less) damage than the countless meteors that slam into it constantly.

      And it's not a simple military missle, it merely shares some principles of design. It also has a large scientific payload to detect the water (if any) and transmit the info back to earth.

  25. Re:Bunker Busters by PenguinPooper · · Score: 1

    Yes Of Course!! The water on the moon floats on top of the oil....

    --
    My mother in law is worse than yours...and yes I will trade!
  26. bombing the moon? by abhisarda · · Score: 1

    what a luna(r)tic idea ;)

  27. oh no by dsanfte · · Score: 1

    Don't be a sentimental idiot. The moon is a big, sterile rock. Blowing up 1/10000000th of it won't have any negative effects whatsoever... meteors crash onto its surface regularly, you know.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  28. Lunar Hotels by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    When do the bookies start taking bets on which chain will be the first to expand to the moon? Hilton Storms? Best Western - Sea of Tranqulity?

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

  29. Nasa's Spin... by irontiki · · Score: 1

    ..."Saddam Hussein is alive and well in a bunker on the moon, Mr. President."

    Polar Night? It sounds like Nasa's been playing with the Military Operation Name Generator.

  30. Bombing the moon by infiniphonic · · Score: 1

    TAKE THAT MOON !

    --
    Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
  31. after that... by EaTiN+cOfFeE+bEaNs · · Score: 1

    They have to send in Hans Blix and his team of "weapons inspectors" to make sure that the Moonies don't have any WMD's.

    --
    No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
  32. When Things Fall Apart by oaf357 · · Score: 1

    Let's say these "bunker buster" probes are fired, hit the surface of the moon, and shatter. What then? Or what happens when they don't penetrate? Hell, they might penetrate so well that this entire experiment becomes like the lost sopository scene in "Trainspotting". Why are they looking for water up there any way. We all know it's nothing but cheese.

  33. cheese by DanThe1Man · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think they are really just trying to find a better source for cheese.

    Little know fact: The cheese mines on earth are dwindling

    1. Re:cheese by EugeneK · · Score: 1

      The moon is not made of green cheese. It is made of FREEDOM CHEESE!

    2. Re:cheese by kiley · · Score: 1

      because they don't want to go to France?

    3. Re:cheese by skaffen42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uhm, does this mean I have to change my bumper sticker to read "NO WAR FOR CHEESE"?

      --
      People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
  34. Nowhere to hide!!! by ahkbarr · · Score: 1

    Gotcha now, Saddam!! Thought you finally found a place to hide, well, you're in for a surprise now!!

    Bet it's hard to get good hookers on the moon, too! eros guide has no "moon" section yet, and cel phone reception SUCKS!

    Well Saddam, if you are up there, at least your days are numbered now, and you have no access to hookers.

    "Fine, I'll go build my own lunar lander! With blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack!" - Bender

    --
    Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, how I love it. - Gen. George Patton
  35. weight? by GlassUser · · Score: 1

    Aren't these bunker buster bombs a tad heavy?

  36. British support forthcoming by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Funny
    In a scheduled press conference, British Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce that he fully supports the US action against the moon, much to the behest of the Labor Party.

    Iraqi intelligence officials are reporting that the moon intends on defending itself against the crusaders to the end, and has already prepared the graves for thousands of imperialist satans.

    1. Re:British support forthcoming by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The Lunar Information Minister announces that no American vehicles have landed on the moon. Films of astonauts walking on the moon are an American illusion!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  37. Hrmmm by RightInTheNeck · · Score: 1

    What a coincidence...didnt China just say very recently they were going to the moon to see if they could mine resources? Dont bother setting up an embassy on the moon China....because oops that pesky metric system always throws us off.

  38. This is why... by warpath · · Score: 1

    ...they are so anti-US on the moon. I think this is also what will eventually cause the Martians to invade. I mean, after they see how we treat our own moon...

  39. I was going to say by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    "So *that's* where Baghdad Bob is hiding", but with all the other comments, it's sorta moot.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  40. Just what we need... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    This is just what we need as our first contact with the moon people!

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  41. woha by rabtech · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else having flashbacks to the book/movie "The Time Machine"?

    So who gets to live underground and who gets to be food?

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  42. Re:This just in from the Matrix by SunPin · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think you meant, "There is no spoon."

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  43. Pre-emptive lunar strike by RealErmine · · Score: 1

    I can see the presidential press conference now:

    "It is imperitive that we deal the Moonites a crippling blow in decisive fashion.
    I can see them up there. They wave tubes of toothpaste at me.
    They speak to me.
    No! My thoughts are my own!"

    --
    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    1. Re:Pre-emptive lunar strike by claygate · · Score: 1

      meatwad, we smoke as we shoot the finger.

    2. Re:Pre-emptive lunar strike by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm all in favor of anything that gets rid of moonies. Those guys in the orange robes are really annoying.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  44. In Other News... by limekiller4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    (Reuters) In other news, NASA unveiled plans today to hit Geraldo Rivera over the noggin with a ball-peen hammer to see if any brains could be detected in the ensuing plume. Critics claim that the odds of success are too small to warrant the effort.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  45. BWAHAHAHA! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    Posers!

    Look's like they've been pilfering evil plans from my filing cabinet again!

    "One MILLION dollars!"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  46. Bombing the Moon for Water by potaz · · Score: 1
    Do you need to read past the subject line to realize that this is a bad idea?

    BOMBING the MOON for WATER.

    I mean, holy crap, sure, sign me up! What's the worst that could happen, right?

  47. Poland is next? by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    So now they're bombing the Poles with bunker busters? Who knew THEY were in the axis of evil?

    1. Re:Poland is next? by akozakie · · Score: 1

      As a Pole I already feel threatened. And we ARE in the axis of Evil. The Washington/London/Warsaw one, that is. I better build myself a potato gun. You won't take me alive! Ha! Your Ambrams is no match for my mighty potato!

  48. Earth First! by Wee · · Score: 3, Funny
    We'll stripmine the moon later.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:Earth First! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      But think of the thousands of acres of pristine lunar rain forests!

    2. Re:Earth First! by Wee · · Score: 1
      But think of the thousands of acres of pristine lunar rain forests!

      If there's rain forest now, then it stands to reason that there was some amount of biomass in the past. Which has been buried and compacted and reduced to various complex organic molecules. With a lot of stored solar energy in them. That means... OIL!!!

      Screw that Alaska nonsense, we're going to the moon!

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  49. 911 by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

    We just need to strike back at the Moon for what they did to the World Trade Center on 9/11.

    That or attack those Moonenites for keying the Camaro on Aqua Team Hunger Force.

  50. Incentive. by DownTheLongRoad · · Score: 1


    Tell Bush the moon contains oil. The 101st would be landing there in a week.

    As for bombing it, Fsck the moon. I hope they blow that bitch into oblivion. It's always up there, looking down on me, trying to read my mind, telling me to do naughty things.

  51. friendly fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    lobbing ordnance at the moon is probably the only way the US won't be able to either kill its own people or its allies. although i have a sinking feeling that the rocket will burn up somewhere ofer England and waste some british troops.

  52. Re:This just in from the Matrix by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think you meant, "There is no spoon."

    do sporks exist ?

  53. I CAN SEE THE FUTURE by greymond · · Score: 1

    This is where we GO TO FAR and blow up our own moon and as it comes crashing down upon us I dive back into my time machine and go even farther into THE FUTURE

  54. Sounds like what Chairface Chippendale tried by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess we'll be seeing BUS carved into the moon's surface. No one will ever forget the President who tattooed the moon.

    1. Re:Sounds like what Chairface Chippendale tried by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I guess we'll be seeing BUS carved into the moon's surface. No one will ever forget the President who tattooed the moon.

      Later, there will be a moon reconstruction mission on which they use precision blasting to try and fill the holes, though they are only able to fix the 'B'.

      From then on, the moon will always say 'US'.

      Oh, and there will be a giant bite taken out of it, too. :)

    2. Re:Sounds like what Chairface Chippendale tried by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      How many nukes, of what size, would it take to spell "US" on the moon?

      Now, how many to spell "UN SUX"?

      Note: the letters must be visible from earth, during a full moon.

      Get yer slide rules out, ladies.

  55. I say do it. by LordofEntropy · · Score: 1

    I am tired of the evil-eye that the Man on the Moon has been giving me.

    --
    Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
  56. Re:Bang! Zoom! To the Moon! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Well, one would hope that the good folks at NASA have a little more scientific background than you did as a child trying to whack ants with a glass bottle.

    I suspect this is, as usual, a case of the news media not really understanding/grasping the whole story. They hear something about a "bunker buster missle" and the moon, and immediately say "NASA wants to blast the moon with missles!"

    As another Slashdot reader already posted, the plan appeared to actually be using a few of these missles as an easy way to implant monitoring devices beneath the moon's surface. (Sounds a lot cheaper and more effective than trying to fly some sort of drilling/mining equipment there to get the job done, don't you think?)

  57. Vetos Likely by hndrcks · · Score: 1

    Jupiter and Mars threaten to veto any resolution authorizing use of force by NASA to 'liberate' water.

    In response to the administration's claim that Mars was a 'traitor', other planets and satellites stated "we will wait to see the if the next comment also comes from Uranus, and then make our decision."

    --
    Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
    1. Re:Vetos Likely by Flarg! · · Score: 1

      Any comments from Uranus are bound to be pretty noxious.

      --

      I may be wrong, but I'm never uncertain.

    2. Re:Vetos Likely by hndrcks · · Score: 1

      ...and that is the essense of what the freedom... er, French refer to as a 'double-entendre'.

      --
      Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
  58. Attack the poles? by missing000 · · Score: 1

    They aren't going to attack the poles with "Bunker Buster" missles.

    Yeah, they already did that about 60 years ago.

  59. they are gunna blow up the moon! by slyguy420 · · Score: 1

    did anyone ever see "the Time Machine" ???
    in the scene where the guy goes to the future and sum dumbass decides to bomb the moon to make underground living quarters.. the result of which ended up destroying civilization?
    the moon is your friend!! who cares if there is water on it or not!

    --


    C:\earth\humans\del *.m0ronz
  60. Geeks in Space anybody? by Ballresin · · Score: 1

    Anybody remember the episode of geeks in space that talked about "Nuking the moon".

    Sounds like things are being predicted....

    This must mean that Y2K has yet to happen...
    Y2K+4?

    --
    I got nothin'.
  61. It won't explode.. stupid mission. by Beetjebrak · · Score: 1

    Explosions are rapid combustions. They require heat, fuel and oxygen. Our atmosphere has oxygen, the moon doesn't even have an atmosphere. With oxygen missing, the bomb will simply drop and lie still forever and the mission will fail."Houston, we made a boo boo"

    Whatever happened to the brilliant people who put the Pioneer probes into space? Now THOSE were feats of engineering!

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    1. Re:It won't explode.. stupid mission. by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      You realize that the explosives contain all of the combustable materials within them, don't you? I really hope you are trying to be funny. It would sadden me to think you were being serious.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    2. Re:It won't explode.. stupid mission. by Wee · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Please say that you're kidding. You honestly don't know how explosives work, do you?

      Or did you read and article and just happen to miss this part:

      "The probes are based on bunker-buster penetrators, but instead of explosives, would carry sophisticated scientific instruments hardened against the shock of striking the lunar surface."

      You might want to refrain from commenting on anyone else's stupidity or engineering skills.

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    3. Re:It won't explode.. stupid mission. by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Man, you are so 31337! Those stupid Ph.D.'s at NASA need to start consulting with you before they come up with these hare-brained ideas. You could clue them in on so much stuff that never occurred to them.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  62. oh no! by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

    didn't any of you see the movie of "the time machine" directed by H.G. Wells' grandson?

  63. what do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    go U.S.A! we're totally going to KICK THE MOON'S ASS!!!

    1. Re:what do you mean? by hazem · · Score: 5, Funny

      "By God, I think this is rather very unlikely. This is merely a prattle. The fact is that as soon as they land on the moon, we will besiege them and slaughter them. Wherever they go they will find themselves encircled." - Lunar Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, on NASA forces

    2. Re:what do you mean? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      go U.S.A! we're totally going to KICK THE MOON'S ASS!!!

      When we get done bombing that piece-of-crap spheroid it's gonna look like a figgin' moonscape!

    3. Re:what do you mean? by prmths · · Score: 1

      what're the aliens on the far side of the moon gonna think? how about the germans that live on that 1940's base?

      @_@

    4. Re:what do you mean? by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      go U.S.A! we're totally going to KICK THE MOON'S ASS!!!

      Yea, just use a GPS guided MOAB and...oh wait....

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:what do you mean? by mpe · · Score: 1

      what're the aliens on the far side of the moon gonna think? how about the germans that live on that 1940's base?

      The latter only had to worry about a Lancaster bomber up until now.

    6. Re:what do you mean? by redtail1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're against the bombing of the moon? What are you, unpatriotic?

    7. Re:what do you mean? by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      Us moonians do not recognize your western authority. I hereby summon all other moonians for moonhad, the lunar war.

      -Moonammed Saeed al-Sahaf

    8. Re:what do you mean? by wcbarksdale · · Score: 1

      It is well that we should, for the moon is a serious menace.

    9. Re:what do you mean? by Azureflare · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm.... I guess Tom Tomorrow was right.

    10. Re:what do you mean? by Azureflare · · Score: 1

      And I'm a retard for not reading all the comments. Oh well.

    11. Re:what do you mean? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      And they deserve it, too! They've only been mooning us for decades now. Taunting us, thinking they're safe from our reach because they're so many hundreds of thousands of miles away... We'll show them!

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    12. Re:what do you mean? by TGK · · Score: 1

      No, it's a harsh mistress.

      Someone had to say it.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  64. Time Machine by PSL · · Score: 1

    Does your mind not instantly flash to the scene from "The Time Machine" when the moon broke apart?

    --

    "Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
    1. Re:Time Machine by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, and then my stomach lurches to the left when thinking about the image of the moon drifting apart... as obviously the lunar construction project must've damaged the ancient Atlantean gravity engines that kept the ball of rock together in the first place.

      Blech. Movie science.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  65. Oh no. by Renraku · · Score: 1

    I saw this once in a movie. I think it blows the moon into big chunks which come down on the earth. Or was that a children's breakfast cereal commercial? Mmm. Marshmellow moon chunks.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Oh no. by I'm+A+Librarian · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Any pieces that head toward Earth will be burnt up by the atmosphere and the pieces that remain will be no bigger than than the head of a Chiuaua. And if I'm wrong may we all be smashed horribly from above somehow.

  66. Ravine Change by msheppard · · Score: 3, Funny

    We should probably promote this as a "Ravine Change."

    M@

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
  67. either that or... by bob+the+Martian · · Score: 1

    nuke the sun for chickens. We need more chickens.

    --
    "Where there's a pyramid, there's a pint of fish"
  68. made me think of this one: by bauernakke · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/13/tomo/s tory.jpg

    1. Re:made me think of this one: by Malicious · · Score: 1
      http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/13/tomo/s tory.jpg

      First, your link had a space in it.
      Second, People like to click once, not 3 times.

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  69. we like the moon by atarione · · Score: 1

    http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ LEAVE THE MOON ALONE. =/

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  70. Veto I say... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a Frenchman, I cannot support this unilateral decision to liberate water from the moon. We must give the inspectors more time so we can better cover up our involvement with the moon. In the mean time, we (in France) are boycotting lawn darts in protest because we will not glamourize lobbing missiles at the moon.

    However, should the Americans find water on the moon, we'll completely reverse our position.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Veto I say... by markomarko · · Score: 1

      And as an American, I think we ought to start calling "French Fries" "Freedom Fries" as an act of protest.

      Further, I propose a campaign of media fixation on French involvement with the moon in order to better cover up our own support of the moon. You with me Rumsfeld?...Rumsfeld?

    2. Re:Veto I say... by Tonytheloony · · Score: 1
      Did anyone not from the US find this 'joke' funny?

      On a side note: We must give the inspectors more time so we can better cover up our involvement with the moon

      Hypothetically, let's replace the moon with Iraq

      What involvement would that be? Just to remind you, there was an embargo on Iraq and the contracts passed were just that, contracts. Until the sanctions were lifted, and then what? Nothing done was illegal.

      Immoral I hear you say? Dealing with iraq is worse then dealing with saudi arabia, nigeria or any other undemocratic country? Pray tell me my oh so well informed (by non the less than the impartial Fox news and CNN!) american "ally".

      Unfortunately the US has such power it can make anything the truth today, and you through your bad joke are participating.

      --
      The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
    3. Re:Veto I say... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "What involvement would that be? Just to remind you, there was an embargo on Iraq and the contracts passed were just that, contracts. Until the sanctions were lifted, and then what? Nothing done was illegal. "

      Really?

      "Unfortunately the US has such power it can make anything the truth today, and you through your bad joke are participating. "

      Oh grow up. You wouldn't be upset if there wasn't some truth to what I was saying.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Veto I say... by varjag · · Score: 1

      However, should the Americans find water on the moon, we'll completely reverse our position.

      Oh they will find it. After all, it was America who shipped the water to the moon some decades ago.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    5. Re:Veto I say... by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 1

      You're from New Zealand and your calling France irrelevant???

      *shakes head*

  71. Re:What if moon goes out of orbit... by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1

    Could you just hear the NASA people say, "darn knew we forgot something..."

  72. For the love of God... by starsong · · Score: 1

    They're NOT GOING TO BOMB THE MOON!

    All the article said was that they're going to drop a few ground-penetrating probes from orbit... they just use tips engineered for "bunker-busting" bombs so the probe doesn't shatter into thousands of shiny pieces when it hits the surface.

    In other words, there are NO EXPLOSIVES, just scientific instruments.

    As for childlike, well, most adults will actually read the article before posting. :)

    1. Re:For the love of God... by andrewjjenkins · · Score: 1

      In fact, what the article says would have drastically less of an effect on the appearance of the moon than even a large above-ground probe that we never retrieved.

    2. Re:For the love of God... by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      "They're NOT GOING TO BOMB THE MOON!"

      "In other words, there are NO EXPLOSIVES, just scientific instruments."

      And the NASA infidels are nowhere near the moon! They claim they have the moon surrounded but in reality the moon surrounds them! They are commiting suicide in the hundreds along with their shovels.

      graspee

    3. Re:For the love of God... by kavau · · Score: 1
      most adults will actually read the article before posting.

      Err... hello, this is Slashdot!

  73. Measurement units by chiph · · Score: 1

    "The instruments were recently shock tested in the New Mexico desert by firing them at high speed into 2 metres (6 feet) of plywood, where they experienced 1200 G's of shock and worked perfectly afterwards."

    Is that 1200 Earth G's, or 1200 Lunar G's?

    And after their other fiasco, you would expect them to use metric units only.

    Chip H.

    1. Re:Measurement units by dickens · · Score: 1

      I was hoping to see pictures of the 2 meters of plywood.. That'd please the spud gun fans.

  74. In other news.. by FroMan · · Score: 1

    (Whitehouse - AP)
    Talks with the lunar polar ice caps have broken down. George Bush has added the lunar polar ice caps to the axis of evil. When questioned in a whitehouse news conference Ari Fleischer replied, "Well, with Saddam presumabley pushing up daisies we the state department decided that only two evil nations left, an axis it does not make. And it was either France or the lunar polar ice caps. Powell finally got George to declare for the moon."

    (Pyongyang - AP)
    Pyongyang has declared that war is on the horizon for the US and North Korea. Leader Kim Jong stated before crowd that the NKPA will destroy the imperialistic American pig dogs for the insult of being grouped with the lunar polar ice caps. "Screw the nuclear missile crap and extortion of cash from the US cause our economy is failing, this final insult means war. We will send more plane to harass those spy planes flying over the ocean we don't control!"

    (Iran - AP)
    No word from Iran today, presumabley because they are too busy beating their women and oppressing their people.

    --
    Norris/Palin 2012
    Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  75. Not to be excessively picky but� by HalfStarted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just how exactly do you expect a Massive Ordnance Air Blast to work without the air? For those that need to be reminded... read

    --


    Have you thought for yourself today?
    1. Re:Not to be excessively picky but� by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up... I was about to google for this. I consider myself to be an amateur expert on military tech, but that acronym had me scratching my head...

      "MOAB... Mother Of All Bombs...?"

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
  76. Mr. Show by underwhelm · · Score: 5, Funny

    David: We have the technology; The time is now; science can wait no longer; the children are our future. America can, should, must and will blow up the moon.

    Bob: Yeah. And we'll be doing it during a full moon so we make sure we get it all.

    --

    I don't need large brains to have a good time.

  77. Re:The Time Machine? by RatBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad they screwed that all up. The moon is drifting away from the Earth and there is nothing we can ever do about it. Ever.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  78. Do we really need more? by techstar25 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isn't earth like 3/4 water already? We have plenty. Why do we need to mess with the moon?

    1. Re:Do we really need more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too bad that over 90% of that water is (almost) completely useless salt water.

      Fresh water isn't as abundant as you'd like to think.

      Plus, if water is found on the moon, it would be easier to build an operate a moon base. (hauling water in space is DAMN expensive)

  79. I Did! (Re:Who else here.. ) by andrewjjenkins · · Score: 1

    Most Definitely!!!

    And I'm only 18.

  80. Thats no moon by Gloume · · Score: 1

    its...uhhhh...ummmm....

  81. Flashback... by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    Is it me or does this story make you want to play Scorched Earth?

  82. I guess Rumsfeld wasn't kidding... by kisielk · · Score: 1

    when he said the US was going to act against the moon.

  83. Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did anyone actually read the friggin article? They don't want to bomb the moon. The bombs will not be filled with explosives. They will be filled with scientific equipment to detect water. They're just going to drop them into crevices.

  84. Re:Damn� by HalfStarted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok... string me up for not reading my own linked article through... its not the best description... an air blast weapon gets most of it's explosive power by dispersing a fine mist of a highly reactive agent over a large area using the oxygen in the surrounding atmosphere as the oxidant. Thus... no air... no boom, in all reality I would bet that most if not all conventional explosives would fail to detonate in space due to the lack of atmospherically supplied oxygen... any demolitions experts here that can answer this?

    --


    Have you thought for yourself today?
  85. Re:hmm yet ANOTHER reason you're wrong by talkingcat · · Score: 1

    Not to pile on or anything, but dust settles very quickly on the moon because, as you may have heard, there's NO ATMOSPHERE there.

  86. Re:Yes! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    You're absolutely right! It doesn't instantly flash to the scene from "The Time Machine" when the moon broke apart!

    Hitting the moon with a bunker buster is not dissimilar in scale to hitting the Earth with a low-yeild nuclear device. And we've done that bunches.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  87. liberation by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1
    Now the BBC is reporting a new proposal to attack the lunar poles with "Bunker Buster" missiles to liberate a detectable amount of water.

    Ah yes, mankinds neverending quest for places to "liberate" goes on.

  88. Re:Been there, done that! Got the radioactive t-sh by benna · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeah they needed it to have an excuse for a large military. Lucky for them though 9/11 came and so they had an excuse to start a new war, "on teror". This is just the cold war of the new age. Another excuse for a large military.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  89. Shock and Awe by jaywhy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see how NASA plan came into effect, it was a simple meeting between George Tenet(CIA Director) and Donald Rumsfeld.

    Rumsfeld: Tenet where is Osama Bin Laden?
    Tenet: I have no clue! Maybe he's on the Moon? Hah.
    Rumsfeld: Really?

    Later that night...

    Rumsfeld: Mr. President, I know where Osama Bin Laden is.
    Bush: Where?
    Rumsfeld: On the Moon!
    Bush: BOMB THEM!!!

  90. gads, the youth...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...of today....all the references are to the crappy "Time Machine" remake.....

    What about "Space:1999" ???!!!

  91. Re:This just in from the Iraqi Information Ministr by benna · · Score: 1

    NO! It should become a the new, "in soviet russia" joke.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  92. Meanwhile... by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

    ...the French say they will not support such a project. Rather, the UN should send in inspectors to determine if water is on the moon.

    (insert sig here)

  93. will the bombs hit the moon? by wannasleep · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can already see the headlines... Bombs headed for the moon fell on the Red Sea, Turkey, Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Iran. And then the Pentagon denis, FOX doesn't report it all the rest of the World laughs about it and a week later, after showing a successfull attemp of bombing the moon, the Pentagon admits that some bombs fell slightly off-target (Sun, Mars, Alpha Centauri....)

  94. but whose part of the moon? by benfoldsfan · · Score: 1

    are they bombing the American or the Soviet part of the moon?

  95. Standard? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

    Perhaps NASA should make some type of explosive standard on future probes in case a similar feat is desired. Of course there is the weight issue.

    Perhaps just a container of (compressed) gas would be sufficient to cause quite a bit of disturbance?

    (insert sig here)

  96. The Lunar Information Minister by phrenq · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Lunar Information Minister denies that the Moon posesses water, and was quoted as having said, "There are no Earthling infidels on the Moon. Never! We welcome them with cheese and shoes!"

  97. "Look, dear by Mu*puppy · · Score: 1

    -you can see almost all of the moon's 'BUSH' tonight..."

    --
    There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
  98. alludium Q-36 explosive space modulator by redherring22 · · Score: 1

    why does this conjure up images of bugs bunny hanging from a tip of a crescent moon with marvin the martian and his dog clinging to each other's legs?

    "GET ME OUTTA HERE!"

  99. What I really want to know is ... by Greedo · · Score: 1

    What will they name the resulting crater?

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    1. Re:What I really want to know is ... by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      The Sea Of Stupidity

  100. Jeez... by DumbWhiteGuy777 · · Score: 1

    "Y'all, I've got an anouncement. I have decided to hold the moon hostage for..."

    *Dramatic Pause*

    "ONE MILLION DOLLARS."

    "Um, Mr. Bush..."
    "Not now Carl, can't you see I'm 'bout to rule the world?"
    "..."
    "That's right Carl, don't mess wit' Texas"

  101. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    When Adam Selene starts throwing grain barges at
    us in retaliation, just don't stand at ground zero.

  102. Sigh... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1
    Bin Laden: Are we safe?

    Sadaam: Nobody find us here. Not even my look-alikes.

    Bin Laden: What about Monica?

    Sadaam: No Monica, either... err... wait, what's that sound...

    Bin Laden: Oh no... it's not.... KABOOOMMM!!

  103. Re:Damn? by mfrank · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most would be able to go off in a vacuum. There's what, about 250 grams of O2 in a cubic meter of air? That's not enough for solid explosives to use.

    What I think the parent was saying, though, is the MOAB would explode, but there wouldn't be any way for the shock wave to propagate. It would just be a spray of high-velocity chemical by-products of the explosion. For a MOAB, though, that would still be nasty. I wouldn't want to be 10 meters away from that in a spacesuit, but you could be a LOT closer than with a similar explosion in an atmosphere.

  104. Hands Off! by DASHSL0T · · Score: 1
    Nobody touches the moon. The moon rocks.

    Don't believe me about how great the moon is? Find out for yourself!

    --
    Freedom Is Universal
    Linux-Universe
  105. While you're up there.... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Maybe you could write CHAIRFACE on the moon's surface...

  106. Moon Under Attack by emptybody · · Score: 1

    Headlines on Moonie newspapers will call the moon to arms as they fight the invaders from earth!! Or, worse, we will crack the moon into two halves and send parts crashing down onto us!!!

    --
    comment directly in my journal
  107. Re:The Time Machine? by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    Don't be so pessemistic.

    Give us another few thousand years to come up with a plan before writing off the idea.

    Typical next-quarter myopic American!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  108. And in related news... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    ...Ford Company is now using Hydrogen explosives technology to power up its new line of hybrid cars.

  109. The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    1. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Although I'm certain that you're being sarcastic, I do believe that Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon in the late 1800's (hell, he died in 1905, I believe), hence there *was* reference to the moon prior to 1950. (Not to mention Lunar calendars dating back centuries, or even the word 'luna' itself dating back to the days of ancient Rome...)

      *Needless post, feel free to mod down ^^;;*

    2. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      1. "Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon in the late 1800's"
      2. "hence there *was* reference to the moon prior to 1950"
      3. So, you are citing a SCIENCE FICTION novel as proof of the existance of this "MOON"?
        I just want to make sure I'm clear about that.
        I think I need to go lay down now...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by grayantimatter · · Score: 1

      How does something that inane get marked as 'FUNNY'.

      Funny should make me laugh, not roll my eyes...

    4. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Science fiction is a form of literature, and the post "claimed" that there was no reference to the moon *even in literature*, hence my citation is valid for the point made.

    5. Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you at least give credit where it's due? Is this all it takes to get some karma -- rip off someone else's humor?

      (Yeah, I'm being a spoil sport -- my Tomcat server is screwed up after an "upgrade" and I'm feelin' a bit pissy right now.)

      Anyway, this has been on slashdot a dozen times, and it's even out on the web:

      http://www.spiralx.co.uk/texts/troll1.html
      http ://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMoon
      http://smac k.trouble-free.net/pipermail/hopelist_w earehope.com/2002-September/000038.html

      Come on, dude, get some coffee and make up your own stuff....

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  110. hard-landing by jmarkantes · · Score: 2, Funny
    "...sample the polar ice with three hard-landing probes"

    Umm.. that's one way of putting it. Could be a handy phrase though in the future.

    "The server didn't crash, it just hard-landed."

    Jason

  111. Re:Explosions in Space? by BitHerder · · Score: 1

    Daisy Cutters do. Bunker Busters don't. IIRC, they rely on a dense core and a delayed detonation in order to penetrate the surface and explode. Other than that, they are regular ordinance.

  112. Re:This just in from the Iraqi Information Ministr by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > There is no moon. There never was a moon. We are winning the war. The moon is painted on the sky by evil Americans to confuse us. There is no moon.

    They are not within 200,000 miles of the moon!

    Well, he got one right!

  113. Would you miss it? by Fastball · · Score: 1

    Well? Would you?

  114. Re:Been there, done that! Got the radioactive t-sh by Okonomiyaki · · Score: 1

    Every living thing is a whore, the only difference is what each is willing to whore itself for. What makes one whore better than another?

  115. Re:This just in from the Iraqi Information Ministr by Antipodal+Melancholy · · Score: 1

    Damnit, you weren't supposed to tell!!!!!! Now everyone knows! Great... just great...

  116. who cares about ice and water or hydrogen by asscroft · · Score: 1

    what we all really want to see is the flag pole and the lunar lander or whatever else was supposedly left behind by the astronauts that supposedly walked on the moon.

    that would shut up those conspiracy theorists once and for all.

    If it exists...bwoo hoo haa ha ha ha

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  117. A show of hands.. by gblues · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many people read the writeup and saw the lame Iraq jokes coming a mile away?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    Nathan

    1. Re:A show of hands.. by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      How many people read the writeup and saw the lame Iraq jokes coming a mile away?

      The jokes are not a mile away - they were repelled at the border by the Republican Guard. Do not believe the lies of the zionists!



      (Hear that flushing sound? It's karma going down the drain...)

  118. Alright for the moon... by grasshoppah · · Score: 1

    .. but what about other planets (don't lecture me about the moon not being a planet, i'm making a joke)?? We find a new planet... bomb the hell out of it looking for water, only to later to find out we've dropped a big one on the grand poobah of a far superior species. Not only do we piss off the guys with big heads and the ability to crush us with a thought but we look damn foolish to all other observers in the universe. The more i think about it the more fun this sounds like!

  119. two words: by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Funny

    Chairface Chippendale.

  120. Uh-oh by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    How long before TMA-1 decides we have developed a little too well for its tastes, and sets out to degrade us a bit?

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  121. Uh Oh.. by mondainx · · Score: 1

    Didnt any of these scientists see the movie Time Machine (the latest one 2000ish)?? They messed with the moon and caused it to breakup, thereby causing a cataclysm on the earth.. then came the morlocks... :(

    --

    The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
  122. Thundarr the Barbarian by stinkwinkerton · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that if you do something like this that you are going to end up with a moon cracked in half, living in a post-apocolyptic world full of evil sorcerers, and a variety of other evil dudes and moving hungry flowers and mutants and all that jazz. Then, where will we be? I know where. Looking for Thundarr, Ookla and Ariel to pull our asses out of the fire, that's where!

    Makes looking for water on the moon kind of trivial, doesn't it?

    --
    "Look! There! Evil, pure and simple from the Eighth Dimension!" --Buckaroo Banzai
  123. We Like The Moon by dalleboy · · Score: 1

    Don't touch it, because We Like The Moon!

  124. lunar embassy by sethaw · · Score: 1

    I just wonder what the Lunar embassy has to say in all this. :)

  125. Just Grate! by ConsoleDeamon · · Score: 1

    Now thay gonna blow my lunar base plans sky high!

  126. SPACE 1999 by RobertKozak · · Score: 1

    Aren't they behind schedule? I thought they were supposed to do this on Sept 13, 1999.

    --
    Bet this .sig looks familiar.
    1. Re:SPACE 1999 by malf-uk · · Score: 1

      Isn't everything?

      Don't complain, at least it gives us time to warn the crew of Moonbase Alpha (cmdr.j.koenig@moonbasealpha.lun) to get some much more contemporary clothing shipped to them first this time.

      --
      R Tape loading error, 0:1
  127. Good Idea. Lets hope Dahak doesn't get annoyed by EvilBastard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cause he'd get really annoyed at the decendants of the Mutineers trying to poke him with a pin to see if there's anything good inside

  128. Ok Seriously ever see The new Time Machine by TaKiDo.com · · Score: 1

    In the Orsen Wells movie, they detonate a small nuclear weapon on the moon. This leads to a destabilization of the earth's orbit. This of course sends the moon crashing to the earth. That scared the hell out of me, hopefully no one will ever blast the moon with anything too powerful. Go Hope!

  129. WWMD (what would Marvin do?) by BitHerder · · Score: 1

    But what about the kaboom? There was supposed to be a moon-shattering kaboom!

  130. Re:Damn� by The+Dobber · · Score: 1


    The MOAB is not a Fuel-Air explosive, but is more akin to an overgrown fertilizer/diesel fuel bomb (referred to as I recall a slurry) such as utilized by Tim McVay.

    Most explosives work fine in space (think about it, they work underwater, now don't they).

  131. Bomb Mars to search for life by zejackal · · Score: 1

    I think we should also look into bombing Mars to search for life. If there is simple life to find, we could look for the residue of vaporized organic matter in the plumes, and if there is advanced life hiding below the surface of Mars we only have to wait for the obvious reply... war machines descending on New Jersey.

  132. Re:WTF by prmths · · Score: 1

    jezus fsckin christ
    not that fscking goatse.cx shit again...
    heh
    THIS IS A WARNING! DO NOT LOOK AT THE PARENT LINK!!

  133. Good News, Bad News by t0ny · · Score: 1

    The good news, is we have water! The bad news... its radioactive.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  134. Pre 50's Moon appearances. by uberdave · · Score: 1
    "What is it you want, Mary? What do you want? You-you want the moon? Just say the word and I'll throw a lasso around it and pull it down. Hey, that's a pretty good idea. I'll give you the moon...Well, then you could swallow it. And it'll all dissolve, see. And the moon beams that shoot out of your fingers and your toes and the ends of your hair...Am I talking too much?"
    - George Bailey (James Stewart), It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
    1. Re:Pre 50's Moon appearances. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Egad, I watch too many movies. I knew exactly where that reference came from, and from whom, before I'd read a sentence or two - simply due to the sentence structure. And I've never fully seen It's A Wonderful Life.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  135. The Most Important Improvement! by dajalas · · Score: 1

    As a Texan, I insist you get Slim's statement correct: It is "Yahoo! Yahoo-oo"

    "Whoo hoo" is something different! Grr! Snarl!

    BTW, the symbolism using the multi-megaton penis is probably the best ever put on film, IMHO.

  136. This smells fishy....sounds like a cover up to me by mikey_98058 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone think this is a secret test project by the government to test the feasibility of some type of Star Wars program or missile program from space? I wonder...

  137. Isn't this how the Morlock got started by merlyn · · Score: 1
    ... in the latest Time Machine movie?

    Do we really need life imitating art here?

  138. moon report by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

    Moon information minister (Moommed Samoon al-Sahafoon) would ofcourse deny any enemy forces approaching their airspace and make comments like
    "My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"; "Be assured. Moondad is safe, protected"

  139. Re:Where's Jon Katz? by AnimeFreak · · Score: 1

    He was quietly asked to leave by Mr. Malda.

  140. There's oil on the moon? by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Water. Sure.

    It's about the oil.

  141. Re:This smells fishy....sounds like a cover up to by praksys · · Score: 3, Funny

    Much more likely to be an attempt to destroy evidence of alien contact before the Chinese get there.

  142. Re:Damn� by Mikeytsi · · Score: 1

    And what is water made out of again?

    --
    I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
  143. Lunar Bombing by kwoodie · · Score: 1

    I am sure they are hiding Osama, wait I see him through my teloscope he he he

  144. Hey! Your sig ... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Curiously appropriate, if you mean the current CEO of the USA ...

    A fool and his money are soon venture capital.

    But wait! That's my taxes turning into venture capital?

  145. In other news... by mrkurt · · Score: 1

    Black hats have announced that a Scud missle is to be dropped on Micro$oft's Redmond headquarters, to see if they can detect the cha-ching of hard currency on the surface.

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  146. Re:The Time Machine? by uberdave · · Score: 1

    Exactly! The British managed to send it out of the solar system. Surely the Americans can coax it into a closer orbit.

  147. Propellant is the issue here by kavau · · Score: 1
    The problem here is actually not of having an energy source, but of having a supply of an utilizeable propellant on the moon. As everybody here certainly knows, water is not a source of energy. In order to break water into Oxygen and Hydrogen you have to invest the same amount of energy that you will get back later when they recombine. That energy could conceivably come from solar cells (since the weather's always sunny up there), or maybe from a nuclear reactor on the moon.

    On the other hand, due to Newton's third law, the only way of accelerating a spacecraft is by propelling a certain amount of mass in the opposite direction. This is the real big problem of space travel, since energy could also conceivably be generated by an on-board nuclear reactor (at least in principle; I'm sure the safety issues would be overwhelming).

    So water has the huge advantage of being an energy storage medium (decomposed into Hydrogen and Oxygen, that is) which at the same time functions as a propellant! It certainly doesn't get much more convenient than that...

  148. Re:Damn� by The+Dobber · · Score: 1

    An explosion does not need oxygene. An explosion is the violent reaction of one or more compounds to a stimuli, be it another compound, the presence of water or perhaps a shock.

  149. Tsk tsk by Tomble · · Score: 3, Funny
    we're going to KICK THE MOON'S ASS!!!
    Shame on you, you really shouldn't be reducing Operation Lunar Freedom to such jingoistic terms.
    --
    Be careful! New moon tonight.
  150. bomb mars to find martians by l29sjdh · · Score: 1

    get real, see matrix 4 dot net for the real truth. Aliens do not exist. BTW: if you bomb the moon, your going to wreck the tides.

  151. Re:Incentive. - THIS reads your mind. by l29sjdh · · Score: 1

    www.matrix4.net

  152. My Protest sign by hmccabe · · Score: 1

    NO WAR FOR WATER!

  153. Think of the kittens by FlukeMeister · · Score: 1

    No really, it's a little known fact that the moon is a kitten's favourite thing.

    Proof? Here's all the proof you need.

  154. We sure do like to bomb things by scourfish · · Score: 1

    So, are we putting this under the same initiative as bombing the middle east for oil?

  155. This isn't the first time by jonathonc · · Score: 1


    World War II Bomber Found on Moon. I read it on the Internet so it must be true.

  156. Awesome! by asdfx · · Score: 1

    There's not enough space left on earth to destroy, let's be first to destroy the moon! (before the Chinese have a change to land, no less!)

  157. Just out from the Oval Office by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

    You are either with us or against us. We will smoke them out of their holes. No safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Iraq^H^H^H^H Syria^H^H^H^H^H THE MOON.

  158. Moonshine? by donutz · · Score: 1

    Aww man, I thought you were talking about some home-made liquor....

  159. Re:Been there, done that! Got the radioactive t-sh by benna · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying our military will get bigger. It will allow us to keep our current military size from the cold war. Otherwise their would be major international pressure for US to disarm.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  160. Re: Time Machine similarities? by mr_dejao · · Score: 1

    Anyone else imagining a scene similar to the one in the time machine where the moon was distroyed/sent out of orbit due to mining operations gone wrong?

    I better start putting together the machine now...should have lots of time since I've finished creating my 3 1/2" floppy Enterprise ;)

  161. Re:The Time Machine? by TummyX · · Score: 1

    But the explosion fucked up the orbit.

  162. Why not more traditional methods? by Morky · · Score: 1

    I think dowsing the moon for water may prove more effective. That is, if the cheese doesn't produce to much interference.

  163. SECRET Internal NASA MEMO!!! by zenst · · Score: 1

    TO: NAS7A.all_excluding_family_and_friends.list
    CC: family_and_friends.list
    SUBJECT: Proposed visit to distant planets with cost considerations

    Due to budget rescheduling and the war we currently find ourselves limited into what we may invest into reaching far and distant planets. We also not that our colleagues in the military have a surplus of intergalactic weapons which shall we say due a slight oversight in military spending on weapons due to the panic and the backorder demands from the manufacturers we find ourselves in a position to pick up some cheap err rockets. We could use these `rockets` to perhaps bring the planets closer to se so as to save on fuel. perhaps in the chance extracts a few chunks off in the process so they land in the desert and we can then say we went there as well ;o). No as we `know` exactly what the moon is made of as we have been there several times `honest guv` looks at the prerty rocks; we could test this new rocket approach out on the moon given we already have been there and know everything about its and say do it in the guise of say research into water on the moon for possible future missions. Coz any fool knows that it would be cheaper just to drop a few bottles of Evian onto the surface but were talking to the public here and the rest are either on our side or on the internet so they don't count ;). Ok so that's the plan we'll do a mission to the moon to test out to see if there is any water and use a heavily modified `rocket` to deliver the payload and basically blast the crap of the crust of the moon and see what pops up. Sure that's enough detail for the press, we'll but the marketing boys onto it ; they know how to jazz things up a bit. Hell they should we poached them from CNN.

  164. Haliburton by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

    Naaa, when we're done, we'll be reading the word Haliburton every night for the rest of our lives...

  165. this is being insensitive... by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered how the man in the moon feels about this? Maybe he uses that water for drinking.

  166. I get it... by manifestcommunisto · · Score: 1

    First it was oil, now it's water. I hope they never make cars that run on air...

    1. Re:I get it... by o'reor · · Score: 1
      Well of course ! Air is (so far) about the last public resource that has not been privatized yet. And sheeesh, what a market ! Just imagine :

      (Bangs at the door)
      Lady (opening) : - Yes ?
      Employee : - Hello, Ma'am. We're from the FooBar Air Company. Our company has bribed your governor into selling the air of this state to F.A.C. for distribution. You have to subscribe for our service. We have all the air-o-meters needed for you, your family, your pets, your cars and your fireplace.
      Lady : -Uh, well...
      Employee : - Please sign here.
      Lady : - OK. Here you are... Hey, what are you dommflfff muflmufl !...
      Employee (fitting a mask with an air-meter on the lady's face) - Sorry Ma'am, these are our orders : customers must use our air-o-meter as soon as their subscription starts.

      (A few months later)

      Employee : Hello Ma'am, we noticed that you have not paid for your subscription last month. We have to suspend it until you have paid the bill. (Goes around the house and turns knobs off everywhere on every mask and air-o-meter, with a special key. People collapse to the floor after suffocating for a while. Before leaving, he tells them :) Be assured that we will resume our service as soon as we have received the payment. Do not hesitate to call us for any details. Bye-bye !
      Employee (to his fellow) : See, Jim, this is what I like in this job : be strict on the rules, but keep the customer satified.

      Aaah, the joys of free market applied to public utilities...

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  167. Obligatory Looney Toons reference by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    Where's the "kaboom?" There was supposed to be a moon-shattering "kaboom!"

  168. Re:Moonboom by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

    totally knock the moon off it's orbit? They're dropping a couple hundred pounds of dead weight (no explosives) into the surface, your fat ass getting out of bed in the morning affects the earth's orbit more than this will affect the moon's.

  169. My Next Computer?? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    "The instruments were recently shock tested in the New Mexico desert by firing them at high speed into 2 metres (6 feet) of plywood, where they experienced 1200 G's of shock and worked perfectly afterwards."

    Now that's the kind of laptop I'm looking for.

  170. While they're at it... (was Re:hmm) by Krokus · · Score: 1

    Maybe they could set up a wireless access point while they're at it. You know, for future warchalkernauts.

  171. This will never work by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    That's no moon! It's a space station!

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  172. Moonenites by Hodr · · Score: 1

    Lob a rocket at us and we'll bend your primitive president over and spank his ass with all three of your puny dimensions.

    Don't question it!

  173. Re:Damn� by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm not a demolitions expert, but I do have Google at my disposal.

    Course Note 01 This paper is for homework purposes only OXYGEN BALANCE (OB) IN EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS Faisal G. Hashem August 12, 2001 Heat of Formation The general formula for explosives is CxHyNwOz. Explosive reactions are oxidation reactions. More generally, the oxidizer does not have to be oxygen; it can be an oxidizing salt such as Nitrate or Perchlorate.

    Etc. (http://www.mines.edu/Academic/mining/csm_isee/csm _ee_course_notes/cn_mngn498s01_01.htm)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  174. Saddam made it to the moon? by geekee · · Score: 1

    Wow! The lengths he won't go to to avoid capture, and the lengths the US won't go to to get rid of this guy. Even sending bunker busters to the moon.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  175. I hate to tell you this... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    That's no moon!

  176. No cause for concern on the lunar street by conradp · · Score: 1

    Calm down, people. There is no plan for long-term occupation of the moon, and we have no aim to take the moon's water. After we liberate the water, we will put in place a system that allows the water to flow where it wants to flow instead of where some dictatorial rock wants it to flow. Then we will withdraw.

    --
    "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
  177. Moon attacks are false! by camusflage · · Score: 1

    They're lying about bombing the moon. They'll just put a couple of cameras in Syria, bomb them, and SAY it was the moon that we bombed. I thought everyone knew that the moon landing was fake.

    I only wish I could screen shot this right now, as my ad on this page is about the moon landing hoax, and how I can buy the video...

    --
    The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
  178. NOW I get it!!! by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    The moon must be where Iraq hid there "Weapons of mass Destruction"

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  179. As if we haven't disturbed the earth enough by Eminor · · Score: 1

    Destroying nature where no man has destoyed nature before.

  180. We have justification... by Retired+Replicant · · Score: 1

    Clearly Saddam Hussein is hiding his WMD operations on the moon. Just look at all that fine white dust all over the place...it's a sure sign of anthrax production.

  181. yeah so.. by serenarae · · Score: 1

    why are we crashing shit into the moon... water??? dont we have enough of that here? is there some hidden initiative here i'm not seeing.

    --
    see sig. see sig run. run sig run.
  182. Re:I think the Dicksie chicks... by Aexia · · Score: 1

    >>No. They're so f'ing stupid, they think their opinion is important. Just because they sell records.

    Their opinion is just as important as your's, mine or the President.

    If you don't like freedom of speech, move to a country that doesn't tolerate it like China and stop pretending to be an American.

  183. Mars Surveyor? by Fastlane · · Score: 1

    I can see little Marvin the Martian Now...."Where's the Kaboom, there was supposed to be a Kaboom!"

  184. The REAL mission by soramimicake · · Score: 1

    They would like you to think they're trying to find water, but their real mission is to breach that barrier to the monolith they found 2 years ago.

  185. Bombing the moon for water... by bolind · · Score: 1

    ...a dramaic improvement over bombing Iraq for oil...

  186. No Blood for Water by Charcharodon · · Score: 2, Funny
    Not in my name....yada yada yada

    wa wa wa wa....give the inspections a chance.

    Bombing the moon for water is nothing more than thinly veiled American aggression

    I'm sure with a LPS (lunar position system), a seeing eye dog, and a big freaking arrow saying the moon is here, the UN would finally have the ability to find their own ass with both hands.

    Instead of wasting perfectly good bunker busters that could be put to better use dropping soap on the French why not launch the Hollywood crowd into the moon. I'm sure their thick skulls could crack it wide open. At the very least it would help with global warming as the amount of hot air being created would drop nearly 40% annually.

    1. Re:No Blood for Water by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      ...but I though global warming was a eurotrash conspiracy? At least get your propoganda straight, comrade.

      PS: If you're still feeling gung-ho, USA-Number 1 then take a look at this and let me know what you think.

    2. Re:No Blood for Water by i+chose+quality · · Score: 1
      If you're still feeling gung-ho, USA-Number 1 then take a look at this [informatio...house.info] and let me know what you think.
      nice link. but one part of the text absolutely made my day... ROFL

      In September 1996, a North Korean submarine got stranded at Kangrung, South Korea, and its crew abandoned the ship. Eleven of the crew committed suicide and the rest fought to the last man except one who was captured. In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers.

      so a typical fighting scene could be like:
      u.s.-soldier: "sir! we just captured a north korean submarine with our elite fishing nets! what shall we do with them?"
      u.s.-captain: "this is an urgent case. maybe they will send some divers and plant mines... maybe they'll launch some kind of missile at us... maybe they will ... oh wait!" *remembers* "let's listen to the microphones, boy!"

      *cranking up volume of underwater microphones*
      *bubbling water*
      *faint korean shouting*
      *faint korean discussion*
      *silence*
      *faint thump*
      *24 faint thumps in short intervalls*

      u.s.-captain: "phew, that was close."
      u.s.-captain (to himself): "tough fellas, these koreans, my oh my..." ;)
      --
      the computer is online
      i am not at it
      what a waste of ressources
  187. Biblical moon references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Taken from the King James Version, so you can't even play the "modern devil-inspired translations" card: references to the moon in the KJV.

    1. Re:Biblical moon references by hesiod · · Score: 1

      What if the liberals also created that book to ensnare the hard-working conservatives?

      So, since I am at work and have nothing better to do, I'll argue against posts that I agree with :)

      With reference to that link:
      > and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars
      What are these eleven stars? Are there supposed to be 11 total, or just 11 important ones. Maybe when the liberals made the moon they also put all those little dots of light up to make it more believable.

      >when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them
      Isn't worshipping anything other than God( 0, God) supposed to be "bad"/"evil" whatever? So are sun-worshippers okay with Judeo-Christians (sury f I mispealt "Judeo"), as long as they believe in God too?

      > And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded
      And then, wouldn't that be in direct opposition to the previous? Or did I misread one of the two?

      >and for the precious things put forth by the moon
      Only thing I can think of is the tides, but would they know that back then?

      I'll stop there, since no one will probably even read this far. I post for my own amusement.

    2. Re:Biblical moon references by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > God( 0, God)

      There should be a a copyright symbol after the opening parentheses. *sigh* I can't even pull off a lame contextual joke well.

  188. The leftovers from Iraq by xtord · · Score: 1

    So that's what they're going to do with the left overs from Iraq that never got the chance...

    Good thinking, or perhaps we should save them for North Korea or Syria.. or what the hell bomb
    'em all.

  189. i just hope ... by hany · · Score: 1

    I just hope moonlings wont consider this as a declaration of war by earthlings. :)

    --
    hany
  190. Bunker busting missiles you say? by Fizzl · · Score: 1
  191. 16 Martians killed in Friendly Fire Incident by flumps · · Score: 1

    The United States is to send a team of military experts to Mars to investigate how a US Space shuttle accidentally bombed the village of EeEBok, apparently killing and wounding a large number of civilians.

    The Pentagon said the 15-strong group will fly there to begin its mission within the next 48 hours.

    Martian officials say 48 civilians died and 117 people were wounded in the strikes.

    "It seems", a Whitehouse spokewoman said in an interview last night, " that once again NASA seems to have confused Metres with Millimetres. The bomb was actually supposed to be targeting the south pole of the lunar surface... Those who are responsible will be sacked."


    --
    "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
  192. Seen 'The Time Machine'? by DiSCoCoW · · Score: 1

    Remake of Wells original starring Guy Pearce. During his time travels he stops off in 2040 or somewhere and theyre planning to detonate parts of the moon to create caverns for 'Lunar Living' A quick nip thru time later and the city is being evacuated cos the moon is falling to bits, eventually creating another 'big bang' only sci fi but hey worth mentioning

  193. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!! by varjag · · Score: 1

    Boycott all French! Zap Sadda.. oh.. sorry.

    --
    Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  194. Mr Show? by tgburrin · · Score: 1

    Does anybody remember Mr. Show w/ Bob and Dave? I think we need a monkey on this project now. Maybe we could borrow a monkey from the current administration (certainly enough in the cabinet).

  195. Wouldn't this be slightly....illegal by denissmith · · Score: 1

    I am under the impression that the US is signatory to a treaty that bans the militarization of space. Whilst the US has heretofore broken every treaty it has signed, it does amaze me that we would trivialise the breaking of solumn obligations by such an obvious ruse.

    --
    I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
  196. This just in..... by G.I.+Suck · · Score: 1

    Humans causes their own extinction. While attempting to find water on a moon in orbit of planet earth, a group of scientist known as NASA, has bombed the moon with bunker buster missiles, which knocked the moon out of its orbit and collided with earth. One NASA official made a statement saying "We were just trying to see if our theory about ice on the moon was true. We didn't think bombing our own moon would knock the moon out of its orbit!"

  197. Re:Damn� by hesiod · · Score: 1

    Okay, this is redundant, since a few others have basically pointed out the same thing, but they were all very rude about it, so I'll be "The Nice Guy" (tm).

    Yes, there is oxygen in water as well as hydrogen. The problem is this: Oxygen-based explosions (glorified phrase for "lots of fire real fast") use the oxygen as a fuel for fire. Water is basically the byproduct of burnt (oxygenized) hydrogen. Since the oxygen was already used as fuel to create the water, it cannot be extracted from the hydrogen & used as a fuel on the fly like you are suggesting.

    I will add that I am a computer geek, not a chemical engineer, so my explanation is probably full of technical inaccuracies, but it gets the point across.

  198. Re:Colt 45 and .38 Special huh? by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > I would hope at least some tree hugging liberal could tell the difference between them at a 1 meter resolution in the moonlight.

    I'm a god-hating conservative (AKA libertarian) -- and I support gun ownership rights -- but I couldn't tell the difference from a foot away in full sunlight. Unless, of course, it was engraved into the gun.

  199. What happened last time? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Hey didn't Iraq used to have the like the 5th largest army and something like the 3rd largest air force in the world. Now how did that one turn out again? Can anyone remind me?

    Now how do you think a land war would go with Korea, this time without China and Russia sending in equipment and troops.

    I like the submarine comments, very funny. Maybe we could take all those giant plastic fishing nets that have been banned and use C-130's to drape them over the entire country. Maybe we'll get lucky and get the same reaction out of their army as we did their submarine corp.

  200. Re:behest? by Spunk · · Score: 1

    Troll? Pardon my English, moderator, but go fuck yourself.

    I'm educating the poster on a word he mis-used. How is that trolling?

  201. NO NO NO!! by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 1

    Bunker Busters and MOAB's are completely different weapons. MOAB's explode in the air and create an immense shockwave that does the damage. Bunker busters are heavy bombs on a delay fuse, thus the bomb penetrates several meters before exploding, so instead of exploding on the surface of a bunker, they plough into it, then explode.

    --
    It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."