Personalized Moon Crash

Ich Bin Zu writes "Do you want to create your own crater on the moon? CNN has an article about a company putting a personalized moon crash for sale on ebay. The bid opens with $6 million which will enable the highest bidder to stuff up to 10kg worth of stuff on a space craft and lob it to the moon. The condition of the cargo is not guaranteed as it crashes on the moon at 4000 mph."

Comments

Not guaranteed?

[larien]

I think we can safely guarantee the condition of just about any cargo which hits the moon at that speed...

Re:Not guaranteed?

[zephc]

I want it to say CHAIR on the moon, visible from earth! But if they mess it up and it just says, for instance, CHA, I want my money back!

fp?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Could it be?

I want to send my mother in law to the moon...

RS

Re:fp?

[ScottGant]

I want to send my ex-wife Alice to the moon...

Zoom boom to the moon Alice...TO THE MOON!

Redneck

[BWJones]

Boy, how redneck can you get?

"Hey Bubba, I know what let's do! Lets go throw sh*t at the moon and see if we can make craters. Yeah, that's cool Zeek. heh, heh, heh."

Seriously though, where is the science in this? They claim to want to take pictures, but they are pictures of the near side of the moon, of which we have plenty. And, unless you wanted to bury your cremains on the surface of the moon, this is the same kind of thing you find when you go hiking in the desert or mountains and find cans and things that people have shot at and left to rust or names carved into trees or rocks saying "Steve was here".

I am usually a strong supporter of science related work and space exploration, but this seems.....well?......What's the point?

Condition of the cargo cannot be guaranteed after the 4,000 mph impact, Orbital Development explains, although the cargo is contained within a special burst-resistant canister.

P.S., what is the point of using a "burst resistant container" if you are going to be aiming your "object" for a 4000 MPH impact with the moon? I am currently unaware of any container system weighing more than .00001 grams or so that is capable of withstanding an impact of that speed. Marketing gone awry.

Re:Redneck

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the redneck version of "moon crash" would have an entirely different meaning: "If we're all hanging our asses out the windows, who's driving?"

Re:Redneck

[s20451]

Thanks for posting the first "bah, humbug" post. I'll take my shot at the first "Jane, you ignorant slut" post.

You don't have to take visible-light pictures only. You could do something else cool, like bombard the surface with neutrons, looking for hydrogen (= water).

Actually, if you put pretty much any vehicle in the vicinity of the moon, you will probably find a scientist who will want to do an interesting experiment with it. Scientists are ingenious that way.

There was also a story not long ago about an effort to deliberately crash things into the moon to liberate clouds of debris, which could be analyzed by ground instruments. In that case the useful payload could be nothing but bricks.

And a "burst resistant container" may be useful if you want to do science in the millisecond that the probe has to survive on the surface. Seriously! A recent Mars mission had a couple of probes that were supposed to work this way (they failed).

Re:Redneck

[Gleng]

No science, just commercial space travel. Yes, smashing crap into the moon is completely without merit, but to me it's exciting that it's even possible for someone with the $6M cash and no experience in rocketry to think "Hmm...I think I'll throw something at the moon today."

Go for it, guys. Run pointless, self serving commercial space launches. Make it cheap.

There really isn't *too* much of a stretch of imagination between this, and a University landing a portable, robotic observatory on the moon for $500,000.

Re:Redneck

[Jim Starx]

Things wouldn't decompose on the moon.

Why not charge $10 million...

[bc90021]

...and add some brakes? I'm sure there'd be takers for the opportunity to put a telescope on the moon, instead of just crashing something into it.

imagine

[whiteranger99x]

Imagine if people could so that repeatedly to spell something...like chairface did with that laser on the Tick :D

#1 bidder is...

[Stiletto]

Hmm... the #1 bidder, someone named GWBush2004, lives in Yucca mountain, and has 77,000 tons of something he wants to get rid of.....

10KG of water

[Anonymous Coward]

That ought to be enough to annoy all the scientists measuring micro traces for life.

Re:10KG of water

[erobertstad]

I'd like to send a 10kg rubber ball, lets see how far that fucker bounces. :)

Sure, it *seems* like a good idea...

[physicsphairy]

until the moon people launch a full-scale retaliatory strike.

Toner.

[Zzootnik]

Hmmm...How about 10 Kg of custom mixed Toner. I'm thinking red or maybe green... I suppose it would look like a paintball target...

For $24,000

[BillsPetMonkey]

You can get a sidewinder missile lobbed at a Fallujahn mosque much closer to home ....

(I have karma to burn and a conscience to clear)

Link to Auction

[BrianGa]

Auction is at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate gory=45046&item=3808751242&rd=1

Re:Link to Auction

[BrianGa]

Project Link is here.

I wonder...

[cdrudge]

how high a 10kg super bouncy ball would bounce going 4000mph in low gravity. Think it would bounce hard enough to hit the space station?

Re:I wonder...

[Phanatic1a]

Good question. 4000 mph ~= 1800mps, KE = .5(10)(1,800)^2 = 16 megajoules. Perfectly elastic collision gets you a PE = 16 MJ = 10 kilograms * 9.8/6 * height, so the height would be...damn, a million meters? That's pretty friggin' high.

Littering or trespassing?

[kalislashdot]

So if it lands on the property I bought from the Lunar Embassey (http://www.moonshop.com/) can I sue them for littering, or even trespassing. I am serious, I have the paperwork and everything. Don't tread on me!

Re:huh?

[The Fanta Menace]

They're pointing out that some people are simply useless. Bored rich guys are typically the most useless people we have on this planet. Along with those bimbos who walk down catwalks.

Even better!

[Jin Wicked]

Procure a corporate sponsorship from the Kraft company to get their logo on there, then you really could mess with little kids by telling them the moon is made of cheese. ^_^

Why not the sun?

[dj245]

Seriously, for $6 million dollars, I would want to add my cremated remains to the fusion reactor that is our sun. If they can escape Earths's gravity and send a craft on a trajectory towards the moon, surely they can aim for the sun as well. Nobody cares about the moon except Bush. I say we aim for the sun.

And the second chance offer goes to...

[Hogwash McFly]

Dr. Evil

"A frickin' good eBayer, they sent my "laser" to the moon in frickin' quick time. A++++++++++"

Sure

[Transcendent]

Let's just start polluting the moon! Let's litter its surface with tons of our crap for a nominal fee! Maybe someday our grandchildren will enjoy a nice, multi-color moon to lighten the night sky...

Does anyone else here thing this is horrible?

Interplanetary pollution

[securitas]

We have lots of garbage and pollution on Earth, lots of space-junk in orbit around the Earth that is widely predicted to become a hazard, and plenty of junk left on the Moon's surface from the manned and unmanned expeditions.

The place isn't even accessible to tourists yet and someone has come up with a way to pre-pollute it.

Do we really want to turn the Moon into an interplanetary garbage dump?

Keep your litter and junk to yourself.

Re:Interplanetary pollution

[the_mad_poster]

If you could find a way of making someone pay you 6 million to dump a bucket full of 'stuff' in your yard, you'd do it

If someone payed you 6 million to dump a bucket full of stuff somewhere in yellowstone park, subject to some restrictions, then you'd likely do it in a heartbeat.

Ah yes. The ultimate justification for any idiotic, debase action: money.

I'm sorry to hear you have so little moral fiber in your body and can't fathom why someone finds the idea of intentionally polluting an object we can't even inhabit so despicable. It's unfortunate that there are so many people that think like you, because the underlying problem with that kind of thought process is always the same:

If it doesn't directly affect me, why should I care?

Dropping 10 kg of junk on the surface of a desloate object in space isn't a big deal. It's the principal of the thing. Human beings seem to be the only life on earth that would consider intentionally dropping garbage somewhere just because they can. A sad commentary on human nature, I suppose.

Re:Interplanetary pollution

[ciroknight]

Who knows, in the future, it might be a quite lucrative business running an interplanetary junk yard. Not only would it be cheaper (and safer to humans) to run an incenerator on a huge rock with no atmosphere (just as long as the material you wanted to "burn" provided its own oxygen supply, or was destructable when HUGE doses of radiation are applied to it), it would be quite profitable in the long run. Hell, with the way we treat earth, we could almost start doing this today.

When space travel becomes cheap enough, I'm sure we'll this kind of thing popping up on lots of moons. The only thing moons are good for really are the fact that they're magnificent gravity wells, pretty to look at in the sky, most of the time are completely inhospitable (making them good junk locations), etc etc. I for one hate the idea of taking perfectly usable material and moving it to a location where it'll just sit unused, but in a location like space, we could find new ways to recycle the material and ship it back. The only thing stopping us now is the cost of the trip, which, with new technologies like space elevators and possible air breathing, horizonal launch vehicles, these costs should go down quickly. It's a shame we spent more time on innovation of the things we put in space, and not on the things we use to get it there.

Re:Interplanetary pollution

[the_mad_poster]

...I'm going to change my culture and ideals...

So, your culture and ideals include, explicitly, your ability to be bought off?

You're getting caught up on the quantity when I'm talking about the principal. The quantity is irrelevant. Would you shoot a starving child in the face who was going to die anyway for 6 million dollars? More? How about 1 billion? The act you're being paid for is not the point, and that's the point.

The point is this: human beings would actually seek to ACTIVELY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to pollute something.

However, if you'd like to discuss the particulars of the issue instead, I have a serious problem with your "ends justify the means" mentality. If you dump 22 pounds of trash in the middle of yellowstone (ah yes... "with restrictions"), you are polluting yellowstone national park. Are you going to dispute that? So, you get your 6 million, and you give it ALL to charity. So what? You still polluted Yellowstone, now didn't you? In fact, you went out of your way to do it.

Now, while it's still immoral, it's FORGIVABLE which is entirely different. However, this is a "commercial spacecraft project" that is seeking to profit by intentionally polluting a foreign object and is going well out of its way to do it. Only humans could be so pathetically crass.

Is ~22 pounds of material a big deal? No, it's the point that these morons are doing it on purpose and for profit, and that some imbecile will actually spend the money for it.

I can accept that human progress pollutes. This is not progress. This is intentional destruction for the amusement of some sorry buffoon who doesn't have anything better to do with his or her time. The point isn't that 22 pounds isn't a big deal, it's that they're doing at all.

Re:Interplanetary pollution

[stienman]

I believe that in this context pollution is simply defined as "Putting something somewhere that we don't want there." It's like a scientist who has 'polluted' a flagon of sulferic acid with, say, peanut butter. The compound is no longer good for many (if not most) uses.

In this and many other cases it's often a personal belief or desire. In some cases there are reasonable reasons for avoiding certian 'pollution' (such as rinsing the orange juice glass before filling with milk).

-Adam

Re:Interplanetary pollution

[shadowbearer]

Great post, and I agree with you.

My biggest beef with this ridiculous idea is that they are wasting a launch that could be used to do useful things; now, if they were using the launch to test a new lunar-capable booster and this was a way of raising funds, ok. But they're not. These guys are going to buy a booster launch from someone else for an idea that, on the face of it, is just plain stupid.

This is intentional destruction for the amusement of some sorry buffoon who doesn't have anything better to do with his or her time.

s/time/money.

What a waste. I hope their auction fails because people with $6M are too intelligent to waste it in this way. (Unfortunately, someone just may take them up on it - reminds me of the old axiom of fools and money). What the hell, it probably won't go anyway - and if it does, they'll end up spending more to pull it off than they get (or get sued by the auction winner when they go bust). Stupid, stupid, stupid.

SB

Re:Interplanetary pollution

[Graff]

Why ship it to the moon to incinerate it... you could just nudge it out of earth's orbit and let the sun pull it the rest of the way in and it'll be vaporized.

From what I understand it actually takes more energy to send something from Earth orbit into the Sun than it would take to send the object on a path to escape the solar system. This is because in order to crash into the Sun you first have to cancel out the velocity imparted by being in Earth's orbit around the Sun in the first place. However if you wanted to leave the solar system you would simply add some velocity to your orbit around the Sun and this would kick you to an orbit further from the Sun.

In other words the quantity of energy needed to lower your orbital velocity to zero relative to the Sun would be less than the amount you need to add to escape from orbiting the Sun. This means that it probably takes less energy to send something to the Moon than it would take to send it to the Sun.

According to my quick calculations it would take a velocity of approximately 42 km/s to escape the solar system from Earth's orbit. Earth imparts a velocity of approximately 30 km/s to any object which is in a similar orbit around the sun. This means that you would need to either slow down by 30 km/s to hit the sun (30 km/s - 0 km/s) or you would need to speed up by 12 km/s to leave the solar system (42 km/s - 30 km/s).

Strange, but true - it actually takes less energy to leave the solar system than it is to crash into the sun from Earth orbit. This, of course, is not counting stuff like orbital slingshots around other planets and such which could decrease the energy needed for both crashing the Sun and leaving it.

Here's the site where I got some of the data I used for my calculations, as well as the formulas for escape velocity and such.

But what happens when...

[jolyonr]

they start firing things back at us?

Jolyon

Info about company and founder

[wildmage]

The company is Orbital Development.

Gregory Nemitz is an interesting character. I am a little skeptical about the deal since you are purchasing a "project" and not an actual mission. So there are very few guarantees attached, and you have limited authority of the project.

I think Nemitz's more interesting project is the most credible attempt to assert ownership over an extraterrestrial body. Specifically, he is asserting his claim over the near earth asteroid Eros.

On his website you can see legal correspondence between him and NASA as he gives them an invoice for a parking fee for their NEAR spacecraft that crash landed on the asteroid. Also available is his explanation of what he is doing and why he is doing. A very interesting read, and it gives some in-depth analysis of the nature of property ownership.

Re:Info about company and founder

[wildmage]

Well, the parking fee is just a premise to get a declaration of ownership from the federal government. The invoice is like $10 per century, so its not really anything to get up in arms for.

So NASA said there claims are without basis. Then state department says it violates the Outer Space Treaty, however that only applies to governments annexing extra terrestrial bodies and doesn't apply to private citizens.

So now he's involved in litigation and his argument is based on some complex legal theory that I don't pretend understand called work-equity. You can think of like it homesteading, where you squat a piece of land, and put development in it. After a while, the government recognizes your claim because of all the work you put in it. However, Nemitz isn't physically at the asteroid. Possession is 9/10th of the law, but he doesn't have possession, so his legal arguments are based on other 1/10th.

Anyway, though his claims may be dubious, his goal is to set a legal precedent for this kind of thing where one does not currently exist. This will give investors a clearer understanding and more certain environment of the legal framework for space property where one does not currently exist.

Big airbags - bubble wrap - foam - cones.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I think we can safely guarantee the condition of just about any cargo which hits the moon at that speed.

Implying that it will be destroyed, right?

Not necessarily.

This is just an extreme case of the "egg drop" problem used by the UofMich ingineering school ion their packaging class one year (and no doubt other engineering schools from time to time).

Problem: Package a raw egg with less than (x) grams of packing material so that it can be dropped from the roof of the four-floor engineering building to the concrete below and arrive intact.

A number of solutions were tried. Some I remember hearing about:
- Suspended inside a ball by rubber bands.
- bubble wrap variants
- foam peanut variants
- Stuffed into the top of a stack of styrofoam cups with kleenex, fins added to last cup to insure bottom cup arrives end-on. (Energy absorbed by friction of cup stack cracking and collapsing).

(That last one was a winner and led directly to the nested-sheetmetal protectors you sometimes see on freeways in front of overpass support piers.)

Then we have NASA's recent "airbag" landing on Mars.

4K MPH is a bit extreme. But you've got a LOT of space to, for instance, blow up a LARGE airbag/bubblewrap analog, and plenty of time to do it.

Encapsulated electronics, and even moving parts if packed correctly, can handle thousands of Gs easily. (Think about MOOG's final test for his synthesizer components: Three feet to a cement floor, must stll be fully operational and still correctly tuned afterward.) 4000 MPH = 5867 fps. Bullets are routinely accellerated to that velocity in a few feet without distortion from the g forces involved (though that is a bit extreme), and bullets with moving parts (such as spin-armed explosive rounds) to maybe a couple thousand FPS ditto.

So figure inflating maybe a 50 foot radius cluster of 'way thin kevlar balloons or bubble-wrap with aerojell just before impact, and taking maybe 20kg at the peak of decelleration, and it should be survivable.

Tip of the interplanetary iceberg

[gidds]

What about the principle? If we're thinking up good reasons to dump stuff there before we've even got there ourselves, just think what good reasons we'll have once we get there. And how quickly the mess will grow from something immeasurably insignificant to something noticeable, to something problematic, to something tragic. It's the thin end of the wedge, the tip of the interplanetary iceberg.

You can't argue that because one axe cutting down one tree has little effect, that therefore the rainforests are safe. It's the same here; one canister might be inconsequential, but if we endorse it, what else will we have to allow?

pollution isn't inherently immoral

[foreverdisillusioned]

What is polluting what, here? A very small bit of metal is "polluting" a huge, cold rock whirling around a nuclear fireball, which will some day swell and swallow up that rock. I'm sorry, but this is not immoral. Polution *can be* immoral because of the negative ways it affects LIFE--and I'm pretty sure that there is no life on the moon. You're taking a slightly bizzare (though understandable) aethetic to keep the moon "unspoiled" and turning it into a moral issue, but it's NOT. It's aethetics, and nothing more. It doesn't matter at all if a bit of metal was mined on earth, processed, then blasted off to some other bit of rock. It just doesn't. You can't even argue that it's unsightly, because there's no one there to see it. I'm not saying that this isn't a stupid thing to do (it is), but immoral? Hah...

Re:Paint It RED!

[misof]

This reminds me of an old joke:

American astronauts arrive to the moon. Their communication with Earth:

• Astronauts, 12:00: It's okay, we are the first men to the moon.
• Astronauts, 13:00: Russians are landing nearby! What shall we do?
• NASA, 13:01: Just wait.
• Astronauts, 14:00: The Russians started to PAINT THE MOON RED! What shall we do?
• NASA, 14:01: Just wait.
• Astronauts, 17:00: The Russians are done, almost the whole moon is red... What the hell shall we do?
• NASA, 17:01: Now it is our turn! Open the container with white paint and write: Coca-Cola!