Slashdot Mirror


New Crater On Moon Caught On Video

From A Far Away Land writes "NASA has released a video clip of a meteorite striking the surface of the Moon. From the article: 'On May 2, 2006, a meteoroid hit the Moon's Sea of Clouds (Mare Nubium) with 17 billion joules of kinetic energy -- that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT," says Bill Cooke, the head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office in Huntsville, AL.'"

247 comments

  1. Craters Gone Wild? by rramdin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Probably about 10 times more interesting but half as riveting as Girls Gone Wild.

    1. Re:Craters Gone Wild? by rafael_es_son · · Score: 1

      Just send Solo and the Wookie...

      --
      HAD
    2. Re:Craters Gone Wild? by yorugua · · Score: 2
  2. Bill Cooke by corychristison · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    At first I thought it said "Bill Cookie" -- suppose that happens when you haven't eaten enough in the day?

    On a side note: this is cool they managed to get a fairly clear video of this... however, why'd they convert it to a GIF image? [ewww..]

    1. Re:Bill Cooke by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No pixels were harmed in the making of that animated graphic... No pixels thrown out, no interpolation between blocks of pixels needed for analysis.

  3. Conspiracy? by x2A · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's the bet they're show us more meteorites hitting the moon, so when we discover no evidance of the moon landing, they can blame it on being destroyed by meteorites? ;-)

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    1. Re:Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You fool. They didn't fake the moon landing. They didn't have to. They travel there on a daily basis with technology reverse engineered from the Roswell crash. They are preparing us for additional "meteor" strikes which will actually be missiles designed to knock out secret alien and ex-soviet moon bases!

    2. Re:Conspiracy? by x2A · · Score: 1

      I typed "they're" instead of "they'll" as I changed my original "showing" to "show" to make it less present and more future tense, to imply that it's going to increase, but forgot to go back and change the tense of the "they" as it's approaching 3am and I'm tired. It was a typing error rather than a gramatical one, and anyone with even as little brains as me at this hour could still make it out, more proof that you have less brains than me :-D

      Anyway, don't be bitter my friend, I'm sure you'll manage an "FP!!!11uno" soon.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    3. Re:Conspiracy? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      They travel there on a daily basis with technology reverse engineered from the Roswell crash.
      No, the Asgard willingly gave it to us for the Prometheus.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    4. Re:Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. The moon is where NASA keeps all the hot women who love male engineers. They party there all the time. This is probably just a ruse to scare everyone else away.

    5. Re:Conspiracy? by RobGTX · · Score: 1

      You got that right and here is proof, they are testing the new nuclear bombs by crashing them into the moon. This is a bit of a technology rift right now primarily because they have not been able to land anything on mars

    6. Re:Conspiracy? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      You got that right and here is proof, they are testing the new nuclear bombs by crashing them into the moon.

      I hope they blow it up so I can catch a piece.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    7. Re:Conspiracy? by koweja · · Score: 1

      Truman: "Whistlin dixy! I want this sent to Area 51 for study!"
      General: "But Sir! That's where we're building our fake moon landing set."
      Truman: "Then we'll have to really land on the moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies!"

  4. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    wait, I don't understand... how many joules are in a library of congress?

    1. Re:Obligatory by x2A · · Score: 1

      12,500, duh. Just ask google.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Obligatory by igny · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everyone knows that energy is calculated in BigMacs (229 of delicious kcal). That explosion was mere 17,743 BigMacs.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Obligatory by kalpaha · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sorry, but you're wrong! Everyone knows mars bars (278 kilocalories) is the real unit of explosion strength.
      Google does these kind of calculations very easily: enter
      17 billion joules / 278 kilocalories

      into google, and you will receive the answer:
      (17 billion joules) / (278 kilocalories) = 14 615.4587

      So the explosion was ~14615 mars bars.

    4. Re:Obligatory by apoupc · · Score: 1

      Would that include the explosions coming from Uranus after you eat 17,743 Big Macs?

    5. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait, I don't understand... how many joules are in a library of congress?

      The unit to measure the Congress is fools, no joules.

    6. Re:Obligatory by mgblst · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or another way, a weekyl intake for the average American... just kidding, we all know that you are not all fatties.

    7. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the generated heat was about 3413.32 MacBooks

    8. Re:Obligatory by kalirion · · Score: 1

      knowledge = power = work / time = energy / time
      knowledge * time = energy

      So it all depends on how much time you spend in the library.

    9. Re:Obligatory by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that energy is calculated in BigMacs (229 of delicious kcal). That explosion was mere 17,743 BigMacs.

      A big mac has 576 calories. So you're looking at more like 7054 big macs in this explosion.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Obligatory by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Well, lets see - books burn at 911 degrees fahrenheit, hmmm....

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    11. Re:Obligatory by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you meant to say 451.
      Unless you actually are too young to know who Ray Bradbury is, in which case start doing some research so you'll understand the reasons MM chose the name of his movie.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  5. Where's the sound? by SamMichaels · · Score: 4, Funny

    When it first loaded I thought, "where's the damn sound"?

    Then I saw it was a gif...and thought, "why is it an animated picture and not a video with sound?"

    Then I realized I needed more caffeine. Oops.

    1. Re:Where's the sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should put down the coffee and do something about the bloated corpse that is Zophar's Domain, eh Sammy?

    2. Re:Where's the sound? by digitalchinky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where is the kaboom? There was meant to be an earth shattering kaboom....

    3. Re:Where's the sound? by Dissectional · · Score: 0

      To balance out that obvious overdose of alcohol?

    4. Re:Where's the sound? by SeanMon · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't you mean moon shattering?

      --
      "Scud Storm!" -- Jeremy of PurePwnage.com
    5. Re:Where's the sound? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      In space, no one can hear you scream...

    6. Re:Where's the sound? by flood6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's no moon!

    7. Re:Where's the sound? by Fei_Id · · Score: 1

      Its the Illudium P36 Explosive Space Modulator!!! That creature has stolen the space modulator!!! Oh delays, delays....

    8. Re:Where's the sound? by xpiotr · · Score: 1

      You mean "moon shattering"...

    9. Re:Where's the sound? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can hear you scream...

          about the lack of audio on an animated gif!

    10. Re:Where's the sound? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      "It's a trap!"

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    11. Re:Where's the sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you were standing on the right spot on the moon you would have heard it. The moon's surface would have vibrated (BOOM!) and the vibrations would have gone through your boots and travelled to your ears through bone conduction.

      If you were standing a mile away, I wonder how loud it would have sounded? And what would it have sounded like, since sound travels through solids differently than through the air that isn't on the moon?

      (non-MRC="encircle")

    12. Re:Where's the sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give them immense kudos for having the sense to make the thing a simple animated .gif that anybody can view instead of requiring you to install some goddamned RealWindowsMediaPlayer 9.0 with new and improved bloat and spyware technology! (Windows users only. Restrictions apply, void where prohibited.)

      So, yes.

    13. Re:Where's the sound? by AaronHorrocks · · Score: 0

      Oh, Sorry... Let me hikes these up *pulls up pants*

    14. Re:Where's the sound? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Old habits...

      I put the headphones on to watch it.

      Yes, I had my coffee, and yes, I felt stupid. Maybe I was expecting NASA to put in some Hollywood Special Effects, like spaceships "swooshing" through space.

    15. Re:Where's the sound? by DeathByDuke · · Score: 1

      dont you mean moon shattering?

  6. Colony on the moon by vldragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If a mere 10 inch meteor can create a 4 ton explosion then I don't think it would ever be a good idea to try to put a colony on the moon. If this kind of thing happens often, and the say it does, there would have to be a whole lot of protection for any structure we put on the moon. Or develope shields...

    --
    Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
    1. Re:Colony on the moon by Monkeys!!! · · Score: 1

      Or we could put all lunar colonies under a good couple of metres of bedrock.

      Though, I like your shields idea better :)

    2. Re:Colony on the moon by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      They could always build underground.

    3. Re:Colony on the moon by fuzzyfozzie · · Score: 1

      Duh, we'd have a force field... Geez, people these days.

    4. Re:Colony on the moon by FuturePastNow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think a meteorite striking a lunar base would be like shooting at an ant crawling on the side of a barn. From a mile away. With your eyes closed. Of course, the thing about random chance is that it's bound to happen eventually, but I don't think any astronauts will lose sleep over it.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    5. Re:Colony on the moon by pembo13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'd just wake up dead.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    6. Re:Colony on the moon by JerBear0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Call the Israelis. That Trophy system isn't quite a shield, but it sure looks like one on the video (wmv).

      --
      Bad experience is a school that only fools keep going to.
    7. Re:Colony on the moon by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      If a mere 10 inch meteor can create a 4 ton explosion then I don't think it would ever be a good idea to try to put a colony on the moon. If this kind of thing happens often, and the say it does, there would have to be a whole lot of protection for any structure we put on the moon. Or develope shields...

      The moon is big, really, really big. Colonies are small, really, really small.
    8. Re:Colony on the moon by iced_773 · · Score: 1


      Meteorites hit Earth all the time, but they burn up in the atmosphere and are reduced to grains of sand by the time they hit the ground. The moon could theoretically hold an atmosphere for a few thousand years, so it shouldn't be a problem.

    9. Re:Colony on the moon by x2A · · Score: 0

      "The moon is big, really, really big. Colonies are small, really, really small"

      I can do the maths!

      1. Odds of meteorite hitting colony on moon: really small : really big

      2. Simplify (divide both sides by really): small : big

      3. Calculate chance: small / big = um... profit?

      Okay maybe I can't.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    10. Re:Colony on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the saying goes, the moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

    11. Re:Colony on the moon by markk · · Score: 0

      Any colony on the moon would be under several meters of soil, for solar radiation shielding alone, but also just to help counteract the air pressure inside the colony. If you had 1 atm pressure in the colony then that would be 14 lbs(earth equiv) / square inch, of upward force on the roof. Thick plastic like a balloon would be verry expensive since you would have to bring it all from Earth. Probably you would try to balance the pressure. Less for less air pressure of course, but still a bunch. Maybe using a lava tube so you wouldn't have to excavate much. It would be interesting to figure the effect of a hit like this on a buried structure.

    12. Re:Colony on the moon by lexsco · · Score: 1
      ....but I don't think any astronauts will lose sleep over it.

      Your not an astinaut, are you !

    13. Re:Colony on the moon by Joebert · · Score: 1
      It would be interesting to figure the effect of a hit like this on a buried structure.

      I'm thinking burried alive.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    14. Re:Colony on the moon by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I tell you what... You stay back here on the boring old Earth. We're going to the moon, and franly we don't need your bad attitude ruining it for us.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    15. Re:Colony on the moon by boarsai · · Score: 1

      I guess the question that begs to be asked is: how big is the ant?

    16. Re:Colony on the moon by buswolley · · Score: 1
      Sure a lunar base is small in comparison to the moon, but that does not really answer the question.

      The comparison should be between the size of the base and the average number of meteorite collisons per sq. meter of the moon's surface in the bases vincinity per year.

      Since the moon has no atmosphere, we can expect more collisions with the surface of the moon, of course, than with the Earth's surface, despite the higher gravitation of the earth.

      So that's the question. Can anyone answer it?

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    17. Re:Colony on the moon by yog · · Score: 1
      If a mere 10 inch meteor can create a 4 ton explosion then I don't think it would ever be a good idea to try to put a colony on the moon. If this kind of thing happens often, and the say it does, there would have to be a whole lot of protection for any structure we put on the moon. Or develope shields...
      Why not put the base underground? Ten meters or so should do it. Probably the temperature is more stable underground, making environmental maintenance a little simpler. Spread a bunch of solar panels on the surface, mine oxygen and other essential elements from the soil, and you have the makings of a self-sustaining colony.

      Probably much worse than the infinitesmal chance of a direct meteor strike is the dust problem, which may actually sink the whole idea of a moon base if they can't figure out how to filter the stuff. But at the end of the day these are all technical problems and technical problems are solvable to one degree or another. I say let's go ahead and put a base there; it's good for science and will employ a whole new generation of engineers, astrophysicists, etc.
      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    18. Re:Colony on the moon by RsG · · Score: 1

      You'd want to build underground anyway. The lunar surface isn't shielded from sunlight, radiation, or anything else. There's no atmosphere, no magnetic field, nada. Sunlight would kill lunar crops if it wan't filtered, so no glass dome greenhouses either.

      Underground we'd get our radiation shielding for free. We could put solar panels on the surface, though a power plant would still be needed for lunar night (which is about 2 weeks long). Or we could think big and put the solar panels in a line going all ther way around the lunar equator. Plants could get sunlight redirected and lessened in intensity by mirrors during the lunar day, and lighted by lamps during the night.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    19. Re:Colony on the moon by msaulters · · Score: 1

      I think the secret is to build your first moon colony in the newest crater.

      --
      These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
    20. Re:Colony on the moon by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      I think a meteorite striking a lunar base would be like shooting at an ant crawling on the side of a barn. From a mile away. With your eyes closed. Of course, the thing about random chance is that it's bound to happen eventually, but I don't think any astronauts will lose sleep over it.

      I hope it's not a one-in-a-million chance, because the thing about those is that they happen nine times out of ten.

      Those poor astronauts. Chances are, one day they'll wake up dead.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    21. Re:Colony on the moon by BAM0027 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not a physicist, but it seems like your statement is kinda naive. The fact is that the moon has practically no atmosphere to fend off particles of any size, so while this latest one was large enough to view from here, there _may_ be a large number of fast moving particles that could cause significant damage.

      We don't notice it here on Earth at all because we have miles of gas to buffer the surface from most projectiles. While it might still be a very slim chance, I think it might be more frequent than you think and more destructive than you expect.

    22. Re:Colony on the moon by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Keep in mind not long ago a meteor hit Norway with the force of
      the Hiroshma bomb.

      Russia was hit about 100 years ago, the gulf of mexico millions of
      years ago, and their are many bollide impact sites still visible
      all over the earth .

      As for ways to protect a moonbase, the best way would be to make
      a mine, and have the base deep underground with multipe exit tunnels
      and redundant compartmentalization like newer US navy ships .

      Thus why the USS cole in yemen had a huge hole in its side but didnt sink,
      after the bombing by terrorists several years ago.

      A underground moonbase also would not experience the temperature extremes
      of the surface, and would reduce radiation to near zero .

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    23. Re:Colony on the moon by imrec · · Score: 0

      Heh, until one hits the main air supply.

      At night.

      --
      Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
    24. Re:Colony on the moon by Killshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah.. it's a pretty bad idea to put a base on the moon and have it be exposed to meteors. The International Space Station is much better and totally immune from such threats.

    25. Re:Colony on the moon by chiph · · Score: 1

      So, how deep would a colony have to be buried to provide protection against this sort of thing?

      Chip H.

    26. Re:Colony on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all out of love...

    27. Re:Colony on the moon by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Sooner or later, everyone wakes up dead.

      The question is, do you wake up from a dream of sitting around posting banalities on Slashdot, or do you wake up from a dream of exploring the moon?

      Obviously I'm one of the former types, but I have no objections to anybody waking up dead from the latter dream.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    28. Re:Colony on the moon by RobRancho · · Score: 1

      We should tell the greys to move out, and take over their underground bases.

    29. Re:Colony on the moon by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      No, the real question is : how big is the bullet?

    30. Re:Colony on the moon by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Informative

      And add to that they've just started watching for these, so impacts of this size are not all that uncommon. And I'm with you in assuming there are probably many more, smaller impacts that occur. Just a couple quotes to indicate frequency:

      During a telescope test last November 7th, Suggs and Swift recorded an explosion on their very first night of observing. A piece of debris from Comet Encke struck the plains of Mare Imbrium, making a crater about 3 meters wide."

      Now that regular monitoring has begun, Cooke's group has already found a second impact, the May 2nd event, in only 20 hours of watching.

      And that's for the small portion of the surface they're actually monitoring.

    31. Re:Colony on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nono design the base with CRUMPLE ZONES!

    32. Re:Colony on the moon by jonathansizz · · Score: 1

      Being on the Moon entails no greater risk than being in low Earth orbit. In fact, the risk would initially be much lower, since orbiting man-made space debris is a far larger threat to astronauts circling the Earth than interplanetary materials are.

    33. Re:Colony on the moon by Rhys · · Score: 1

      The ISS lacks any of earth's atmospheric shielding in terms of macroscopic physical particles (though it may still get some of the magnetic field shielding), plus it has all the cruft we've ejected into space threatining it as well. Course, since it is pretty close to earth, it doesn't have to worry about half the "sky" since the earth would block meteor(ites) from that direction by being in the way. Then again a moon base would gain that same advantage from the moon (plus the reciprocal shielding of the earth, which is bigger than the moon so is a better shield for a base on the moon than the moon is for the ISS)

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    34. Re:Colony on the moon by BAM0027 · · Score: 1

      As far as the kruft, I was under the impression that there was some sense of order to the orbits that things are placed in with regard to altitudes, directions and speeds. Great points about how other objects act as shields.

      My initial response was simply a reaction to the parent posts' seemingly dismissive attitude toward structure vs. spaceborn projectiles.

      Cool conversation, though. Way better than Sarbanes-Oxley compliance...

    35. Re:Colony on the moon by Ruvim · · Score: 1

      To continue the analogy, however, you'll be shooting at it with an RPG, so, there'll be no more barn (or ant to speak of).

    36. Re:Colony on the moon by mpe · · Score: 1

      Any colony on the moon would be under several meters of soil, for solar radiation shielding alone, but also just to help counteract the air pressure inside the colony. If you had 1 atm pressure in the colony then that would be 14 lbs(earth equiv) / square inch, of upward force on the roof. Thick plastic like a balloon would be verry expensive since you would have to bring it all from Earth. Probably you would try to balance the pressure. Less for less air pressure of course, but still a bunch. Maybe using a lava tube so you wouldn't have to excavate much. It would be interesting to figure the effect of a hit like this on a buried structure.

      Actually you'd probably use 10-11 psi. Both for the base and whatever transported you to/from it. There's no good reason to use sea level pressurisation an "altitude" of 8-10,000 feet would be fine.
      Even 14 psi isn't going to take much in the way of structure to hold.

    37. Re:Colony on the moon by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Or we could put all lunar colonies under a good couple of metres of bedrock.

      Bedrock on the Moon is mostly tens or hundreds of metres down. Assuming that you're talking about material that's well-enough compacted to tunnel through without needing to support the roof. Obviously, you'd still need to line any tunnels before you'd made them gas-tight. Now, if you're talking about uniform, compact, hard rock then you'll have to get down below the regolith, which is hundreds of kilometers thick.

      What I think you mean is that lunar colonies will need to be covered by several metres of surface dust and loose rock after the chambers and connecting tunnels are built. And I can see that making life really interesting when one of the joints needs to be repaired and all the radiation shielding has to be dug out again to get to the repair site. Or maybe you'd need to put several metres of compacted lunar rock (pressed? partly melted?) on some sort of platform above the lunar base, with suitable security against being dislodged by vibration.

      Nobody ever said it would be easy.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    38. Re:Colony on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khaaaaaaaan!

  7. Terrorists on the moon? by xkr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which terrorist group is NASA blaming ?

    --
    I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
    1. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you realize how important this is. Until now, the terrorists have limited their presence to every American household, as demonstrated by the government's choice of surveillance targets. If the terrorists are already on the moon, who can guess when they'll start showing up in the Sun, on Jupiter, or inside our very minds.

    2. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not surprising if there were terrorists there to spread their militant version of Islam. They say al-Zarqawi was martyred... he could be up there right now searching for his promised 72 virgins.

    3. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by buswolley · · Score: 1
      Slashdot.

      Poor servers..

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    4. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Which terrorist group is NASA blaming ?

      The queers. They're in it with the aliens. It's part of a diabolical plan to build lunar landing strips for gay Martians.

      So NASA says it's San Fransisco. I disagree - I think it's Britain, and it's part of a diabolical plan to build lunar landing strips for British Martians. After all, we know that every evil person in outer space speaks with an English accent.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    5. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just because they keep watching British TV signals to learn the language. After all, there is only crap on American TV these days.

    6. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      This was obviously aimed for earth and probably originated on Gamilon.
      Or perhaps they are being launched by bugs from Klendathu.

    7. Re:Terrorists on the moon? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1
      Which terrorist group is NASA blaming ?


      Microsoft.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  8. So what are the odds by Drakin020 · · Score: 0

    ...of that thing hitting us? Surly there had to be that chance of it missing the moon and running into earth right? Makes me wonder what else might be lurking around that could potentially miss the moon and collide with us.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:So what are the odds by Gabrill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One Word: Atmosphere. It's why the Earth doesn't look like the Moon.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:So what are the odds by Eideewt · · Score: 4, Funny

      We should surround the Earth with a protective blanket of some sort to protect ourselves from such an event! Of course, it would need to be transparent and not inhibit our movement. I wonder if we could use gases for that purpose.

    3. Re:So what are the odds by evilviper · · Score: 1
      One Word: Atmosphere. It's why the Earth doesn't look like the Moon.

      Sort of true, but in a very out-of-context way.

      Our atmosphere burns up many meteorites, but that's not why we don't look like the moon.

      The reason we don't look like the moon is that the atmosphere hides the evidence after the fact. It certainly doesn't protect the Earth from all projectiles.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:So what are the odds by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      One additional word: vulcanism. Meteor impacts have dropped off exponentially since the formation of the planets. Active vulcanism resurfaces the planet every so often, so the earlier more frequent and larger impacts that we see on the cold, cold moon have been melted away as they fell below the soup-skin that we call the lithosphere.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:So what are the odds by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      I know, let's develop a gas sheild for the Moon to save the Martians from extra-terrestrial attacks!

      Oh wait...

    6. Re:So what are the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandparent post... funny; very funny.

      Parent post... not so much.

    7. Re:So what are the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GreatGrandparent post... funny; very funny.

      GrandParent post... agreed.

      Parent post... idiot.

      This post... flamebait. For everything else there's "Who the heck asked your opinion?"

    8. Re:So what are the odds by Wheatin · · Score: 2, Informative

      While the atmosphere does break up some potential meteorites there are still quite a few impacts. The reason we don't see much evidence of this is that many hit the oceans, and the ones that do hit land are (relatively) quickly masked by natural erosion and vegetation. Plate tectonics can also break them up over time, and lava fills many of them in. The atmosphere plays a big part in these, I know, but the point is that the number of impacts between the moon and the Earth is not that different. It's just that the moon has been collecting them for billions of years and they're never worn away or covered.

    9. Re:So what are the odds by Jugalator · · Score: 1
      The reason we don't look like the moon is that the atmosphere hides the evidence after the fact. It certainly doesn't protect the Earth from all projectiles.

      Isn't it tectonics and an active planet that hides the evidence after the fact?
      IMHO, the Atmosphere stops the "fact" from happening in the first place.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:So what are the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea! Let's use a gravitational force field to bind it!

    11. Re:So what are the odds by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Isn't it tectonics and an active planet that hides the evidence after the fact?

      Tectonics will do a little bit, but not much.

      That's easy to prove, by the fact that the moon has seismic activity as well, and yet still looks like... well... "the moon": http://www.physorg.com/news63645811.html

      It's really the wind, rain, etc., that hides most of it. Bodies of water, and plant and animal life contribute as well (none of which we could have without an atmosphere, anyhow).
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:So what are the odds by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Whoa! Is that even possible?

  9. Fireball by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    Mentioned a fireball, but... no air, no fire, no fireball. Little bit underwhelmed.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:Fireball by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      The lunar soil is almost 50% oxygen, so it wouldn't be hard to get enough "air" for a really good explosion.

      Meteors also contain all sorts of stuff from all over the place.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    2. Re:Fireball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's mostly in the form of silicon dioxide... I.E. sand.

  10. "that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by zegebbers · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's all well and good, but how many football fields was the impact?

    1. Re:"that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by DavidD_CA · · Score: 2, Funny

      What I wanna know.. is how many Libraries of Congress can fit into the new crater?

      --
      -David
    2. Re:"that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by jmv · · Score: 1

      Actually, tons of TNT has become a real way to measure energy (think nuclear warheads in kilotons/megatons).

    3. Re:"that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Per fortnight, or...?

    4. Re:"that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by Peyna · · Score: 1

      What I wanna know.. is how many Libraries of Congress can fit into the new crater?

      Everyone knows that Libraries of Congress is a equivalent to 20 terrabytes, which in hard drives would be 40x500gb hard drives, or about 23 cubic meters.

      The new crater on the moon is about 5500 cubic meters.

      So, approximately 239 Libraries of Congress can fit.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:"that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Sydney harbours is that?

      (One for the aussies)

    6. Re:"that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT" by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      "but how many football fields was the impact?"

      American, Canadian, European, or Lunar football? Or that really strange one... Australian.

  11. Re:First Crater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    are you asking or telling?

    this is why you didn't get first post.. loser.. you suck at life.

  12. and in news just to hand... by Audent · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA has released a video clip of its server being struck with 17 billion hits all at the same time.

    "That's about the same as 4 tons of TNT, or an entire Slashdot community" says Bill Cooke, the head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office in Huntsville, AL.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
    1. Re:and in news just to hand... by rizole · · Score: 1
      Oh I'm getting lost now...so just how many libraries of congress is a slashdot community?

      Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of....no, that can't be right.

    2. Re:and in news just to hand... by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Well some other guy said it was about 239 libraries of congress. So apparently 1 slashdot community = 239 libraries of congress

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
  13. Can't rival earlier calamity by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    What is 17 billion joules when mad earthlings have tried to Cyclops you?

    1. Re:Can't rival earlier calamity by buswolley · · Score: 1
      That's not funny. That's disturbing.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  14. Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by packetmon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've seen a documentary on the Discovery Channel about the possibility of a meteorite hitting earth pretty hard. Come to think of it, last week a meteorite struck finland. What's interesting is the United States Air Force has the following:

    6.7 Asteroid Mitigation System
    Brief Description
    The asteroid mitigation system protects the Earth/Moon system from earth-crossing objects (ECO) by either deflecting or fragmenting ECO they no longer pose a threat. Deflection could be accomplished using nuclear explosive devices.

    Capabilities
    Deflects or destroys objects in space having the size and trajectory to threaten the Earth/Moon system An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and Space Capabilities (page 135)

    Scientist have been trying to figure out when something big will hit. Imagine if what hit the moon hit a major city... I'd definitely rather see my tax dollars spent on a project to deter meteorites as opposed to seeing money thrown around with people crying "Al Qaeda" anytime.
    1. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Pink+Tinkletini · · Score: 1

      Article: "Wednesday morning dawned, northern Norway was hit with an impact..."
      packetmon: "... last week a meteorite struck finland."

      Congratulations--you've just pissed off the entire populations of two countries. Fortunately, those countries are Norway and Finland.

    2. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by packetmon · · Score: 1

      ;) Finland... Norway... Vad gor du!? Om jag kan inte saga...

    3. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by JerBear0 · · Score: 1

      " I'd definitely rather see my tax dollars spent on a project to deter meteorites as opposed to seeing money thrown around with people crying "Al Qaeda" anytime."

      Why not combine the two? A project that deflects meteors into certain areas of the Middle East could kill two birds with one stone. Ok, technically, it would kill one stone and one bird with a hyper-expensive government project, but you know what I mean.

      --
      Bad experience is a school that only fools keep going to.
    4. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Informative
      Imagine if what hit the moon hit a major city...
      I understand your point - anything large enough to make it through the atmosphere into a city could be mistaken for an attack by terrorists or perhaps another country. However, for a rock of this size TFA actually says:

      If a rock like that hit Earth, it would never reach the ground. "Earth's atmosphere protects us," Cooke explains. "A 10-inch meteoroid would disintegrate in mid-air, making a spectacular fireball in the sky but no crater." The Moon is different. Having no atmosphere, it is totally exposed to meteoroids. Even small ones can cause spectacular explosions, spraying debris far and wide.
      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    5. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by x2A · · Score: 1

      Or launch suspected (that's as close as they get) Al Qaeda members towards the meteorite? Enough of them, hit hard enough, must slow it down, or at least cushion it's landing, what with all that stuff they wear on their heads...

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    6. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by whoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it is far more likely to have a bomb go off in a major city from terrorists than to be knocked in the head by a meteorite. Human behavior is far more unpredictable and imminent than a meteor large enough to survive burn through atmosphere and do significant damage going unnoticed by astronomers worldwide.

      Even then, do you want the fear that a meteor is going to kill you in 3 hours 45 minutes or to just live like a normal day, then kaboom?

      And I'd rather my tax dollars that do go to NASA be spent on colonization. Inventions, energy sources, etc used to sustain life on the Moon or Mars will get ported back to Earth and help us out in the immediate future.

    7. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by NereusRen · · Score: 4, Informative
      Imagine if what hit the moon hit a major city...
      That small of an object (only 10 inches diameter?) would burn up in our atmosphere. It only struck so hard on the moon because there's nothing slowing it down before it hits the surface. I went over to the trusty Asteroid Impact Simulator for a quick comparison. The smallest size you can select is 1 meter in diameter, but here's what it has to say about a fairly average 1m projectile "hitting" earth:

              Energy before atmospheric entry: 2.27 x 10^11 Joules = 0.54 x 10-4 MegaTons TNT [note: the one that hit the moon only had 1.7 x 10^10 Joules of energy... less than one tenth of this hypothetical.]
              The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is less than 1 month.
              The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 49200 meters
              No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface.


      We only need to be worried about meteors a few orders of magnitude larger.

      (Hell, TFA even explained that it would burn up, but I guess I can't expect anyone around here to know that...)
    8. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Al Qaeda would happily obliterate any number of cities if they had the power.

      Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean it's through lack of trying.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    9. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      Deflecting them isn't the hard part, the hard part is finding it in time to do so...

      Like trying to see a car coming at you at night, during the new moon, when it's overcast, with it's lights off, and you're deaf, and only have one eye, and your good eye is nearsighted, and you forgot your glasses, and the car could come from any direction, and there's potentially millions of cars, some which might hit you, some which might not...

    10. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by roseblood · · Score: 1

      Too bad our nukes are going to become unstable as they age. A loss of reliability and predictability of yield. I think we should start looking at making new nukes before it's too late!

      --
      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    11. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      I'd definitely rather see my tax dollars spent on a project to deter meteorites as opposed to seeing money thrown around with people crying "Al Qaeda" anytime.

      Me too, but
      Imagine if what hit the moon hit a major city...

      First, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't reach the ground.
      Second, we're talking about an explosion of 4 tonnes of TNT. I'm not greatly familiar with bomb sizes, but I think this is a few large conventional bomb, a large car bomb or small truck bomb. Unless the aim was unlucky, you're only talking a few casualties.
      Third, no proposed anti-meteorite system would detect anything this small, by a few orders of magnitude.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    12. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An impact on the moon: Full Slashdot coverage

      An impact on the Earth: No coverage

      I'm glad I have other news sources then Slashdot :-)

    13. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Using the Asteroid Impact Simulator, I decided to see what would happen if the Moon itself hit the Earth:

      Major Global Changes:

      The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
      5.45 percent of the Earth is melted
      The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
      The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

      I call bullshit. The Moon hitting the Earth would very well knock it out of orbit, as well as punch a nice big hole in it if not cracking it in two like a soft-boiled egg. It's a neat Asteroid Impact Simulator, but it failed the sci-fi-what-if test.

    14. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by BobFunk · · Score: 1

      The earth has most likely already been hit by an impacting object far bigger than the moon. The most accepted theory about the formation of the moon, is that it was formed by a Mars sized planet colliding with the earth.

    15. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by arabagast · · Score: 1

      Heh, Where the hell are you from ? "A meteorite landed in finland" ? The meteorite landed in Norway - it's a norwegian newspaper, with the article filed under the "local" dir. It really pisses me off when people think that all the countries in scandinavia is a single country.
      I Do Not Live In Finland, you insensitive .. Clod!

      --
      Doolittle : ...What is your one purpose in life?
      Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
    16. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by arose · · Score: 1
      Imagine if what hit the moon hit a major city...
      Falling stars are pretty.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    17. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by oletk · · Score: 1

      The meteorite hit Norway, not Finland. I think you are confusing "Finnmark" with "Finland".

    18. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by bcattwoo · · Score: 1
      Second, we're talking about an explosion of 4 tonnes of TNT. I'm not greatly familiar with bomb sizes, but I think this is a few large conventional bomb, a large car bomb or small truck bomb.

      Correct. The U.S. used two 500-lb bombs to destroy the little cinder block house that Al-Zarqawi was in. Four times that in a large city would hardly cause widespread devastation.

    19. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Even then, do you want the fear that a meteor is going to kill you [...]

      Absolutely! Ignorance may be bliss, but being informed can help you get out of town in time to save your life.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    20. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Gulthek · · Score: 1
      The Moon hitting the Earth would very well knock it out of orbit, as well as punch a nice big hole in it if not cracking it in two like a soft-boiled egg.
      Not familiar with physics are we?

      You'd do better to imagine the Earth meets Moon event as two spheres of fluid colliding.

      That said, it sounds like your velocity assumption is conservative.
    21. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by MikTheUser · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is the United States Air Force has the following: [...]

      Does your Air Force hold the power over any military actions in space as well as in the air? Is NASA purely non-military? I'd like to know what the rules are over there on the other side of the planet.

    22. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Which is why I said "like a soft-boiled egg", which is a thin shell surrounding two semisolid materials. The crust would crack and cave in on both objects, and what was left of the Moon would combine with the Earth and inertia would do the rest. I'm no physics major, but common sense and a high school education tell me that when a smaller moving object, liquid or not, hits a larger moving object, liquid or not, with enough velocity, it will affect the larger object's trajectory.

    23. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1
      The moon has a mass approximately 81 times less than the earth. With a 29.5km/s average orbital velocity for the earth, the impact velocity would have to be 8 times that 29.5 to have a 10% change in velocity (conservation of momentum). At that level:
      Energy:
      Energy before atmospheric entry: 2.12 x 1033 Joules = 5.06 x 1017 MegaTons TNT
      The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age.
      Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago.

      Major Global Changes:
      The Earth is completely disrupted by the impact and its debris forms a new asteroid belt orbiting the sun between Venus and Mars.
    24. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by mpe · · Score: 1

      The Moon hitting the Earth would very well knock it out of orbit, as well as punch a nice big hole in it if not cracking it in two like a soft-boiled egg. It's a neat Asteroid Impact Simulator, but it failed the sci-fi-what-if test.

      Probably because it was using real science. As opposed to "Hollywood science". Real planets are a lot tougher than their fictional cousins.

    25. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by NereusRen · · Score: 1

      If the moon crashed into the earth head-on at 17km/s, which is actually a high estimate since the earth's gravity well only causes things to get to 11km/s on its own and the moon only orbits at 1km/s, it would still only slow the earth's orbital velocity by <1%. (This is from conservation of momentum, with the earth's current orbital velocity at 29km/s and the moon having a little over 1% of the earth's mass.) I guess it depends what you mean by "significant," but the orbit wouldn't really have a noticable change. This is especially true since the moon is currently orbiting the Sun as a system with the Earth anyway, so if the force that caused it to collide with the earth came from within our closed system, it would have *zero* effect on the orbit.

      Of course, the part of science fiction that is most evocative about the moon (or other large things) crashing into the earth is usually the surface destruction anyway, which is pretty well covered when they simulator says over 5% of the earth's surface melts on impact. The consequences of that alone would doom most planetary life, to say nothing of the shock waves and dust clouds.

      I call "not bullshit," at least from this example.

    26. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I realized I had replied to this thread (not you specifically), and totally missed the subject reference. Hooray for boobies! ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    27. Re:Do it like they do on the Discovery channel... by whoop · · Score: 1

      That would only work if you were the only one in your town to know about it, and you tell absolutely no one. Once two people know, then the whole town knows and every road/path is clogged. Then no one gets out and you still get squished.

  15. Re:First Crater by corychristison · · Score: 0, Redundant

    hehe... I love how this got modded "1, Insightful"

  16. Slashdotted ? by Joebert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it just me, or did NASA just get Slashdotted ?

    How the hell do you /. NASA ?!

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Slashdotted ? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      What, you think cutting the space program back to nil means they can still afford good servers?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Slashdotted ? by Joebert · · Score: 1
      What, you think cutting the space program back to nil means they can still afford good servers?

      If that's not insightfull, I don't know what is.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Slashdotted ? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

      Coral Cache is your friend.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    4. Re:Slashdotted ? by ampmouse · · Score: 1

      Take a look at What Their Server is Running, and then tell me you are suprised.

    5. Re:Slashdotted ? by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see why funding may have been cut now, frivolous spending.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    6. Re:Slashdotted ? by Joebert · · Score: 1
      Holy crap, I actually got a set of headers out of them.
      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
      X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
      Content-Location: http://science.nasa.gov/Default.htm
      Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:12:25 GMT
      Content-Type: text/html
      Accept-Ranges: bytes
      Last-Modified: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:01:10 GMT
      ETag: "b6324768568fc61:b0f"
      Content-Length: 44056
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    7. Re:Slashdotted ? by jda487 · · Score: 1
      Easy. 1. Run an article titled "Science: New Crater On Moon Caught On Video"
      2. Include a brief summary such as:
      "NASA has released a video clip of a meteorite striking the surface of the Moon. From the article: 'On May 2, 2006, a meteoroid hit the Moon's Sea of Clouds (Mare Nubium) with 17 billion joules of kinetic energy -- that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT," says Bill Cooke, the head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office in Huntsville, AL.'"
      3. Wait 45 seconds.
      4. ???
      5. NASA server is slashdotted (profit?!?).
    8. Re:Slashdotted ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just say it. Running a Web server isn't rocket science.

    9. Re:Slashdotted ? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Use a metric browser.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  17. Now no excuse to crash a spaceship into the moon.. by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 0

    .. looks like they'll have to land their probes normally now. Or at least, they can send a probe to the new crater to see if there is ice below ground.

  18. That is fake by SensitiveMale · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've seen Wile e. Coyote blow stuff up on the moon lots of time and it looks completely different from that obviously faked footage.

  19. To the mod - by x2A · · Score: 1

    - who modded "flamebait"...

    ;-) <-- huh?

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  20. Videos make astronomy more tangible and real by w33t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I said it in another thread - but I do love it when we get to see actual video of astronomical footage.

    Don't get me wrong, I love astronomy and the photographs gleaned from it are simply the most profound images ever seen by mankind. Please understand the significance of what I mean there.

    But when we can actually see these objects in motion, in-vivo so to speak, it's just so remarkable!

    I only hope that when the next generation space telescopes are in orbit that they will be able to capture the streams of x-rays shooting from the poles of neutron stars exciting the gas of the surrounding nebula like a gigantic cosmic northern lights.

    I *heart* astronomy :]

    1. Re:Videos make astronomy more tangible and real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, that was beautiful.

      You sure you're posting to the right site?

    2. Re:Videos make astronomy more tangible and real by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      I agree. It would be really cool to see real video (a series of photos while cool is still a far cry from color video) from the orbit of Jupiter, Mars or even Earth. I mean it shouldn't be too expensive to stick a videocamera on a probe or on to the ISS. Maybe it's a bandwidth limitation?

    3. Re:Videos make astronomy more tangible and real by Peter+Lake · · Score: 1

      More various astromovies:

      Lunar Transit by the International Space Station Alpha: http://members.aol.com/mrtsp91/iss.htm

      Meteor explodes in Earth's atmosphere:
      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981123.html

      A Martian dust devil passes rover Spirit:
      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050426.html

      Fast moving stars orbiting black hole SgrA* in the Milky Way's center:
      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001220.html
      http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/vide o/vid-02-02.mpg

      Dynamic rings, wisps and jets of matter and antimatter around the pulsar in the Crab Nebula:
      http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0052/movies. html

      Cat's Eye nebula expanding:
      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990916.html

      Variable stars "twinkling" in globular cluster M3 over a single night:
      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041012.html

      Shock wave of supernova SN1987A creates hot spots in surrounding material:
      http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/2004/09/video/a

      To find more videos try searching NASA's astronomy picture of the day archive: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_sear ch

      I *heart* astronomy :]
      Me too.

      --

      All Rights Reversed.
  21. He lives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon is big, really, really big. Colonies are small, really, really small.

    Douglas Adams lives!

    1. Re:He lives! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      But what about the furry creatures from Alpha Centauri?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  22. Over a month since it happened by radical_dementia · · Score: 1

    Is there a good reason why this happened on May 2, and only now they are publishing an article about this? Not that I've even been able to see the video yet. NASA can put a man on the moon but they can't keep a server running more than 10 minutes before getting slashdotted.

    1. Re:Over a month since it happened by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      More like they USED to be able to put a man on the moon...

    2. Re:Over a month since it happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, they're running it out of a cluster of Apollo computers.

  23. No idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the Bush administration is talking about Iran hiding weapons of mass destruction in space, and that something must be done about it.

  24. Sagan's account by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Carl Sagan's documentary Cosmos, described an event that happened in the middle ages. Some monks were sitting outside one evening when a meteoroid hit the moon and caused a naked-eye visible fireball. Evidently the event lasted long enough for the entire monastary to see it. If this current one only lasted half a second, the one Sagan described must have been huge. Problem was that the event flew straight in the face of Psalm 119 which reads:

    As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen.

    The significance for the monks was that the Bible was telling them that the earth and heavens were unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after. Here was evidence that what their faith was telling them wasn't true. Sagan said the event caused quite a bit of problems for the monastery as the monks tried to reconcile their faith and reality.

    If anyone knows anything more about the event Sagan was talking about, I'd really like to hear it. I've often wondered if the crater it left has been identified.

    1. Re:Sagan's account by canatech · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:Sagan's account by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The significance for the monks was that the Bible was telling them that the earth and heavens were unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after. Here was evidence that what their faith was telling them wasn't true. Sagan said the event caused quite a bit of problems for the monastery as the monks tried to reconcile their faith and reality.


      I've been surprised before, but on the face that sounds like hogwash. That a flash of light on the moon (when they didn't know what the moon was nor what the flash of light represented) that was visible for awhile and then disappeared would cause them to question their faith seems silly.

    3. Re:Sagan's account by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think the obvious answer is that getting from here

      As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever.


      to here

      the Bible was telling them that the earth and heavens were unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after


      is a non sequitur... in context, the latter does not necessarily follow from the former.
    4. Re:Sagan's account by cartel · · Score: 1

      Problem was that the event flew straight in the face of Psalm 119 which reads:

      As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen.

      This is found in Psalm 95:11 (see this site). But it's actually not showing in any of the translations I've looking in...

    5. Re:Sagan's account by deevnil · · Score: 1

      Uh.... I'm pretty sure they knew what the moon was.

    6. Re:Sagan's account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, it is not really found in Psalm 95, nor in any psalm as far as i know. It is a doxology, which means that it is a sort of mini-prayer which is typically appended to another prayer.

      The reason you found it in that particular webpage is that the webpage is derived from a tradition based on the Liturgy of the Hours. The Liturgy of the Hours is mostly structured around psalms and for each psalm basically follows the pattern: antiphon - psalm - doxology - psalm-prayer - antiphon. This form is sometimes stripped down for simplicity, but in this particular case the doxology was retained. Psalm 95 is particularly well-known as an invitatory to prayer, and so it is sometimes called by its first word in Latin, "Venite".

      Regarding Carl Sagan, he was a smart guy, but sometimes he would repeat what amounts to the scientific version of an urban legend. One example is the "Heike" crabs, which look sort of like they have scowling human faces on their backs. In "Cosmos", Sagan explained that this was due to the local fishermen tending to throw back the more human-looking crabs. This is a plausible explanation, but it is actually wrong. The characteristic appearance of that family of crabs predates homo sapiens.

    7. Re:Sagan's account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw on a documentory that the event you are talking about, it was massive. The Moon is still wobbling back and forth like a bell that has been struck. When the first mission went to the Moon they left behind a mirror reflector plate. Earth based lasers bounce off that to measure the wobbly/resonance. So even if a massive hit were to happen on the dark side of the moon right now we would know about it. Interesting stuff.

    8. Re:Sagan's account by Khomar · · Score: 1

      That is because that phrase does not actually exist in the original psalm but was added as an addendum by the writer of that prayer book. You can see this in the phrase "Glory be to the Father and to the Son: and to the Holy Spirit" that starts the addition. This phrase would have never have been written in the Old Testament (Hebrew and pre-Christ) book of Psalms.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    9. Re:Sagan's account by Khomar · · Score: 1

      Do you know what verse in 119 supposedly reads "As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen."? The closest thing I found was verses 89-90:

      Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven. Your faithfulness endures to all generations; You established the earth, and it abides.

      This verse speaks of God's faithfulness in that the universe continues to exist and function very much in the same way that it was created. For example, it could be said that the reason why we can study science with its reproducable results is because of God's faithfulness in keeping the laws of physics in place. It would take more than a bit of creativity to conclude that nothing has or ever will change in the universe from this verse. Even the Bible contains numerous references to changes in the heavens: the sun standing still for an hour, the new star appearing for Christ's birth. A little meteor hitting the moon would hardly constitute a major religious change.

      This sounds like a case where Carl Sagan is sadly misinformed and does not have a good understanding of scripture or Christian doctrine.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    10. Re:Sagan's account by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      You're talking about a backward group of people who believed in witches and dragons here, this is mediaeval times. It's really not that far fetched.

    11. Re:Sagan's account by radtea · · Score: 1

      The significance for the monks was that the Bible was telling them that the earth and heavens were unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after.

      This is not in scripture, but is a belief of classical cosmology, which divided the universe into two major regions, above and below the Moon. Below the Moon change could occur. Above the Moon it was assumed on the basis of no evidence (that is, on faith) that change did not and could not occur. This bit of faith was given a big boost by the Scholastics in the late Middle Ages, but I think its prevalence predated them. So seeing a change occur on the Moon would probably have challenged the monk's beliefs in this regard--it was a little too close to the boundary for comfort.

      It wasn't until Tycho Brahe or someone very much like him measured the parallax of a comet and showed definitively that it was above the orbit of the Moon that this false belief really started to diminish, and even then it took quite some time to die.

      So Sagan was right to see this event as a challenge to the monk's faith, but he was wrong if he attributed that specific article of faith to the Bible. The evil of faith is not in the source or specific content, but in the mode of belief and the rule of its function.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    12. Re:Sagan's account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this current one only lasted half a second, the one Sagan described must have been huge. Problem was that the event flew straight in the face of Psalm 119 which reads:
      As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen.


      Bullshit. Monks, of all people, would have read the New Testament, which starts off with a new star that heralded Christ's birth.

      (MRC="pretend")

      PS: Psalms 119 says no such thing.

    13. Re:Sagan's account by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1
      > Problem was that the event flew straight in the face of Psalm 119 which reads:
      > As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen.

      Problem is, Psalm 119 says no such thing.

      Mod me to heck as flamebait, but it never ceases to amaze me that otherwise-intelligent people who would be deeply ashamed to be caught in an error regarding say, the speed of light, have no qualms whatsoever about displaying the most profound ignorance about the most well-known (though obviously not well-read) book of western civilization.

    14. Re:Sagan's account by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever.
      to
      unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after

      is a non sequitur


      Please explain how "it was always like this and it will never change" does not equate to "it's been this way forever and this is how it will stay".

      --

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

    15. Re:Sagan's account by josh82 · · Score: 1

      "As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever."

      'Please explain how "it was always like this and it will never change" does not equate to "it's been this way forever and this is how it will stay".'

      I suppose it all depends on what the word "it" refers to.

      If "it" doesn't strictly refer to the physical composition of the earth and cosmos, then the poster you responded to has a valid question.

    16. Re:Sagan's account by Rimbo · · Score: 1
      Please explain how "it was always like this and it will never change" does not equate to "it's been this way forever and this is how it will stay".


      What I said was:


      As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever.

      to
      unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after

      is a non sequitur


      First, remember; this is a song, not meant to be a logically rigorous defense of theology nor a mathematical proof we're talking about. That's why it's in Psalms.

      Now, what is "it" that was in the beginning and is now and ever shall be? Specifically, why is "it" referring to Creation, and not, say, God's Covenant with Israel?

      Secondly, is "it" wholly unchanged, or is the Psalm referring to specific aspects of it being unchanged? (It seems like a silly question, until you recognize that the Bible itself seems to contradict this interpretation with the growth in populations, the rise and fall of empires, the flood, the end of the Anakites...)

      Now it's quite possible that there's a sound theological argument here, but I really don't care what it is; the point is that it's not being made, and the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.

      One would think that Sagan himself would be aware of something like this, given that he is the author (but by no means inventor) of the Baloney Detection Kit.
    17. Re:Sagan's account by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      First, remember; this is a song, not meant to be a logically rigorous defense of theology nor a mathematical proof we're talking about.

      Tell it to the dark age monks... but about the psalm...

      That's why it's in Psalms.

      Where in psalms? I looked, it's not where the GP said.
      Closest I could find from memory and a bit of google was in ecclesiastes, go have a look.

      Now it's quite possible that there's a sound theological argument here, but I really don't care what it is; the point is that it's not being made, and the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. One would think that Sagan himself would be aware of something like this, given that he is the author (but by no means inventor) of the Baloney Detection Kit.

      And while you're at your bible, look at Luke 6:42.

      --

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

    18. Re:Sagan's account by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      You're right: The Gloria Patri is not is Psalms, although it's in the Catholic prayer book and is a standard part of almost all Protestant worship services.

      The focus of Gloria Patri is obvious when you read the entire lyrics:

      Glory be to the Father,
      and to the Son
      and to the Holy Ghost.

      As it was in the beginning,
      is now and ever shall be.
      World without end. Amen.


      There is no mention of Creation in this text; what is mentioned is God and the Holy Trinity, which are what was in the beginning and will be now and forever.

      As for the monks, I cannot think for anyone else, much less someone who died a long time ago. I can only think for myself, and what I see is still a non sequitur.

      As for the 2x4 in my eye, I am only judging an argument, not anyone who made them.

  25. on NASA and TNT by Frightening · · Score: 1

    They've proved us right!

    You can think of energy in a kazillion different ways...so why is TNT the first thing to come to mind? Unless NASA is mad about blowing shit up, that is?

    Slashdotters are always right 90% of the time.

    1. Re:on NASA and TNT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because TNT is the general standard to use when talking about the energy of an explosion?

      Think of the phrase "10 kiloton nuclear warhead." The ton in there is tons of TNT.

    2. Re:on NASA and TNT by Frightening · · Score: 1

      Well I said 90% of the time didn't I? And he could have used calories, which are also standard. /*hides

    3. Re:on NASA and TNT by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It was an explosion-like event. Comparing an explosion-like event to a quantity of TNT makes sense (comparing a like event with a like event). You could express it in joules, but it would be meaningless to most people.

  26. Endgame by swordfishBob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's part of the closing scenes in the table tennis game I just saw advertised at the top of this page.

    --
    -- All your bass are below two Hz
  27. Obligatory Outer Limits Reference by SlickMcSly · · Score: 1

    It's a singularity jettisoned from a deccelerating spaceship as a gift to the earth. It's not an attack, don't shoot them! They come in peace but their voices are garbled by water!!!

    1. Re:Obligatory Outer Limits Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop it. That episode was awful.

  28. Re:Where's the sound? In space... by Slashcrunch · · Score: 1


    After your 3rd coffee you realised that sound won't travel too well in the vacuum of space.

  29. "Caught on Video" by GhaleonStrife · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Caught on Video" makes it sound like something dirty was happening. "Hot meteorite on Moon action! All caught on video!"

    1. Re:"Caught on Video" by agentdunken · · Score: 1

      "meteorite gone wild!"

      --
      Linux, because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
    2. Re:"Caught on Video" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It exploded all over the moon...

  30. Slashdotted NASA by camperdave · · Score: 1

    NASA can put a man on the moon but they can't keep a server running more than 10 minutes before getting slashdotted.

    Well, let's not forget that NASA is a space agency, not an ISP.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  31. Re:Thanks for leting us know Nasa , 4 weeks after. by Joebert · · Score: 1

    I don't see how they messed up.

    Think about it, if NASA would have made an alert about that thing, there would have been widespread panic, it would have still hit the moon, & NASA would be toast.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  32. Crater finding shines light on common error by RyanXP · · Score: 1

    This crater is actually the biggest found in years. The last lunar crater NASA scientists thought they discovered turned out to be a case of mistaken identity - one of the telescopes was accidentally zoomed in on the face of a 15 year old local pizza delivery boy. Apparently, this kinda thing happens all the time.

  33. Re:Thanks for leting us know Nasa , 4 weeks after. by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is this how we will be warned if one is heading to hit the earth ? After the fact ?

    Yes, the agencies monitoring our skies should alert the media every time a huge, ten-inch rock comes hurtling toward Earth. Thank goodness we now have actual evidence of interplanetary matter actually hitting to moon, so we can officially worry that they're not warning us of our imminent doom from... things small enough to disintegrate in our atmosphere.

    Oh... never mind.

  34. Re:Where's the sound? In space... by geobeck · · Score: 1

    After your 3rd coffee you realised that sound won't travel too well in the vacuum of space.

    "...but our theory is simply that that no one has created a loud enough sound. And that's where we come in, because our band is truly, pofoundly loud!"
    --Obscure reference (a virtual beer to anyone who gets it)

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  35. Re:Thanks for leting us know Nasa , 4 weeks after. by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Is this how we will be warned if one is heading to hit the earth ? After the fact ? I don't understand we put so much money into that agency and yet they keep messing up. Come you rocket scentist get your game on.

    Ummm, 4 tons TNT equivalent? Who cares. One of these hits us daily and we don't seem to notice.

    20 kiloton airbursts (5000 times bigger, think Hiroshima) happen annually and we don't notice those.

    The 20 megaton airbursts (5 million times bigger, think Tunguska) that happen every hundred years or so, those we notice, some of the time, maybe.

    It's somewhere around 20 gigatons (5 billion times bigger) that we need to start worrying that more than a couple people might get hurt.

  36. NASA servers are still reeling... by Ankur+Dave · · Score: 1

    Here's the cache; it's still pretty fast:
    Main article
    Higher resolution gif

  37. New Crater in Iraq by tjstork · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The USAF dropped two 500lb bombs on Zarqawi's house. Even if you were to make the extremely conservative assumption that 1000lb of today's munitions is equivalent to 1000lbs of TNT, you would have to say that Zarqawi was killed by a pro-rated NASA estimate of 17 billion / 4 tons * .5 tons = 2.125 billion joules on one man's head. That is bad ass!

    Zarqawi Getting Blasted Video

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:New Crater in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      The USAF dropped two 500lb bombs on Zarqawi's house. Even if you were to make the extremely conservative assumption that 1000lb of today's munitions is equivalent to 1000lbs of TNT...

      From last Friday's "Explainer" (Daniel Engber):

      Does a 500-pound bomb really weigh 500 pounds?

      No. Zarqawi got hit with two different weapons--a laser-guided bomb called the GBU-12 and a satellite-guided bomb called the GBU-38. They weigh 606 pounds and 552 pounds, respectively.

      Both weapons are considered "500-pound" munitions because they're based on a standard 500-pound bomb known as the Mk 82. The body of an Mk 82 is augmented with a fuze, a guidance system, and other accessories like wings and tail fins; all of these add to its total weight.

      But the Mk 82 itself packs only about 200 pounds of explosives. It gets the rest of its weight from a steel case, about half an inch thick, that helps to penetrate targets and provides material for fragmentation.

      The "500-pound" designation doesn't give you much information about how powerful a given weapon might be. It's more useful for figuring out how many bombs will fit onto your aircraft.


      -mcgrew (MRC?="economy")
  38. Hmm thats not a shield its a spacestation!!! by JakeX · · Score: 1

    That is actually pretty interesting "Trophy", I love the 'minimal collateral damage' point on that video, makes me want to be there when some guy is selling it to the military etc. :P

  39. Small Furry Creatures by sconeu · · Score: 1

    They're *real* small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  40. Layman's terms and the anatomy of an explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You can think of energy in a kazillion different ways...so why is TNT the first thing to come to mind?"

    Well, you've seen someone blow up a stick of dynamite in a movie, right? Using TNT as a measure of magnitude is NASA's way of putting things in layman's terms, I think. Joe Sixpack may not know what a joule is, for instance, and how many joules is "a lot".

    Personally, I don't think it's a very good way of simplifying the magnitude unless you have actually seen TNT go off in real-life. When you see dynamite or TNT blow up in the movies there's always fire and smoke - that's pyrotechnics doing it's magic with slow-burning liquids like gasoline (with sound effects later added on, in reality pyrotechnics makes an extremely unimpressive sound - just a small poff). A "real" explosion is a quick flash, and a single stick of dynamite exploding would be a lot like looking at the flash of a camera if it werent for the sound and pressure that clued you in on the rest.

    Here are some "fun facts" to those curious about the anatomy of an explosion, and one those things that effectively ruined Hollywood "effects" for me. Basically, if you see fire and black smoke - it's pyrotechnics and safe chemicals. If you see a flash - it's a sign of a real explosive. On film a real explosion is not as impressive because it happens way too fast.

    The fun part: Explosives are, in essence, just burning substances. The faster it burns, however, the more powerful the explosive becomes. Imagine a candle stick. It burns slow and is relatively harmless, right? Well, if that candle burned a couple of thousand times faster it could potentially become as powerful as a stick of dynamite. What we experience as an "explosion" is when a substance burns so fast and consumes oxygen at such a fast rate that it creates atmospheric pressure through expansion/compression powerful enough to go "boom" and shatter any surrounding materials. Another fun fact is that, in theory, a traditional "burning" explosive would not go off in a vaccuum (that's assuming the explosive itself didn't contain some small amount of oxygen that would allow it to burn, can anyone confirm this?).

    As for NASA, TNT is what one might classify as an industrial explosive (stable, not easy to ignite and thus safe to use, which is why the military likes it, at least in my country) so it's probable that many people have seen it go off at some point in their lives, maybe at a construction site? which is yet another reason why NASA may have used it as "layman's terms".

    It's important to note that an atomic bomb is a whole different story and is not a burning explosive. A nuclear explosion realeases energy in an entirely different way (If anyone knows differently, please speak up and correct me on this or perhaps just to explain the anatomy of it. I would personally be interested in hearing about it). Meteorite impacts are yet another type of explosion where the release of energy is caused by the collision. The one thing all explosions do have in common though is the release of energy.

    Anyway, you may already have known all this but it's still fun to explain and think about ;-)

    (Disclaimer: In the marines my job was to blow stuff up, so I've studied the subject enough to not get myself or anyone else killed, this was years ago, however, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but I still think I got most of it right)

  41. More astro movies. by deathcow · · Score: 3, Interesting


    The crab nebula in motion:
    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/1996/22/video/a

    Herbig-Haro object 47 in the Orion Nebula, look at this! This is similiar to the "Pillars of creation in M16.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HH47_animation. gif

    V838 expanding in Monoceros:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030402.html

    The ebb and flow of clouds around Jupiters Red Spot:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001123.html

    1. Re:More astro movies. by w33t · · Score: 1

      awesome! simply awesome!

      Thanks :D

  42. Re:Where's the light comming from?! by rastos1 · · Score: 1
    > When I first loaded I thought, "where's the damn light come from"?

    With no atmosphere on Moon, there is no heating up. No fireball. I would expect some rocks and dust to be thrown out from the impact crater, but no light.

  43. Re:Where's the sound? In space... by Stormmind · · Score: 1



    Arrrggh! They gonna crash into the sun!

  44. well of course it has to be underground by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

    If you recall - MoonBase Alpha was underground not only because of meteor strikes, but because of nuclear waste explosions, and some drunken Eagle pilot crashing his shuttle into the moon at the start of the episode every week from 1975 to 1977.

    You can't just futz around waiting for the next spectacular space crash set to violins, you have to take basic precautions.

    Trust me - I know - I saw it on TV!

  45. Obligatory puberty reference. by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

    Crater face! Crater face!

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  46. Re:Where's the light comming from?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope that was a joke...

  47. Old news by wlvdc · · Score: 1

    But it happened 43 days ago. Disappointing quality of the media.

    --
    -- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.
  48. Its an attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Qaeda is attempting to bomb the moon permanently into a crescent!

  49. Vindicated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A space rock about 10 inches hits Sea of Clouds with force about the same as 4 tons of TNT

    See! Its not about the size of the rock, its about the motion in the sea.

  50. Quality by porneL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is NASA using cellphone cameras now?
    2.5mb of MJPEG noise reencoded as GIF to show off 5x5 pixel spot?

  51. No need to "often wonder" by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    He named the crater in the documentary. As another reply already said, it is the spectacular crater Giordano Bruno, which I think is the only crater large enough to be seen by the naked eye from Earth. (At least, the dust rays radiating from it can be seen.) It can even be seen in Slashdot's "Moon" icon, as a bright spot in the middle near the bottom.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  52. Sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched the movie but there was no sound. Anyone else have this problem? ;)

  53. Re:Obligatory (offtopic response) by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    just kidding, we all know that you are not all fatties.


    This is a completely offtopic comment but it has to be said. You don't know how correct you are in your comment. I'm one of those non-fatties and let me tell you, trying to find a pair of pants in my size (30" waist) is something close to impossible.

    It matters not what store, time of year or any other combination you can think of, the dearth of clothes in general that I can wear is extremely small. For example, there were early Fathers Day sales this past weekend (June 10th & 11th). I went to two local malls and found zero items in my size. Apparently guys can have a 38" waist and a 30" inseam (i.e. an inverted pear shape) but can't be thin and svelte.

    It's not my fault I have a high metabolism (always have) and can eat most people under the table. Nor is it my fault that I'm beyond the age where my body is supposed to gain weight and lose hair but has done neither.

    All I can say is if I should ever be able to buy a clothing store the first order of business will be to fire the buyers. They're idiots. They have no concept of what consumers want in either sizes or style.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  54. energy released by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

    It's not "on fire", it's 17 billion Joules worth of electrons screaming "wheee!" as they jump back down through their energy levels (I love Forrest Mims' smiley electrons). There's no air in an incandescent lightbulb, either.

  55. Re:Obligatory (offtopic response) by adamjaskie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'm not exactly thin (okay, I'm fat), but even I am amazed at the sizes avaliable at stores. With a 40 inch waist (32 inch inseam), I am at about 220 lbs. How big do you have to be to fill out 58-inch pants?!?! A little chubby is one thing, but at least I can sit in normal chairs and fit through doors.

    --
    /usr/games/fortune
  56. OK, lets see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Post interesting video of meteor impact on moon
    2. Government website slashdotted
    3. ??
    4. Prof.. no, no ..... wait

    1. Post interesting video of meteor impact on moon
    2. Government website slashdotted
    3. Claim cyber-terrorists attacking website, crippling it, melting servers....
    4. Increase per anum budget under guise of Dept. of Homeland Security
    5. Profit!!

    AHA!!!!!!!!! I FOUND IT!!!!!! YEAAAAAA

  57. Re:Where's the light comming from?! by drewsome · · Score: 0

    uh... when you crash that much material that fast into the moon, you get vaporization. Energy, baby. Energy. Manifested as light.

  58. Slashdoted NASA by GigG · · Score: 1

    Well it seems we /.'d NASA. Please, what ever you do, go to the NASA during a shuttle mission.

    --
    Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
  59. Oh! meteorite by MerrickStar · · Score: 0

    For some reason I first read that as Metroid.

    Now that would have been some interesting news.


    I think I need to go wake up now.

  60. How do we know this was an impact? by brother.sand · · Score: 1

    I mean it's just a flash of light right? Maybe it's an object being launched. From the magnitude of the light they can estimate the power of the "impact". Could we use the same info to calculate the payload of a rocket being launched?

    Don't you all realize that this means the Martians have colonized our moon?!? The invasion has begun!
    ;->

  61. Re:Obligatory (offtopic response) by JCholewa · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Ha, my girlfriend's sister has a startup discount clothing business, and she keeps complaining that her supplier usually sends her 30" pants that few people buy.

  62. Re:Obligatory (offtopic response) by BobBobBobBobBob · · Score: 1
    All I can say is if I should ever be able to buy a clothing store the first order of business will be to fire the buyers. They're idiots. They have no concept of what consumers want in either sizes or style.

    No, they know what sells.

    Learn to sew if you don't like it. Or hire a tailor.

    My great aunt, who is not in her mid-90s, is 4'10". There was no 'petite' section back when she was a young adult. The only clothes in her size were girls' clothes. So she learned to sew and made all of her own clothes. She also designed and sewed clothes for others, including mother-of-the-bride dresses and wedding dresses and made her living that way. With her experience making her own clothes without a pattern, she became very good at coming up with original, flattering designs for a wide variety of women's shapes.

    The moral of the story is that if you percieve a hole in the market, fill it, either for yourself or for everyone. If it's really a hole, it'll soon be filled. If not, it's just you (but if it is just you, you'll have made what you need for yourself and spared us your whining).

  63. What you fail to recognize is . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    layman's terms don't work on /. since the vast majority of /.ers are not laid men.

    Just give them the measurements in volkswagens. They'll understand.

  64. The true origin of the crater by erice · · Score: 1

    The full force of the Slashdot effecting hitting NASA's server.

    The rock? It's just a cover.

  65. Ecclesiastes 1:9? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
    I suppose it all depends on what the word "it" refers to.
    If "it" doesn't strictly refer to the physical composition of the earth and cosmos, then the poster you responded to has a valid question.


    Well, hard to tell, since psalm 119 doesn't say what the original poster think it says.

    I think, though, he meant: Ecclesiastes 1:9 (English Standard Version)
    What has been is what will be,
        and what has been done is what will be done,
        and there is nothing new under the sun.


    Which does refer specifically to the physical world.
    --

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

    1. Re:Ecclesiastes 1:9? by zipn00b · · Score: 1

      Although even that is part of a rant about how everything is meaningless:
      "What does man profit from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?
      Generations come and generations go but the earth remains forever"
      etc...
      It would be quite a stretch to interpret it to mean that creation as a whole is TOTALLY unchanging. It was part of an example of what was meaningless to drive home the point of what was important.

  66. Re:Where's the light comming from?! by mpe · · Score: 1

    With no atmosphere on Moon, there is no heating up. No fireball. I would expect some rocks and dust to be thrown out from the impact crater, but no light.

    Piezoluminescence does not require an atmosphere. There's also the possibility of an impact mixing components of the crust and the impact body which react emitting light.

  67. Made his day by Graabein · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    "A student member of our team, Nick Hollon of Villanova University, spotted the flash."

    I'm guessing that simple sentence in the article made Mr. Hollon's day. Or even month. ;-)

    --
    And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
  68. Get Fullscreen view w/Opera by lpq · · Score: 1

    If you have a screen larger than 800x600, you might want to use Opera to view the animated Gif. You can use Opera's Zoom feature to zoom the browswer window and image to full screen. Since Firefox doesn't have page zoom, you have to use the image zoom, which is reset each refresh. Unfortunately, by the time you use the cursor to select a larger zoom setting, the "video" is over.
    -l