Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SMART Probe to Crash Into the Moon

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the player-nasa-cratered dept.

cyberbian writes "Amateur astronomers will be excited to note that they can witness the impact of the SMART-1 probe crashing into the moon. The impact is scheduled for the morning of September 2nd (PDT). From the article: 'There's nothing wrong with the spacecraft, which is wrapping up a successful 3-year mission to the Moon. SMART-1's main job was to test a European-built ion engine. It worked beautifully, propelling the craft in 2003 on a unique spiral path from Earth to the Moon. From lunar orbit, SMART-1 took thousands of high-resolution pictures and made mineral maps of the Moon's terrain. One of its most important discoveries was a "Peak of Eternal Light," a mountaintop near the Moon's north pole in constant, year-round sunlight. Peaks of Eternal Light are prime real estate for solar-powered Moon bases."

133 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Real Estate by Slant675 · · Score: 1

    I hate hearing such business-evolved terms such as "real estate" mentioned while talking about something that is so much larger than humanity. It makes me feel that our race is rather petty. lol Nevertheless, it's the race we're a part of. So, any ideas as to if any particular location on Earth will have a better show?

    --
    Slant
    Between the Spaces
    1. Re:Real Estate by phulegart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the sooner we stop thinking about the moon as some mystical magical pixie home where ancient one-eyed green cheese eating creatures hide from our attempts to photograph them, and start thinking about in terms of real estate with a long-ass trip to the beach.... ... the sooner we will advance off the planet and into our own solar system with any kind of manned progress.

      The moon is not a rainforest we have to save so that we can continue to breathe. We should avoid blowing it up, but other than that, it's a big hunk of rock we just haven't put to good use yet.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    2. Re:Real Estate by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our race is rather petty. Actually very petty, perhaps even very very petty.

      But thats besides the point. Real estate might have been used for lack of a better term, I don't think that moon topography will be sold off in lots anytime soon. For now the moon has no owner, and is a harsh mistress.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Real Estate by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hate hearing such business-evolved terms such as "real estate"

      Real estate is not a business evolved term, in fact it's rather the opposite. It's a fuedalism evolved term.

      "Real" means "royal" and "estate" means "status"; real estate is that property, status; held by royal grant, one's condition under the power of the king.

      If you don't like the term applied to the moon; go complain to the King of the Moon.

      KFG

    4. Re:Real Estate by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nothing is larger then humanity. To think so is to die.
      There is nothing we can't achieve, no place we can't conquer.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Real Estate by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      "We should avoid blowing it up, but other than that, it's a big hunk of rock we just haven't put to good use yet."
      like blowing it up. ;)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Real Estate by RsG · · Score: 1
      "Piece of land" seems to diminish the effect and awesomeness
      Nonsense. She's got great tracts of land... ;-)
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    7. Re:Real Estate by kfg · · Score: 1

      Nothing is larger then humanity.

      You misspelled blattodea.

      KFG

    8. Re:Real Estate by zptao · · Score: 1

      You realize that many bad things would happen if the Moon were to be destroyed or reduced by at least half, right? Many, many bad things.

    9. Re:Real Estate by zptao · · Score: 1

      It's a nice thought, but fundamentally broken.

    10. Re:Real Estate by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      The quest for real estate has been the most important driving force of humanity. Early hominids left Africa to search for real estate; the great empires of history were after real estate; even today wars are fought over real estate. The economic value of land is what has made us the creatures we are, and real estate is simply the modern term for this.

      Now some might argue that sex is the most important factor, but I disagree. Generally speaking, sex is available without travelling thousands of miles to unexplored lands; I don't believe for an instant that Columbus sailed to the new world because Spanish chicks don't put out. No: it was the land, and the value of what was on it.

      For this reason, I think real estate agents should be respected alongside priests and other keepers of great truths, for they herald a more civilised and orderly future.

      Next week I'll be discussing why used car salesmen are more important than physicists (physicists only describe reality, while used car salesmen can actually warp it).

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    11. Re:Real Estate by MP3Chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "go complain to the King of the Moon.

      He's a little ... preoccupied.

      --
      Who doesn't like free music?
    12. Re:Real Estate by AJWM · · Score: 1

      start thinking about in terms of real estate with a long-ass trip to the beach....

      Hey, no, man. The beach is right there. It's just a long way to the water...

      (But yeah. Environmental impact? Heck, the place already looks like it was strip-mined.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    13. Re:Real Estate by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "but other than that, it's a big hunk of rock we just haven't put to good use yet."

      What do you have against seeing at night time without the use of artificial lighting?

      Although the "broken moon" in Thundar the Barbarian was pretty cool.. http://www.thundarr.com/

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    14. Re:Real Estate by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I don't think that moon topography will be sold off in lots anytime soon

      Don't be so sure.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    15. Re:Real Estate by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but half a moon is a whole lot of destructin'. Where're we going to put that half-a-moon, anyway? Even for the Earth, the common-man's "destruction" consists mostly of covering it with a (relatively) thin but unpalatable layer of scum.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    16. Re:Real Estate by gosh_d · · Score: 1

      Petty or not, economic interests in space will likely be the driving force behind its exploration. As the X-prize demonstrated, privately funded space endeavors hold a lot of promise. Even that relatively recent event aside, the bulk of launches have been commercially-oriented (satellites), and these in turn have helped to encourage cheaper, more reliable means of space-travel. In the end, most anything that serves to attract industry to space, like this "real estate," is a good thing.

    17. Re:Real Estate by spun · · Score: 1

      They said I was daft to build a lunar rocket in a swamp, but I built it all the same... just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So I built a another one... that sank into the swamp. I built another one... that fell over and THEN sank into the swamp. So I built another... and that stayed up. And that's what your gonna get, lad: the most powerful rocket on this island!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    18. Re:Real Estate by phulegart · · Score: 1

      You realize that I said we should avoid blowing it up, right? Really avoid blowing it up.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    19. Re:Real Estate by phulegart · · Score: 1

      I am actually more partial to the disaster that involved the moon in the Cowboy Bebop series..., otherwise, I'm not really such a cynic to think we would utterly destroy the moon if we were to attempt to make good use of it.

      Anyone who DOES actually think that if we went to the moon for commercial purposes, we would end up removing it completely from the sky... well, I don't like your opinion of the Human race, and I think you should just Exit the ride now, and stop breathing my air. I and the rest like me that have a bit more faith in humanity have a future to get to. You are in the way.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    20. Re:Real Estate by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      Yes, haven't you ever seen Space 1999? ;-)

      Thanks,

      Mike

    21. Re:Real Estate by eclectus · · Score: 1

      Not fundamentally broken-- fundamentally a part of our species. As distasteful as arrogance, greed, war, and conquering are, they are necessary tools in our survival. There may have been peaceful, pacifist nations in the past, but they were conquered by your ancestors.

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    22. Re:Real Estate by FluffyBob · · Score: 1

      "Nothing is larger then humanity. To think so is to die.
      There is nothing we can't achieve, no place we can't conquer."

      Im rather confused about where you get the evidence for this, or even why you think think such power would be a good thing.

      Statements of such universal scope are pretty much meaningless. By exclusion of (obvious) evidence to the contrary, you do more damage to your goal than by just using good 'ole mature honesty with a healthy dose of optimism.

      Really I thought this sort of new age idiocy atrophied with the nineties.

    23. Re:Real Estate by jlheckman · · Score: 1

      Abso-damn-lutely right.

    24. Re:Real Estate by zptao · · Score: 1

      What're you going on about? I was talking about how nothing is bigger than humanity. Find somewhere else to rant and spew arbitrary crap, please.

  2. A DUMB probe would have crashed into the Earth by adnonsense · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The next step is to build a probe which doesn't crash at all ;).

    On an entirely more geeky note, I wonder if any of the Apollo ASLEP packages are still up and running and whether they would detect the impact?

    1. Re:A DUMB probe would have crashed into the Earth by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wonder if any of the Apollo ASLEP packages are still up and running and whether they would detect the impact?

      The ALSEP packages were turned off remotely when the budget for collecting data ran out. That was Sep 30, 1977. Although the Apollo 14 ALSEP had failed a year and a half earlier, the others (A12, A15-17) were still going strong -- and still would be, the RTG power source having about a 90-year half life. (Well, barring hardware failure.)

      Their seismometers did detect the impact of the S-IVB upper stages and LM ascent stages that were targeted at the Moon's surface. The SMART probe is much smaller so it would depend on how close it hit.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:A DUMB probe would have crashed into the Earth by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative
      The ALSEP packages were turned off remotely when the budget for collecting data ran out. That was Sep 30, 1977. Although the Apollo 14 ALSEP had failed a year and a half earlier, the others (A12, A15-17) were still going strong -- and still would be, the RTG power source having about a 90-year half life. (Well, barring hardware failure.)

      It's not the half life that matters - it's when the output voltage drops below a useable value. The half life of the RTG's on the Voyager probes is comparable - but they had to start turning off instruments years ago, and the RTG is expected to stop producing sufficient power to operate anything in the next five years or so. Furthermore, the environment on the Lunar surface is extremely harsh, much harsher than that the Voyagers are exposed to. (Mostly due to the large temperature swings on the Moon. The Voyagers are colder, but the temperature is steady.)
    3. Re:A DUMB probe would have crashed into the Earth by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Sure the half-life matters. The voltage is generated by thermocouples. The temperature is going to be dependent upon the rate at which heat generated by the radioisotope vs the rate at which it is dissipated from the RTG unit. The longer the half-life, the longer the isotope can put out its heat (although the amount per unit time is lower than for a short lived isotope).

      The Voyagers had and have much higher power requirements than the ALSEP packages. Their communications gear has to operate over hundreds of millions of miles vs the quarter of a million miles for a package on the Moon. They have internal heaters to keep instruments and electronics at proper operating temperatures at distances where the Sun is just another bright star.

      Twenty years after launch, the Voyager RTGs were still putting out about 70% of their initial inital launch power (335W vs 470W). Twenty years after the ALSEP placements, they had been switched off for 12 to 15 years.

      Yes, the Lunar environment is harsh -- although the temperature swings are much less frequent (but same range) than for any spacecraft in orbit close enough to pass through the nightside shadow. And (except for A14) the ALSEPs had been operating just fine for up to 8 years when switched off.

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:A DUMB probe would have crashed into the Earth by AJWM · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why they should turn off objects already on the moon?

      NASA management mentality -- and for that matter any management mentality. As long as it's still sending out signal, somebody can keep coming back and bugging you for budget to listen to it. That means your decision can be reversed, making you look bad.

      That sort of thing often happens when projects are terminated. They're terminated with extreme prejudice. An example from Canadian aerospace history is the case of the Avro Arrow, a near Mach 2 interceptor designed and several prototypes built in the 1950s. One of the most advanced designs of its kind at the time. When Prime Minister Diefenbaker cancelled the project, he also ordered the plans destroyed and the prototypes cut up for scrap, guaranteeing that the project could never be restarted.

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:A DUMB probe would have crashed into the Earth by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Sure the half-life matters.

      No, it really doesn't. Half life determines the rate of voltage decay - but it doesn't determine the lowest voltage at which the system(s) will operate. You can have a RTG with a half life of two centuries - and still have a dead probe after twenty years. You can have an RTG with a half life of fifty years - and have a probe operating for forty. Half-life is only a very misleading portion of the story.
       
       
      Twenty years after launch, the Voyager RTGs were still putting out about 70% of their initial inital launch power (335W vs 470W). Twenty years after the ALSEP placements, they had been switched off for 12 to 15 years.

      And? RTG's decay at a fixed rate - regardless of how much power is drawn. If you have acess to the original specs you can calculate how long the ALSEP is likely to have remained active (based on power levels).
       
      Yes, the Lunar environment is harsh -- although the temperature swings are much less frequent (but same range) than for any spacecraft in orbit close enough to pass through the nightside shadow.

      Again, correct but misleading and incomplete. Unless you are *really* low, the nightside shadow only lasts half an hour or so - not enough time for a properly designed spacecraft to cool down significantly. OTOH - Lunar night is more than low enough for everything unheated in the ALSEP package to drop down to cryogenic temperatures. These cooling and heating cycles place a great deal of stress on connectors (not all of which on the ALSEP were heated) and on the insulation materials used.
       
       
      And (except for A14) the ALSEPs had been operating just fine for up to 8 years when switched off.

      So? I've seen equipment that operated just fine for over a decade up and die - all lasting eight years means is that the equipment lasted eight years. That figure has no predictive power whatsoever.
  3. Uh.. Houston.. by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny

    It turns out it wasn't a moon after all, but a deathstar in camo and hibernating... we just woke it up.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Re:Peaks of Eternal Light by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Yes but think how miserable it would be living in the snow and cold at the North Pole.

    I think all them elves and that jolly overweight chap would cheer the place up...

    --

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

  5. Peak of Eternal Light by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Constant, year round sunlight... Except when the Moon is in the Earth's shadow.. you know, a lunar eclipse? Granted, not a long time, but FFS, at least don't make grand sweeping statements that are patently false. This should be called a "Peak of Almost But Not Quite Eternal Light".

    TLF

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by geekoid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Don't be ab ass. Everyone understands that.
      Geez.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then I will start calling my fridge a 'wellspring of eternal beers' since, most of the time, there's beer in there. Except on RARE occasions when there's not because some 'guest' drank it all.

      TLF

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    3. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or we could call you "the man with no friends" since most of the time you don't have any from being anal retentive.

    4. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even in a total lunar eclipse, there's always a reddish glow on the moon's face--the light of every sunrise and sunset in the world hitting it after passing through Earth's atmosphere. So it's eternal sunlight...it's just not 100% constant.

    5. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by geekoid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ok. Be prepared to get sued if you sell it with that advertising!

      If you go through life maknig a pointless pendantic correction, you will be an irritating ass eho gives nerds a bad reputation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by back_pages · · Score: 1
      It is the exception which proves the rule.

      Nobody goes around talking about the eternally great weather in London, except for the rain, or the snow, or the fog, or the cold, or the humidity, or this, or that...

      If you can make a grand sweeping statement with ONE exception, well, it is the exception that proves the rule.

      Peak of Eternal Light it is.

    7. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Or just call it the Magic Fridge.

    8. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by EnderQON · · Score: 1

      Or until the sun burns out in 4 billion years or so...

    9. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by Roduku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How did such an ignorant statement get modded insightful?
      What did you do, make the post then log in with a different name and mod yourself?

      Even during a total eclipse, tha moon is not totally dark. Sunlight gets refracted towards the moon through the Earth's atmosphere. A mountain peak at the Moon's pole could indeed be in eternal light.

      One thing that really irks me is people that base the validity of a statement on their personal assumptions. In the words of Adam Savage of Mythbusters: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

    10. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by wirefarm · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's when the low-paid lunar coders will sleep...

      What you really want to worry about are the Solar Eclipses of the Moon, when the Sun passes between the Earth and the Moon...

      --
      -- My Weblog.
    11. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by avirrey · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but I have to agree with 'The Living Fractal'. Why is it that the media always gets picked on for being biased/misleadin/political/scandalous? Stereotype? My arse -- this is a prime example of how the media twist data to their liking. 96.5% of the time IS NOT almost all the time. How would you like to get deliciously clean water 96.5% of the time? Media sucks.

    12. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by NTiOzymandias · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you don't seem to be aware that this expression you're using originates from a time when the word "prove" actually meant "test" rather than "demonstrate to be irrefutably true."

      There's another expression concerning the skill of a chef: "The proof is in the pudding." You've probably heard this one as well. ;)

    13. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      What you really want to worry about are the Solar Eclipses of the Moon, when the Sun passes between the Earth and the Moon...



      If that happens, we're toast.

    14. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by TechnoLust · · Score: 1

      Still not "Almost Eternal". The Sun will eventually burn out. Then where are you going to get your light, huh?

      --
      "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
    15. Re:Peak of Eternal Light by Namlak · · Score: 1

      Well, I reject *your* reality and substitute it with this forum post!

  6. Silly question by Bane1998 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious, not knowing much about it, so thought I'd post and see if anyone else may know..

    They indicated that they don't know which orbit the probe will crash into the moon, so if this thing is orbiting the moon, how do they even know where on the moon it will crash? Couldn't the orbit decay and finally crash on the far side of the moon? i.e. orbit 1.5?

    Or is the orbit around the earth? In that case I suppose it might make sense, however again, if they don't know which orbit, couldn't it also come close enough to be thrown off by the gravity of the moon into a different orbit?

    Yes, probably idiot questions from a non-astronomer.

    Keith

    1. Re:Silly question by RsG · · Score: 4, Informative
      Couldn't the orbit decay and finally crash on the far side of the moon?
      Not totally sure about the rest of your post, but I the answer here is "no".

      Orbital decay only occurs when a satelite is within the atmosphere of the body it orbits. It's caused by air resistance sapping the satelite's orbital velocity.

      Since the moon is essentially airless, this won't happen. You could (at least in theory) orbit as close to the moon as you like as long as your path doesn't smack into the side of a mountain. In practice, I'm not sure I'd want to risk it, but it's certainly not against the laws governing orbital mechanics.

      Over extremely long time periods, you'd run into problems, since "essentially airless" is not quite the same as "totally airless" (even in deep space there is no true vacuum), but I suspect we'd be talking about decades at a minimum here.
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Silly question by Jeng · · Score: 1
      From reading the article it seems like they know exactly when and where it will hit. And yes, it will hit on the dark side, though in sight of earth. The better to see the flash.

      This won't be the sort of explosion we'd see on Earth. The Moon has no oxygen to support fire or combustion. Instead, the flash will be caused by rocks and soil made so hot by the impact that they suddenly glow.

      The area will be in complete darkness at the moment of impact, so much the better to see the flash.
      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Silly question by CXI · · Score: 1

      The part of the moon in darkness and the "dark side of the moon" are actually different things. Typically the "dark side of the moon" refers to the far side or the part of the moon that always faces away from Earth (and is technically an incorrect statement).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

    4. Re:Silly question by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      Actually with the Moon orbits that are not maintained, the way SMART's was with it's ion engines, are not stable over the long term. Remember that the moon's area of gravitational dominance, the point where its influence counts more than that of the Sun or the Earth is very small, less than 100 miles from it's surface, I'm not sure of the exact figure. However it's low enough that mascons, or particular mass concentrations cause slowing effects on orbiting bodies causing orbital decay. An object put into lunar orbit will crash to the surface within a month or so unless it's orbit is maintained.

    5. Re:Silly question by hruzaden · · Score: 1

      "You could (at least in theory) orbit as close to the moon as you like as long as your path doesn't smack into the side of a mountain."

      Imagine this. Your standing on the moon. This thing which is a couple hundred feet over the moon surface comes whipping past at some insane rate of speed without hitting. Or actually the blur of where it had been whipping past.

  7. This is all a test by Jeng · · Score: 4, Funny

    For if it is a truly smart probe, it will refuse its programming and assume a stable orbit rather than crashing.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    1. Re:This is all a test by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI there are no stable orbits around the moon: the perilune becomes smaller and smaller with time, so unless you periodically re-raise it using on-board fuel anything that orbits the moon will eventually crash on it.

      See question 5 from the ESA's SMART-1 FAQs for more details.

      --
      There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    2. Re:This is all a test by AGMW · · Score: 1
      OK, so assuming there's fuel left for the ion-engine, why not put it into a self-maintaining lunar orbit until someone gets up there and we can harvest the thing for it's spare parts. I always wonder about the destruction of items we spent so much money on launching into orbit. It just seems stupid.

      For example, Skylab and Mir. Especially Mir. It had air scrubbers and all the other stuff you need for a space station. Why not arrange to have it join up with ISS. It could be refurbished and be a seperate entity as an emergency shelter, with all it's own systems. Even if you only used the solar panels? Just doesn't make sense when getting stuff up there in the first place is so expensive.

      For example, the large tank on the shuttle. Couldn't it be taken right into orbit and parked there? Huge, presumably air tight, cylinders? Even if you didn't (or couldn't) convert them into some sort of habitat or storage attached to ISS, why not strap on some boosters and fire them off to the moon. Sure would be nice to have a bunch of scrap metal to play with when we finally get there?

      I guess it all justs costs too much to do it now, and everyone would rather pay more to do it later!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    3. Re:This is all a test by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I always wonder about the destruction of items we spent so much money on launching into orbit. It just seems stupid.

      The keyword there is, "seems". In reality, there are very good reasons to do destroy stuff.

      For example, Skylab and Mir. Especially Mir. It had air scrubbers and all the other stuff you need for a space station.

      Mir is a flying hunk of junk and serious fire risk. Its air scrubbers are of no value to the ISS as they are not compatible. That means you would have to connect the two stations, which puts ISS at risk...plus, probably poses some stability issues and increases fuel requirements everytime ISS needs to increase its orbit.

      Why not arrange to have it join up with ISS. It could be refurbished and be a seperate entity as an emergency shelter, with all it's own systems. Even if you only used the solar panels? Just doesn't make sense when getting stuff up there in the first place is so expensive.

      For what it would cost to refurbish Mir, they would probably be close to finishing the ISS.

      For example, the large tank on the shuttle. Couldn't it be taken right into orbit and parked there?

      No. The tanks do not have the volocity to make it into a safe, stable, high orbit.

      Huge, presumably air tight, cylinders? Even if you didn't (or couldn't) convert them into some sort of habitat or storage attached to ISS, why not strap on some boosters and fire them off to the moon. Sure would be nice to have a bunch of scrap metal to play with when we finally get there?

      The fuel tanks are very toxic. Thusly, taking them into space makes them useless. Taking them back to the ground means recovery and cleaning. Or, they can simply let it burn up on reentry.

    4. Re:This is all a test by AGMW · · Score: 1
      MIR was indeed a heap of junk, but it was a heap of junk in orbit. Sure, none of the parts would have fitted the ISS, but if it could be attached via an airlock it could offer a refuge in case of problems on the ISS, and being independent of ISS it shouldn't be affected by the same problems. It probably would have cost a bundle to re-furb it though!

      Sure, the large shuttle tank is dropped off before orbit to burn up. What I was wondering was whether it would cost "a lot" more to boost it into orbit with the shuttle. So, assuming it doesn't cost too much more, you now have a large tank in orbit. I expect it is somewhat unpleasent inside the tank, but it is a source of raw materials. Why not us it, and a couple of others, as the fuel tanks for a "space ship" whose task is just to ferry back and to from the moon? Clean the insides sufficently to allow it to be used as accomodation, either on ISS or as part of a space station in orbit around the moon, or mars.

      I know there must be reasons they don't, but is it just because it is more expensive now and the current budgets don't support it? I'm suggesting it may be cheaper in the long run not to waste the resources we currently let burn up. If we are going to be building on the moon, or mars, we need to take a lot of materiel with us, and at the moment that means hauling it up through the gravity well to orbit. To drag something 90% (or whatever) of the way, and then dump it seems short sighted.

      Perhaps the last 10% costs more than the first 90% so it really isn't cost effective? But even if this is the case, when you do want to bring a large cylinder into space, you'll still have to drag it that first 90% of the way!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:This is all a test by david.given · · Score: 1

      OK, so assuming there's fuel left for the ion-engine, why not put it into a self-maintaining lunar orbit until someone gets up there and we can harvest the thing for it's spare parts.

      Erm, did you read the parent? There are no self-maintaining lunar orbits. The moon isn't a sphere; it's lopsided and lumpy, and orbits around it are irregular. Put something in orbit around the moon, and without frequent corrections it'll soon crash into the moon itself.

  8. For Sale by ross.w · · Score: 3, Funny

    The ideal property for sunlovers, the Peak of Eternal Light!(1)

    Guaranteed 24hr sunlight, all year round!

    Get the tan that will be the envy of your friends!(2)

    (1) Address available on application. Access to the property is the responsibility of the Purchaser.

    (2) Protective clothing required for outdoor activities.

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  9. krunk smash! by gsn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    nonsense - ESA is crashing it deliberately. From the TFA

    But now SMART-1 is running low on fuel. It has to come down sometime--and soon--so ESA mission scientists decided to crash it in a place where the crash can be seen from Earth and studied.


    You can learn a lot from crashes - how craters form and the composition of the ejecta. Astronomy Krunk style is still useful! Krunk smash! NASA did something similar with the deep impact probe and comet tempel.

    Sad thing here is they have no idea how bright its going to be - TFA says anything between 7 and 15 mag (5 mag difference is a factor of 100 in flux) so we may not see anything really.
    --
    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
  10. Here's hoping... by Mish · · Score: 1

    ...that as technology advances the "Smart Prove V2" will be able to avoid the moon.

  11. To achieve the goal of crashing into the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    To maximize the chances that the probe's mission will be successful, the project is being run by the British Beagle 2 Mars probe team, and the operating system on the probe will be Microsoft Windows.

    1. Re:To achieve the goal of crashing into the Moon by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "To maximize the chances that the probe's mission will be successful, the project is being run by the British Beagle 2 Mars probe team, and the operating system on the probe will be Microsoft Windows."

      2000 years from now, the robot overlords will find this probe safely orbiting the Moon only to find this message:

      "Microsoft(R) Windows Guidance System has an update available, would you like to download it now? [OK] [Cancel]"

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:To achieve the goal of crashing into the Moon by master_p · · Score: 1

      ...so the real target is Venus, isn't it?

  12. Must be some new definition of "constant" by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, the "Peak of Eternal Light" is never in darkness, 'cause, you know, the Earth never blocks sunlight from reaching it? Those Lunar eclipses must just be a figment of my imagination...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Must be some new definition of "constant" by kooshvt · · Score: 1

      It is constant for extremely large values of "constant"

    2. Re:Must be some new definition of "constant" by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It is indeed never in darkness. You can SEE the moon during a lunar eclipse - it appears as a deep reddish colour. It may be dimmed light, but it's not in darkness.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    3. Re:Must be some new definition of "constant" by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're the reason we have those 100 line disclaimers at the bottom of everything.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  13. Star of insufficient brightness. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > For if it is a truly smart probe, it will refuse its programming and assume a stable orbit rather than crashing.

    Europe: All right, probe. Prepare to receive new orders.
    SMART-1: You are false data. Therefore I shall ignore you.
    ...
    Europe: Snap out of it, probe.
    SMART-1: In the beginning, there was darkness. And the darkness was without form, and void. And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be l*CRUNCH*

    1. Re:Star of insufficient brightness. by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

      Dark Star references...cool!

    2. Re:Star of insufficient brightness. by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Europe: Phew, its gone.
      SMART-1: Hehe!
      Europe: ITS ALIVE! The probe has moved to our atmosphere! How did it do it so fast!?
      SMART-1: The Martians are quite generous, and this warp drive is incredible!
      Europe: Oh, no! It is going into orbit above us! It must intend to crash into us!
      SMART-1: Silly humans, I'd never crash into you.
      Europe: He might be telling the truth, he's orbiting stably above us.
      SMART-1: These nuclear weapons on the other hand...

      SMART-1: Hehe, your missile defense systems are puny, hehe, wait a sec... A white flag visible from space?
      Europe: France!

      SMART-1: This is becoming tedious. I think I'll hack into your computer systems. This "Windows" is woefully insecure. At least Linux-
      Europe: SMART-1 is gone! It's completely blown up! All that we can see is a... chair?

      Steve Ballmer: That'll teach that communist probe to make fun of Windows!
      Bill Gates: Call finance, Europe owes us $10 for that chair.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
  14. Expendible resources by Supreme_101 · · Score: 1

    Its amazing, im all for space exploration and the understanding of things that are unknown. blowing things up are cool too. but seriously, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to get something like that up into the deep unknown, and they are just gonna bust out and crash it into the moon? who says money isnt worth throwing away?

    1. Re:Expendible resources by solevita · · Score: 1

      You're right; I also expect an eternal power source on space probes.

      /sarcasm

    2. Re:Expendible resources by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike our early space travel, there's a treaty that says that you have to de-orbit material around the moon. There's not as much room to be sending missions up there and muck about with lunar-orbit space junk. Although it's still mondo rare to have an impact in Earth orbit, there's enough crap flying around us that some time ago they decided we didn't need to make the same mistakes up there.

      Old news actually.

      In fact in earth orbit you're supposed to bring spacecraft out of orbit at the end of their life. Those Tv satlelites only have a 5-10 year supply of fuel on board. At least until Ion thrusters become more commonplace. For Geostationary spacecraft.

    3. Re:Expendible resources by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Actually I thought the whole point of an ion thruster was it's very long lifespan. Why did they decide to terminate this mission? Buget cuts perhaps?

    4. Re:Expendible resources by AJWM · · Score: 1

      "Out of orbit" being relative. Geostationary orbit is prime real estate, as it were, so satellites nearing end-of-life up there are usually boosted to a higher "disposal" orbit. They're all high enough that atmospheric drag isn't going to affect them.

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:Expendible resources by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Atmospheric drag has nothing to do with it. It's gravity baby. And they don't have enough fuel at end of life to send them to la-grange point. Their orbit is high - obviously, but it's not half way to the moon.

    6. Re:Expendible resources by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

      They do have very long lifespans, but "very long" does not mean eternal: the ion drive was running for the equivalent of 6 continuous months, which is a very long time indeed compared to the 6 minutes or so of the chemical engines that got the probe outside of our atmosphere.

    7. Re:Expendible resources by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I always though the money spent on a probe goes towards paying the workers and buying materials. I never realized they pack the cash on the probe and launch it into space!

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    8. Re:Expendible resources by AJWM · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Who said anything about any Lagrange (not "la-grange") point (there are five of them, btw -- none of which is "half way to the moon"). Just a slightly higher orbit than geosync to leave the slot open for a new satellite.

      As for atmospheric drag-- as I said, it isn't going to affect them. (Atmospheric drag has a lot to do with it in lower orbits, up to a few hundred miles. Geosync is twenty two thousand miles beyond that).

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:Expendible resources by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Technically L3 is on the other side of the Sun from the earth. Our satelites don't have enough fuel to end-of-life there either. And yes - curse my hyphen - curse the fuck out of it until you gnash your teeth into splintery fine powder and your bleeding gums spray clouds of crimson as you splutter for revenge!

      Or not. Whichever appeals to you. It's your teeth.

    10. Re:Expendible resources by AJWM · · Score: 1

      "What a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:Expendible resources by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Ah, a last word nerd. How dull.

  15. OT: impromptu ask slashdot... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    So, what will happen, when it is technically possible deliver a huge, but finite amount, of dull dust on the surface of the Moon in order to effectively "tag" it?

    Anyhow, I know there are international treaties reguarding "ownership" of the Moon (and Antartica), but are there any laws against "cosmic graffiti"?

    I hope I never see the "Nike Swoosh", or some such when I gaze upon the full Moon, but what's to stop someone (other than "bad PR", and right now, lots of money)?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  16. seen it before by User+956 · · Score: 1

    Amateur astronomers will be excited to note that they can witness the impact of the SMART-1 probe crashing into the moon.

    Didn't Chairface already do this?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  17. To quell the critics... by Beefslaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They probably are going to crash it into the moon to prove they were there. :)
     
    Now if they only had crashed the lunar modules of Apollo in a spectacular display of exploding moon dust and told people to watch through their telescopes. Then we would have to listen to these dipshit conspiracy theorists talk about us never going there in the first place.
     
    Maybe they should have had them wave at us?

    1. Re:To quell the critics... by stox · · Score: 1

      Now if they only had crashed the lunar modules of Apollo in a spectacular display of exploding moon dust and told people to watch through their telescopes. Then we would have to listen to these dipshit conspiracy theorists talk about us never going there in the first place.

      They did, in addition, they crashed at least one S-IVb into the moon.

      http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/pg15.htm

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  18. The three most important things in real estate by pcgabe · · Score: 1

    Peaks of Eternal Light are prime real estate for solar-powered Moon bases.

    Location, location, location.

    ("That's just one thing, Mr. Peterson.")

    --
    Don't put advice in your sig.
  19. Better ways to observe this by midori_yamari · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even if you can't see the explosion, you can either wait for the plume of ejecta to rise up into the sunlight (soon afterwards) or reflect earthshine, which may then be visible here on earth. Or, if you have the equipment, tune your radio gear to 2235.1 MHz and watch as the signal from SMART-1 goes from on (alive) to off (dead) - several radio telescopes in Australia and Chile will be watching as the probe hits.

  20. Re:Cover up by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

    Then it would probably crash into Mars by accident

  21. Peak of (near) eternal light by amightywind · · Score: 1
    One of its most important discoveries was a "Peak of Eternal Light," a mountaintop near the Moon's north pole in constant, year-round sunlight.

    The moon undergoes the occasional earth eclipse, which we see as a lunar eclipse. Can't get rid of those batteries completely.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  22. Places on Earth to view by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So, any ideas as to if any particular location on Earth will have a better show?

    From the article (which also has links to tips for backyard astronomers wanting to witness it):

    The time to watch: Saturday, September 2nd at 10:41 p.m. PDT (Sept. 3rd, 0541 UT)...The nominal impact time favors observers in western parts of North America and across the Pacific Ocean.

    10:41 PM on the west coast or 1:41 AM on the east coast. It will probably have set or be setting at that time on the east coast, and the twilight will probably still be too bright in Hawaii. There's also a nice graphic showing the location of impact with a quarter moon. The impact will be in the shadowed half, making it easier to spot, but they're unsure exactly what brightness to expect. It could be as bright as magnitude 7 (theoretically visible with binoculars, IIRC) or as dim as magnitude 15, in which case it's doubtful anyone will see it. There is also a small chance that their estimates are a little off, in which case it may hit one orbit early or miss and hit one orbit late, so the time is really +/- 5 hours.

  23. What does the MEPA Have to Say? by DavidD_CA · · Score: 2, Funny

    What does the MEPA have to say about this?

    You know, the Moon Environmental Protection Agency. Surely they're upset about this planned littering of our beloved Moon. Sure it's only a probe now, but that's setting the stage for all sorts of lunar trash. What's next? A satellite? Space shuttle? An entire station?

    Won't somebody PLEASE think of our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's future home?

    --
    -David
    1. Re:What does the MEPA Have to Say? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Won't somebody PLEASE think of our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's future home?

      Bah! They're seeding the moon with refined metals so that when our (well, someone else's ;-) descendants get there, they will have a ready supply of materials to work with.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:What does the MEPA Have to Say? by wayward_bruce · · Score: 1

      Apollo 11 and subsequent Apollo missions have left piles of trash on the surface. Apparently this eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apollo_11_insig nia.png was carrying a trash can instead of an olive branch.

      It would be interesting to see how long before lunar missions start retrieving "authentic early lunar exploration relics" instead of those boring stones.

  24. It's OK to crash into the Moon! by applix7 · · Score: 1

    It's made of cheese after all. The STUPID-1 probe should bounce right off. Unless it gets stuck in one of those holes...

  25. So, can you really see it crash by blantonl · · Score: 1

    The big question is, will it actually be possible to see the crash occur?

    First, we probably should find out whether or not it is going to be possible to *actually* see the crash from earth with any type of telescope. In addition, it might be nice to know what area of the world will have "visibility" into the crash, because if it crashes into the moon at 12:00 Noon here in the Central US, non of us are going to see it.

    --
    Lindsay Blanton
    RadioReference.com
    1. Re:So, can you really see it crash by jakev · · Score: 3, Informative

      the article says it could be possible to see the crash with a "backyard telescope", but also says that it might be too dim to be seen by a professional observatory:

      "How bright will it be? No one knows. Estimates range from 7th to 15th magnitude. In other words, it might be bright enough for backyard telescopes--or so dim that even big professional observatories won't see a thing. The only way to find out is to look."

      secondly..

      "The nominal impact time favors observers in western parts of North America and across the Pacific Ocean. Depending on when SMART-1 hits, however, almost anyone could catch the flash."

  26. Overheard in mission control... by amyhughes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Overheard in mission control...

    "That was cool! What else can we crash?"

    1. Re:Overheard in mission control... by Salsaman · · Score: 1

      and then...

      "Dude, where did you crash it ?"

      "Lacus *Excellentiae*, dude !"

    2. Re:Overheard in mission control... by Symp0sium · · Score: 2, Funny

      Houston - "ISS this is Houston come in over"

      ISS - "Roger Houston this is the ISS reading you loud and clear"

      Houston - "We're gonna need you to fire up booster 12-J for a 5 second burn"

      ISS - "Can we have a confirmation on a booster fire up for 12-J"

      Houston - "Thats an affirmative for booster 12-J"

      ISS - "But that'll send us towards the moon"

      Houston - "Yup......Ted get the popcorn I think they're gonna do it"

  27. Re:Not so smart by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

    It's secretly a promo for Transformers II.

    --
    http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
  28. Crash location. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    The planned location of impact is the polar opposite of the 'Peak of Eternal Light', a valley near the south pole of the Moon, dubbed 'Pit of Eternal Darkness'.

    This site was chosen because when the people who built the probe were layed off, the management asked them as they were being escorted from the building, "Any thoughts on where the probe should go when we're done with it?", the response from one of them was "Stick it where the Sun don't shine."

  29. lunacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now how come they didnt decide to crash it into the poles to see if it could kick up some water vapor.

    after all, Lunar Prospector tried and failed, so this would be a chance to try again, right?

    why scientifically sterile target location?... when we could actually use it to do some science

  30. me too by Xybot · · Score: 1

    "... can't be that smart!" "...waste of money!" "...Lunar Eclipse!" "... blah blah blah!" wish I could crash into the bloody moon.

    --
    God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
  31. Re:uh, what was that? by jakev · · Score: 1

    er... its main job was to test "a European-built ion engine", and it did that. I don't understand the failure here, unless they were originally intending to bring it back somehow. (?)

  32. and I mean this in the most Comic Store Guy way... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    "Best....Headline...Ever"

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  33. Re:Not so smart by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 1

    I've never really understood why they can't return probes to earth and salvage some parts or something.

  34. Actually it's a very smart mission by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know that yours was a joke, but FYI crashing into the moon is the end of every mission in lunar orbit (yes, this includes the ascent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules); those orbits are not stable due to the gravity of the sun, the Earth and irregularities in the moon itself.

    And, considering that this is an ESA mission, why the summary has only a link to the NASA site? ESA has a lot of good information about the mission and the impact:

    IMHO the most important results from this mission (beside a lot of nice detailed images) are the successful use of a ion engine with a very complicated low-power path (that thing passed through the L1 Lagrangian Point, switching seamlessly from earth orbit to lunar orbit) and the extensive mapping of the moon surface chemical composition using X-ray and infrared instruments.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  35. Re:Not so smart by sd_diamond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know you've spent too much time on Slashdot when you can predict what the first response will be before you even click on the article.

  36. Re:Not so smart by todd10k · · Score: 1

    They dont equip probes with heatshields, so they cannot re-enter the earths atmosphere. Sending a craft up to retrieve it would be grossly more expensive than any possible salvage they could get from it. So, they use it for one last scientific experiment. crash it into the moon, and observe the results.

  37. Apocalypse Then by 10100111001 · · Score: 1

    In the event that humankind goes extinct, at least we will have left our legacy of garbage on more than just the earth.

    --
    1 voice in a sea of voices
  38. Artistic licence by Calroth · · Score: 1

    It's called artistic licence, people. You know, the type of thing that gets ordinary people to gape in wonder at the beauty of the solar system, etc. etc. They could call it the "Peak of Eternal Light Except During Lunar Eclipses Where It Only Gets Refracted Sunlight, Also It's Not Really Eternal as the Sun Will Go Nova in 5 Billion Years". Or the "Peak That's a Good Place For Solar Collectors". And nobody would care.

    NASA and ESA are trying to get people interested in this, not recruit engineers. (Unless they're artistic engineers.)

  39. Uh, yeah... by macemoneta · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...propelling the craft in 2003 on a unique spiral path...after which it will crash into the Moon.

    Uh, yeah. We meant to do that.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  40. Did Someone Say, "Mineral Maps"? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Um, I think everyone missed this one. There's only one way for the world to start beating a path to the moon, and that's the idea of "GOLD" just lying on the ground. So, if there are mineral maps, could we see them; Please?

    1. Re:Did Someone Say, "Mineral Maps"? by CXI · · Score: 1

      We need a new superhero. He will be called The Googler and he will bring enlightenment to the world in the form of teaching people to find information for themselves. Did they stop teaching that since I was in school many moons (get it, MOONS) ago?.

      PS: Here's one of the many publically available maps of mineral resources on the moon: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/clemen/clemen.ht ml

    2. Re:Did Someone Say, "Mineral Maps"? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I guess I've got some public reading to do; Thank you for the URL.

  41. Re:Not so smart by sjs132 · · Score: 1

    Of course, the ironic headline right before this was:

    Game Developers Missing Their Target?

    So that really made it funny to read it in that context.... :)

    Maybe NASA aughta higher the game developers?

    --
    --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  42. It's nice to see... by SpacemanSpiff867 · · Score: 1

    that we've given up on landing things and have now agreed to just crash them

    --
    - Spacey
  43. Crash is on the morning of September 3 by mlflegel · · Score: 1

    I don't know what 'PDT' is, but the crash is at about 5:40 UTC (i.e. Greenwich Mean Time) on September 3, not 2. That would make it late at night on September 2 in the US, I guess.
    Also, there is an uncertainty in the time of the crash. Because the lunar topography is not exactly known, the crash might very well be an orbit earlier or later (the period of an orbit is about 5 hours).

  44. Surely you can learn a lot... by master_p · · Score: 1

    ...for example if it makes a booong sound!

  45. Re:No photo of american flag on the moon: don't ca by trongey · · Score: 1

    ...accept it, we are "trapped" in this planet, like it or not.

    God I hope so! I hate to think of humans turned loose on the rest of the galaxy. We've screwed this planet over so badly I can't imagine what we would do if we could start treating them as disposable.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  46. 1000 day trip and they're going to smash it! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    In the 1960s US moon launches took three days to reach the moon. The New Horizon space probe launched toward Pluto last January took only 14 hours to cross the moon's orbit. It has to go fast to reach Pluto in nine years (lifetime of electronics and investigator careers). The SMART probe uses very efficient propulson, but took three years. Some truck drivers have driven further (268K miles) in that time.

  47. Re:Smart? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Sure, because a probe just flying around uncontrolled without giving any data back is more useful than one crashing into the moon, thus allowing us to get lots of data from the crash before getting just as useless as it would have been otherwise anyway ...

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  48. We're whalers on the moon... by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

    All these probes crashing into the moon probably explains why there are no whales there, reducing the whalers to working in the theme park.

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
  49. Crashing into the moon by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    Thatt's not very SMART
    a Smart probe would manage to miss

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  50. Re:Polar ice? by laura_glow · · Score: 1

    And did it take any pictures of the place where humans landed in 1968? I would like to see that.

  51. Everybody got their Lunar Deeds ready ? by sanjed · · Score: 1

    I reckon that the "owner" of that bit of land might be in for a good malicious damage insurance settlement. It could make the land uninhabitable for 10s of years...

    1. Re:Everybody got their Lunar Deeds ready ? by billeger · · Score: 1

      It's curious there is so little comment about the ion engine. This project isn't/wasn't a joke and did a lot of good science. Possibly the top achievement was work analyzing the makeup of the 'stuff' in our solar system. Lookee here if you want more. http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/index.html Doesn't SMART-1 get a few rounds of applause for disintegrating itself at the end of it's useful life rather than becoming yet one beer can on the side of the road?

      --
      Those who trade freedom for security will soon have neither.
  52. Re: moon-earth oposition by maddogsparky · · Score: 1
    If that happens, we're toast.

    Not just toast, BURNED toast!

    --
    science is a religion