Slashdot Mirror
NASA Detects Meteoric Rise In Lunar Meteors
netbuzz writes "Just because your software model can accurately predict the number of meteors that will hit the Earth doesn't mean it will fly on the surface of the moon. NASA scientists say little rocks are hitting that big rock at four times the rate they had anticipated when they started watching a year ago."
dont you mean meteorite ?
mod me funny
that this rocks!
Unless you're an astronaut on the moon. Then you should probably duck.
What about the big ones ?
This is not a *rise*, as in, the rate has increased over what it was previously. Rather, it is an unexpected difference between what they expected to find, and what they actually measured.
Sorry to be so picky, but I've just endured two weeks of non-stop media cluelessness about the meanings of and differences between radioactivity / radiation / contamination / chemical toxicity.
NASA scientists say little rocks are hitting that big rock at four times the rate they had anticipated when they started watching a year ago.
At that rate, it'll make selling the mixed development (housing and stores) a tough deal for people wanting to move to the moon if they have to worry about radiation and hail. The entire Lunar-Mars manned space program will depend on these sales for funding.
As more meteors hit the side of the moon that does not have the Earth in the way, it will slowly get pushed down to crash with the Earth.
Also in the news: Steve Colbert buys man-sized statue made of mayonnaise
Shoveling against the tide here, but that term is as ridiculous as this gem: The stock market skyrocketed downward today... (heard on TV recently)
I think they should just wrap the moon in some sort of trampoline-like material to reflect the meteor(ite)s. And it shall be dubbed the Moon Bounce!
This guy's the limit!
.. the force fields around the secret NASA outpost on the dark side of the moon are deflecting more meteoroids to the observable side of the moon...!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
It's those damn bugs I tell you. "I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!"
The article had an excellent point - this will dramatically influence space exploration plans for extended stays on the moon. But how much does it impact it? 25% of the current lunar bombardment is still a bombardment. How had NASA and other space agencies planned to protect the Astronauts?
This means the increase in bombardment rate doesn't present a new issue, it just compounds the issue by four. What has been be the best suggestion to protect against bombardment, and how is it effected by this increase in frequency? Would it be an underground base, powerful and well-placed magnetic fields, or a domed location with a shell dense enough to withstand the impacts? That's the one question that isn't answered by the article.
I would be interested to hear from NASA on the proposed methods of protecting the base and it's occupants from these "little rocks".
Two separate posts blaming global warming. I believe this represents a scientific consensus. Any further challenge to the claims shall be disregarded and any contrary data ignored as irrelevant, false, or mistaken. ...
BRACE FOR MODDING INTO OBLIVION!
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Remember me... the meteors are Chinese satellites that suffered complete failure!
"A solid object moving in interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid and considerably larger than an atom or molecule."
...unless you've gone and "fixed" the Wikipedia entry, that is.
A shooting star is not a star, is not a star at all.
A shooting star's a meteor that's heading for a fall.
A shooting star is not a star, why does it shine so bright?
The friction as it falls through air produces heat and light.
A shooting star, or meteor, whichever name you like.
The minute it comes down to Earth it's called a meteorite.
What is a shooting star? (.mp3)
in Space Songs from Ballads for the age of Science by Hy Zaret and Lou Singer.
Part of the Singing Science collection.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
a meteorite is the remains of a meteor that has struck the earth.
Your problem was the use of the words "I believe" tied with "scientific consensus". "I believe" is what you tell Santa at the north pole while hoping for the first gift, or you tell your priest to avoid having to say 10K hail mary's.
OTH, "scientific consensus" requires at least intelligent people with great field knowledge. ANd that is most likely none of the posters.
And yes, I know that you were being funny. But other will "believe" that you are correct.
If cheese can make me scream in a Wisconsin public restroom for 30 minutes I damn sure think it could take some puny rocks.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
The expression "meteoric rise" bugs me. Meteors FALL. It makes about as much sense as "an explosive decline".
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I would be interested to hear from NASA on the proposed methods of protecting the base and it's occupants from these "little rocks".
Pew-pew!
... Well, maybe not, but it'd be damned cool!
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
It's just Al Gore. Relax.
It honestly probably doesn't make that much of a difference. The article says they've seen 11 or 12 impacts, I guess compared to the three or four that they were expecting. Spread 12 impacts across the visible surface of the moon, and you're going to end up with a very small percentage of the surface area that was visibly impacted. If the chances of getting hit were very small, 4 times a very small number is still a small number.
I'd imagine that a more dangerous threat is radiation, and that whatever system was developed to shield against that would provide some level of protection against tiny meteor impacts. Once you start talking about bigger rocks, you quickly end up talking about amounts of kinetic energy that really aren't feasible to defend against in any manner approaching near cost-efficiency, and so you just sort of have to play the odds, realizing that the moon is not a particularly inviting or comfortable place.
Beyond that, you compartmentalize your moon base as much as possible to contain any damage to a small area, and you hope for the best.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I dunno, I've always heard that changes in prices have a lot to do with inflation and deflation, so my impression is that the stock market is more of a lighter-than-air craft; in which case what we really need is data on its buoyancy.
One thing they probably need to do is figure out the local (time and space) variations in this rate. It's likely some areas of the Moon, and some times during its orbit, are more dangerous than others, because it's likely most of this dust is in a fairly close orbit around the Earth.
Once they know that, they know what advantages there may be in situating the base in one place versus another on the surface. In other words, the best way to avoid getting wet is not so much to have a great umbrella as to stay out of the rain in the first place. But they'll still need the titanium umbrella, nonetheless.
I'm sorry...I just couldn't resist. BOMBARDMENT!
Send them to Mars instead.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Nah we'll just get the BBC to investigate any bias in claims that global warming and lunar meteor strikes aren't linked.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Maybe they should just ship a lunar bulldozer (or dragline, or whatever has the best weight efficiency) up there and dig a big hole so they can build a buried base, and avoid the impact problem entirely. What, did you really think we were going to have cities under transparent domes?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
[D]id you really think we were going to have cities under transparent domes?
Sure! Screw efficiency. As far as I'm concerned, the major reason to go to space -- an unbelievably extravagant thing to do anyway -- is for the glory and wonder. So that ordinary blokes can do double somersaults in the air, laughing madly, while standing under a blazing starry sky the likes of which only God and a handful of mortals have heretofore ever seen.
I say phooey on any glum whiny pussified harping on efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Would a sane man buy a Ferarri and fail to spring for the leather seats because cloth is more efficient? Would he buy a gaming PC with the latest and greatest CPU/GPU combo and then use an old black-and-white TV for a monitor to save 0.5% of the total cost? Hell no!
I expect a big transparent dome...they can use CVD diamond or something to protect against the micrometeroids...and I expect 10-speaker super-duper-surround mind-blowing quadrophenic sound, too.
My favorite comment was from Louis Rukeyser around the time in the early 1980's when the market turned around from the long 70's slump and started the big, long bull market that carried through to 2000. We all heard about the 1920's market crash where people were despondent and jumped out of windows. Well, the market had such a big increase that Rukeyser talked about people "leaping from the sidewalk back up into the upper-story windows."