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.
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.
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)
.. 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.
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.
It's easy, just remember that -ite is the suffix for minerals or whatever, so that's the one after it has landed.
If it's in space, it's an asteroid. If it's in the process of crashing into a world, it's a meteorunforyourlife.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
[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.