Yes Virginia, there IS water on the moon

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Dumb question, but given unlimited money, could we move a heavenly body out of orbit?

I'm thinking a crap load of rockets on on 1 side, but I don't know how much would be required to move something like a moon.

Sure we can.


You're not in a hurry, are you?;)
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
re: population control. China seems to be doing a good job. Several European countries have (had?) negative growth.

re: unlimited money to move a moon. Sure, of course. If you had "unlimited money", just tape a LOT of it together in the form of a giant sphere whose gravitational pull disrupts the orbit of the moon, sending it our way.
 

videogames101

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2005
6,783
27
91
We have to colonize somewhere other than earth, because if earth ends, then so do we. This is just one of a huge number of steps that can get us to that goal.

Every form of life, if it wants to exist for as long the universe still has detectable energy, is in a race against time to get off it's home planet, before they, or the planet, gets destroyed.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
re: population control. China seems to be doing a good job. Several European countries have (had?) negative growth.

re: unlimited money to move a moon. Sure, of course. If you had "unlimited money", just tape a LOT of it together in the form of a giant sphere whose gravitational pull disrupts the orbit of the moon, sending it our way.

We need to start forcing chemical castrators on certain people. They get one baby and thats it. And if they lose it, or it runs away, they dont get any more.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Malak, generally I like you, but you're an evolution denier and therefore have no right to tell anyone here what science is and how it should be funded. You have no idea about science.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I like the extreme opposite view of "Science is garbage" attitude, which is "Science is the answer to all"

Space for resources is a pretty good bogus one. "Shipping costs won't matter" Well sure as hell they will.

Where too can I get this Science that violates thermodynamics?
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
I like the extreme opposite view of "Science is garbage" attitude, which is "Science is the answer to all"

Space for resources is a pretty good bogus one. "Shipping costs won't matter" Well sure as hell they will.

Where too can I get this Science that violates thermodynamics?

Shipping costs can be made very low if time is not a major constraint. Resources could be shipped from another planet at a reasonable cost if we don't mind it taking years instead of months to get back to earth.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Shipping costs can be made very low if time is not a major constraint. Resources could be shipped from another planet at a reasonable cost if we don't mind it taking years instead of months to get back to earth.


Right now copper costs about $3.00 a pound. That includes mining and refinement costs.

So tell me in precise terms how you are going to get Cu for a comparable price?

You need to factor the cost of putting equipment in space, maintaining the facilities including any cost of life support, the cost of refinement and transportation, and getting it to the Earth's surface in a way that's not going to trash things, physically or environmentally. I haven't even touched on R&D.

$3.00 a lb.
 
Last edited:

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
We have to colonize somewhere other than earth, because if earth ends, then so do we. This is just one of a huge number of steps that can get us to that goal.

Every form of life, if it wants to exist for as long the universe still has detectable energy, is in a race against time to get off it's home planet, before they, or the planet, gets destroyed.

Who really cares? I mean, everyone dies eventually, and someday there will be a last human.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Science is advanced in order to help society. NASA spends billions of dollars launching junk into space just to find water on the moon or another planet, which helps nobody and in no way advances science. How about we spend the same amount of money developing a means to get clean water to countries right here on earth that don't have it? Why waste our time trying to locate intelligent life in space at the cost of ignoring the life here on earth? NASA isn't about science or advancement.

You're really clueless, aren't you? Do you have any idea how many trickle-down technological advancements NASA has given to society?

Get a clue man. What do you think the purpose of all the "junk" they launch into space? To conduct scientific experiments. To further our knowledge. Knowing things is never, ever a bad thing. Just the Hubble has changed the way we view the universe.

Seriously, people like you blow my mind. How can you be anti-learning? If anything, it is your view that does nothing for society.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Right now copper costs about $3.00 a pound. That includes mining and refinement costs.

So tell me in precise terms how you are going to get Cu for a comparable price?

You need to factor the cost of putting equipment in space, maintaining the facilities including any cost of life support, the cost of refinement and transportation, and getting it to the Earth's surface in a way that's not going to trash things, physically or environmentally. I haven't even touched on R&D.

$3.00 a lb.

I'm talking more about rare materials that either are not found on earth (thus need to be synthesized) or only in small quantities.

Finding new resources is only one of the benefits of moving into space, though. The more people we move off of earth, the more a modernized lifestyle is possible for people who are terribly poor. If we have a bunch of people living on Mars and using the resources of Mars, that frees up a lot of resources on Earth for use - ie, more resources available per person.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
You're really clueless, aren't you? Do you have any idea how many trickle-down technological advancements NASA has given to society?

Get a clue man. What do you think the purpose of all the "junk" they launch into space? To conduct scientific experiments. To further our knowledge. Knowing things is never, ever a bad thing. Just the Hubble has changed the way we view the universe.

Seriously, people like you blow my mind. How can you be anti-learning? If anything, it is your view that does nothing for society.


He's nothing. There is this guy who's saying the world is going to end in 2011. I guess he wants to beat the 2012 rush. Picks bible verses, makes up his own context then uses the bible verses he picks as evidence to support his stuff.


Anyway, he's saying that it makes no sense to get married, get an education and the like because in a little while everyone's punching out.

I bet he sees NASA as a waste too.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
The more people we move off of earth, the more a modernized lifestyle is possible for people who are terribly poor. If we have a bunch of people living on Mars and using the resources of Mars, that frees up a lot of resources on Earth for use - ie, more resources available per person.

I agree with you in general about benefits of space travel but I think this is terribly idealistic. We already have more resources available than we have people to consume them (except for a very small number of cases). The problem is extracting and preparing the resources for use.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I agree with you in general about benefits of space travel but I think this is terribly idealistic. We already have more resources available than we have people to consume them (except for a very small number of cases). The problem is extracting and preparing the resources for use.


The worlds population is increasing at 200,000 per day.

If the entire worlds resources were dedicated to moving as many people as it could, we'd not come close to that.

Star Trek TNG need not apply.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
The ridiculous amount of money spent on discoveries like this don't help anyone. In no way does society progress. In no way are any problems solved. It's a complete waste of time for what amounts to nothing more than a hobby.

build shit on the moon, no one really knows about what's going on.

The no fly/no sail zones already set up on our planet get tested daily.

We really know nothing about our own deep seas.