What is Digg?68 Comments
- Frost9999, on 10/11/2007, -1/+90And a theme park.
- ChillyWilly5280, on 10/11/2007, -0/+39This should have been done a long time ago. We should also put a radio telescope on the moon so we can receive signals more clearly than we can on Earth, there's just too much interference here. In more ways than one...
- daRoach, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Scientists taking liquid to the moon, can I safely assume there is a direct connection to how the whalers end up there?
- futureb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24i hear now is the time to buy. property values are getting ready to explode.
- Genthree, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19“Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh screw the whole thing!”
- shaun1018, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a harpoon,
For they ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing our whaling tune.
Edit: Drat beat me to it... still love Futurama though - Neem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13we'll have sharks with lasers in their head swim inside the liquid and blast the asteroids.
- ggidster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10"Angel dreams of a 100-meter mirror, which would be larger than two side-by-side football fields and would collect 1,736 times more light than the Hubble."
Blimey. They don't talk about how they get it up there? Is this something that you'd make on earth and send up, or would you have to build a basestation on the moon to ship all the bits to and then people to build it there? Maybe that could then be turned into a theme park when done? :) - undersky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10i think they use the BRITA technology to filter the liquid w/ reverse osmosis
- jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9It's not a bad idea. The moon would be a great place for a big honking 'scope. Sitting on a solid body like the moon, it wouldn't require thrusters and gyros like the Hubble (and that's what fails and needs repair). No atmosphere means 24/7 operations. A few solar panels would power it. Getting there would be a challenge but a challenge that we met almost 50 years ago.
It could serve the dual purpose of a surface telemetry station on the moon which has quite a lot "moonquakes". After a few landings in the early seventies and a handful of probes, we've still got a lot to learn about the moon and we should learn all that we can since it is our closest neighbor and possible relative in space.
I would vote for it. - eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This idea is still 100x better than the white house's plan to block the sun to control global warming.
- zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You gotta be kidding me !!
Only a complete and utter moron could think that such an idea would.......oh....wait..... - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6actually the ISS was/is assembled in orbit. I'd guess they would bring the components (liquid?) to the moon, and assemble it there.
THE MOON RULES #1 - ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5There are 2 problems I can think of for building stuff on the moon:
- Cost: This is pretty obvious. Not only are you building expensive sensitive equipment, you're flying it to the ***** moon.
- Even though our atmosphere provides interference with observations and radio comm, it also provides a nice shield from radiation and incoming rocks. - zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Are liquids allowable hand luggage on space flights...?
- FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7"and a theme park"
with hookers, and blackjack
edit - ergh...genthree beat me - InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@langford:
it's self != itself
So long as this has become a grammar and spelling correction thread... digg me down if you must, but this kind of stuff just drives me crazy, sorry. :-P - dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3the mooninites are not gonna be too happy about that
- zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3...Tasco, perhaps....
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"100 times more sensitive" So, what about asteroid impacts on other parts of the moon surface?
- L0C0loco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4There is only one small problem - DUST. The Moon has a lot of electrostaticly levitated dust. UV and X-ray photons from the Sun charge the surface dust until the dust particles repel each other to form a dusty 'atmosphere'. The Apollo astronauts saw it from orbit and more recent robotic missions have confirmed its existence. The liquid of the mirror would quickly film over with dust. The dust could also mix into the liquid making for a mud mirror. I hope the cost analysis in this study includes frequent replacement of the liquid or some method of skimming of the contaminated surface. Looks like show stopper to me.
- Langford, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It would be interesting to see how many building materials could come from the moon it's self.
- matdevdug, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is a great idea on so many levels and really makes me wish we invested more money into space. The Hubble telescope did so much to advance our understand of the universe and with more modern technology based on a platform like the moon we can really begin to study space without the limited focus of previous pieces of technology.
I also have to disagree with L0L0loco in that it is quite possible to build a telescope that can easily resist the dust present on the moon along with any other challenges facing the location. We have tons of data on the moon, much more than we have for Mars or any other planet. We know the exact chemical make-up of the dust along with almost exactly how much radiation reaches it everyday. The best part about this plan would be that once installed there would be so little maintenance needed. Instead of the patchwork network of coverage we have around the globe now we could have a much more complete view of the space around the earth.
Sign my tax dollars up. - FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3well, since it's made out of water...it'll just shimmer a bit and then settle down
- jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3>>Getting there would be a challenge but a challenge that we met almost 50 years ago.
Correction: almost 40 years ago. - Creamedweasel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not unless they also charge the water to repel the dust as well. Methinks it would work.
- synapseattack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Does anyone else think the liquid should be Beer?
- Duositex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What.. you mean like Blue Moon?
- Duositex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is it possible that because the targets of these telescopes are so far away that the light rays are essentially parallel by the time they reach us? Therefore it wouldn't really matter where you position the telescope as long as its pointed at the right spot. The moon is even far enough away to look identical to all observers on Earth..
- yujie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thats no moon!!, it's a ....
- Tempest811, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you really think the astronomers, astrophysicists, and rocket scientists haven't thought of this yet? It's not like the telescope would be a swimming pool with a mirror at the bottom of it. Theres no way this liquid would be in the free air or unprotected. I'm sure they have put a bit more thought into this than you have in your armchair.
- picaman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"A rat done bit my sister Nell,
with Whitey on the moon."
http://www.gilscottheron.com/lywhitey.html
Sorry...couldn't resist the obscure reference. - Loftonian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sounds like a great idea. I'm just wondering how they'd transport the liquid? I mean, at the point in between exiting the Earth's gravitational pull and entering the Moon's gravitational pull, I could imagine the astronauts looking at each other as the cabin fills with liquid mercury going, "Oh sh.....".
Obviously it would be contained, but I just got a funny mental picture...
:-O - simpleid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sweet! It's not a death ray... but it's close! :-D
Ok, not really that close, but jeez... some lasers at least would be nice. :-) - Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@FearlessFreep:
Not water, but yeah, you're still right. Interestingly this would also provide data on the rate of lunar meteoroid impacts. - Meowbiusfox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A lot of obstacles to be sure,but that's the great part about it.
It may be billions of years before the Earth is destroyed by the Sun
but if the human experiment is to succeed,we are going to have to
sally forth into the void eventually.Time share on one of Jupiter's moons
anyone? - Virtualtaco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I take it back cause i just checked the Hubble's speeds. doh. but hopefully they will build it on the dark side, and hopefully there is enough gravity too keep the mirrors shape consistent.
- Virtualtaco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1no, but the moon rotates... the Hubble can keep looking at the same place for days. Any deep space image will require a lot more time and effort.
- zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Micro-meteorites alone would be enough to dismiss any results...try seeing (let alone defining) an object on the bottom of a swimming pool when small objects (say M&M sized) are cast into the water...clearly (no pun), a meteor-proof, completely transparent shield would be necessary...of necessity, frequently and cheaply replaceable ...
I don't see this dog going hunting...... - JD52, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This is a fantastic way to start our reach out into the galaxy.....
These liquid telescopes usually use liquid mercury for the reflective surface. Imagine how many tons of the stuff a telescope this big would require.
**Shakes Head** - kmpr326, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Why not just make another Hubble (of course a bit more powerful because logic says they would have developed something between Hubble launch and present) and set it to orbit the moon. The distance is pretty huge and it's orbit probably wouldn't decay as much as the Hubble due to the moons lower gravitational pull.
It seems so much easier than building a telescope on the moon which would be subject to the problems mentioned above (dust ect...). - InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Or worse... the shuttle explodes in the atmosphere en route to the moon with a full load of mercury...
- godofgodlygods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Anyone else very amused by the whole "MELFF" bit? :)
- tstocker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I seriously hope they do this in some sort of cheap robotic scaled down version first.
If only to prove the viability of the technology, work out the bugs, get real results quicker.
Afterwards they should be able to make a case for going full scale with this. Robots would
work quite well on the moon, it's only 1.3 light seconds away, compared to 3-21 light minutes on mars.
However, this is going to be damn expensive if they can only send up 3 ounces of liquid Mercury each trip.
[EDIT] They can just make the Mercury solid during the trip then heat it up to a liquid after getting to the moon. Suck it TSA! - wipis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1A possibly bigger cost but maybe added benefit is that they would likely need an engineer who could stay up there at all times to operate it and or maintain it and fix it. One big problem with putting things on the moon are meteors and dust. No atmosphere is a huge benefit for telescopes but at the same time it makes the telescope vulnerable to damage. But with a small team on a permanent base scientist could work on discovering many new things about the moon and what it is like to live in low gravity rather then zero gravity. This could also become a launch pad in the future for missions to other planets, particularly Mars.
- BearinG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I disagree.. theres a million different things that we are aware off that arent funded or arent even discovered, yet we're out there spending billions of dollars trying to find "nothing specific" in space. Use what you have at your disposal.. then once you've done all you could.. or destroyed the whole freaking planet, then go out in space and find new things to exploit
- DarthJay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You're saying that Hubble was stationary?!
- Virtualtaco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1To the geniuses that came up with this one...
The Hubble's Deep Field images took over 300 exposures over 10 days. If this telescope does a comparable scan (that will show deeper space), how will you ever be able to take the pictures so you can line them all up on a constantly moving platform (the moon). - spawnfree, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0i always wondered why they didn't take a telescope to the moon during the original missions.
they had plenty of space for those buggys, and the time to assemble them and dick around.
and i always wondered why they didn't take the opportunity to even photograph the stars, seeing as the lack of atmosphere would have made them the greatest photos of their kind at the time. - p0seidon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I can see it now, McDonalds, Starbucks and a Walmart on the moon.
Simpsons quote: Better hurry up, it's turning into a Starbucks. -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is