What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
80 Comments
- inactive, on 11/22/2008, -2/+32This is what I like to see. We should have started working on this 30 years ago.
- spookyttws, on 11/22/2008, -0/+18It makes sense, we've been doing it in submarines very successfully for years.
- mizarone, on 11/22/2008, -0/+10The "S" is silent.
- inactive, on 11/22/2008, -1/+10You do know that creating "an artificial atmosphere and polluting the place" will not change the moons orbit, right?
That's like saying a fart is going to push you across the room. Sure, it won't smell great, but it won't physically MOVE you. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/22/2008, -0/+8orrr... reading the article?
FTA: "Solar power would be limited where a single night lasts as long as 354 hours." - whok, on 11/22/2008, -0/+8if this all works out, it would be the beginning of humans occupying planets other than earth...which is really crazy when you think about the future
- alais, on 11/22/2008, -1/+8I hope ChuckSchuldiner isn't representative of the public's knowledge of nuclear energy...
- Terasiel, on 11/22/2008, -1/+7To be honest, as much as I think NASA is like having a hero standing up for a cause... then half-assing, as generally *****, the journey as much as possible, I'd still love to see this. I can't possibly imagine a negative side-effect to having a nuclear reactor, and even an atmosphere generator (long-long-term, I know) on a dead rock floating around our planet.
If this gives us more options in space travel and studies into extra-terrestrial habitation - I'm all for it. - Shaggy3, on 11/22/2008, -4/+10Makes perfect sense to me to be seriously thinking about this.
- CATSCEO2, on 11/22/2008, -0/+5What the hell are you talking about? You can't terraform the moon.
- Wartz, on 11/22/2008, -0/+4thats about the same thing as saying Napalm == Car because they both use gasoline for power.
- rynvndrp, on 11/22/2008, -1/+4The effect the moon has on the tides is related to gravity, nothing else. Not the shininess, not the atmosphere, not pollution. Gravity is only effected by mass and since the propellant we use to get to the moon is hydrogen-oxygen, we will lower the ocean levels more than increase tide levels. Both are so small as to not matter, but if you go to the extreme...
- borez, on 11/22/2008, -1/+4Nuclear moon base.... the band
- lazerflesh, on 11/22/2008, -0/+3Good, things like this that talk about actual progress of the human species makes me happy.
- inactive, on 11/22/2008, -0/+3I know how this ends, I've seen Cowboy Bebop.
- Wartz, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2uh, SpeedSteamBoat is correct, gases will just expand off into space on the moon, there is not enough gravity to keep them on the surface. Sure theres a little tiny bit of "atmosphere", but its mostly just a super thin mist of charged dust particles along with a little radon from decaying radioactive particles that barely extends any real distance off the surface of the moon
- AbsurdWreckage, on 11/22/2008, -1/+3Because an empty rock with no atmosphere isn't already ruined...GET A JOB HIPPIE!
- robbiedo, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2With our luck, someone would forget the metric conversion, and it will end up in an unstable Earth orbit, and destroy the ISS.
- sanman, on 11/22/2008, -2/+4that's nukular, son
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/22/2008, -1/+3Not enough gravity for an atmosphere, sorry. :(
- Gizmort, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2Remember what happened to Moon Base Alpha in Space 1999!
- eldudereno, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2NOT thee BILL O REALLY. i thought you were into explosions and lack of atmosphere.
- BossKey, on 11/22/2008, -2/+4It's so simple...Just store all the nuclear waste in a big dump on the other side of the moon. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DF9nDJZrdA - inactive, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Unless you had dinner at toco bell.
- crimsonkage, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1Nu-ki-R
- m85476585, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Nuclear energy is green.
- inactive, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1A good healthy fart can blow a midget clear across the room.
- starmanjones, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1give me a tried and true reactor that i don't have to fix. it just runs.
- orion2013, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Humanity will usher in a new era of progress and prosperity!
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Why store it when you could cast it off into space so much easier and cheaper?
- koldmilk, on 11/22/2008, -5/+6Well it would be easier to get rid of the stuff on the moon if you had to... just blast it into the sun.
- asgardshill, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1You've obviously never been at my house on Enchilada Night.
- ldner77, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Dark Side of the Moon: An Inconvenient Truth 2020
UNIVERSAL WARMING IS NOT A MYTH, MAN - joker1972, on 11/22/2008, -1/+2Read the F@#$ing thing first IDIOT!
- divinediva, on 11/22/2008, -4/+5This new lunar base is a great idea. and is a step toward the future.
- alais, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Best theme song ever.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1...and that's why I say: Stop nuclear power NOW.
Because otherwise there's not enough uranium left for the space age.
But who listens to the wacko who claims to be the maker of the world. - unhg, on 11/22/2008, -1/+2It's time for Change!
Green Glowing Moon 2012! - armakaryk, on 11/22/2008, -1/+2how long until a lunar theme park?
- starmanjones, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1geez... dude... what planet are you from? i can't believe you could get all those utterly goofy statements in one short paragraph.
did you know the moon was leaving earth obit at a rate of 1 inch a year? that will be a bummner. maybe we should put all that stuff on one side make it heavier and then... blow off a nuke on the other side.... it would create like... a curve ball. spin it back into orbit. - Ransack, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Russian and China will want to get their nukes up there first.
- inactive, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1It's *flip* not *flick*, God-damnit!
- Jordan117, on 11/22/2008, -1/+2http://splicd.com/NbhYb2a7XMY/275/379
Have we learned nothing?!
Or, um... will we have learned nothing?
Man, time travel grammar sucks. - solorender, on 11/22/2008, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbhYb2a7XMY&feature ...
- inactive, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1Yeah.. like going to the moon or mapping the galaxy. Amirite?
- illt, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1nuclear cannot provide the propulsion necessary to leave mars for example, or any other gravitational body. One needs combustabile fuel, and many trips would have to be made to fill a ship and its reservoirs to A) get to Mars, and B) leave mars and get back.
- BigBadaboom, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1NASA should think long and hard before setting the precedent of installing nuclear reactors on the moon. If we can't go there with clean technology, then maybe we shouldn't be going there at all.
- Wartz, on 11/22/2008, -1/+2there's green stuff on the moon?
or is my sarcasm-o-meter broken - eldudereno, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1I was thinking the same thing, i loved that series until they got all arty farty hippy like with the shape shifting women
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is