Moon go boom

[Gollum]

In the vein of the original column i'd just like to know how all you ingenius little gnomes out there would actually go about blowing up the moon. Stuff the consequences, I just want ideas about how to it. The less conventional the better. If we could just get a goat up to the necessary velocity... (obscure thread reference)

[bibliophage]

I plan to destroy the moon. What effect would this have on the earth?

By the way, the goat thread is nowhere near as obscure as it ought to be.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil's column if it's on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).

Cecil's column can be found on-line at the link kindly provided by bibliophage.


(edited to correct irrelevant link being supplied)

__________________
moderator, «Comments on Cecil's Columns»

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 10-28-2000 at 12:50 PM]

[LUE42]

Ok, if you're serious about removing the moon at our current stage of technology there's really only one way to go about doing it.

Rockets, lots of rockets.

It would take a massive, earthwide, no holds barred, cost is no concern, operation. In short, the government would have to do it.

A base would have to be put on the near side of the moon where we would construct lots and lots of rockets. The rockets would continually fire and slowly, ever so slowly, push the moon further and further from the earth, untill eventually it went into it's own, independent, path about the sun.

A little anticlimactic, but we could do it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by LUE42
Ok, if you're serious about removing the moon at our current stage of technology there's really only one way to go about doing it.

Rockets, lots of rockets.

It would take a massive, earthwide, no holds barred, cost is no concern, operation. In short, the government would have to do it.

And what sort of rockets are you proposing??? And where are you going to get the power needed?


NASA has seriously considered moving astronomical bodies. However, what they wanted to go after was a little chunk of rock on the order of 100m across. The moon is more than 20,000 times the diameter. Mass goes up at the cube of radius--thus we are talking a task 8,000,000,000,000 times harder.

[LUE42]

I would suggest using Ion drives. These are engines that can be run constantly for months or years at a time. They electromagnetically accelerate charged particles up to relativistic speeds and shoot them out the back of the engine. Due to the conservation of momentum the push of that little particle leaving the engine is directly transfered into pushing the moon in the opposite direction. You could make millions of these and power them using solar cells. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fast way to do it, I'm just saying it's the only realistic option available at the time.

[ZenBeam]

How about mirrors? Set up mirrors on the moon. When the moon is on the Sun side of Earth, or opposite the Earth fro the Sun, mirrors reflect the light to push the Moon in the direction of it's orbit. When the Moon is moving away from the Sun, mirrors reflect the light back to the Sun, and when the Moon is moving towards the Sun, reflect the light Towards the Earth, to boost the Moon to a higher orbit. Since the same side of the Moon faces Earth, the mirrors could be stationary.

It might take a while, however.

[Robbo]

rockets and mirrors? why not use nukes?

[Storfikus]

First, you'd need a scientific settlement on the moon called, say Moonbase Alpha. Then you'd need a nuclear accident gone horribly, horribly wrong of epic proportions enough to blow the moon out of orbit, yet not of proportions enough to destroy the moonbase. Then the gang would careen about the universe for a couple of seasons meeting strange life forms and having all sorts of white knuckle adventures.

No, wait. That's been done. But does anyone know why it's not been picked up on cable rerun syndication?

Meanwhile, I remember seeing one of those fascinating cable bug channel shows that advised that without the moon, life would on earth likely not exist, since the moon is largely responsible for keeping the earth on a (largely) constant AXIS, let alone orbit. Without it, the earth would wobble on its axis, resulting in Ice Age, Drought, Ice Age, Drought, and it wouldn't take a coupla hundred thousand years between, neither.

So that's my first post. But I particularly enjoyed the thread about life's most embarrassing sex moments.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by LUE42
I would suggest using Ion drives. These are engines that can be run constantly for months or years at a time. They electromagnetically accelerate charged particles up to relativistic speeds and shoot them out the back of the engine. Due to the conservation of momentum the push of that little particle leaving the engine is directly transfered into pushing the moon in the opposite direction. You could make millions of these and power them using solar cells. Now, I'm not saying that this is a fast way to do it, I'm just saying it's the only realistic option available at the time.

Ion drives could use the mass of the moon as reaction material, but you still need to supply the energy--energy on a scale far beyond what human civilization currently produces.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by ZenBeam
How about mirrors? Set up mirrors on the moon. When the moon is on the Sun side of Earth, or opposite the Earth fro the Sun, mirrors reflect the light to push the Moon in the direction of it's orbit. When the Moon is moving away from the Sun, mirrors reflect the light back to the Sun, and when the Moon is moving towards the Sun, reflect the light Towards the Earth, to boost the Moon to a higher orbit. Since the same side of the Moon faces Earth, the mirrors could be stationary.

It might take a while, however.

The last sentance is the key. The moon would depart naturally before the mirrors were enough to make a difference.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Robbo
rockets and mirrors? why not use nukes?

I seriously doubt you can mine enough fissionables.

[Gollum]

Come on- how many freakin nukes has america got? we could use them for something worthwhile, such as splintering the moon into manageable bits, ratehr than have them all decay.

[Gollum]

That is, the nukes decay, not the bits of moon. So incomprehensible.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Blowing up the Moon is literally impossible with our current nuclear arsenal. I have a description of what it takes to destroy a planet at http://www.badastronomy.com/wwwboard/messages/327.html.

Using numbers for the Moon (radius = 1738 km, mass=7.35x10^25 grams) I find that it takes about 30 trillion megatons (3x10^13) to blow the Moon up. Considering the largest bomb ever claimed to have been exploded was less than 100 megatons, we're a bit short of the mark.

A collision with Eros could do it, but Eros would have to be moving incredibly fast, about 5000 kilometers/second, to give it enough energy to wipe out the Moon. That's a good fraction of the speed of light.

So: don't hold your breath!

[Robbo]

Bad Astronomer- can nukes at least nudge it out of the way? (I was responding to the ridiculous ideas of mirrors and ion drives)

[Irishman]

fixed link

http://www.badastronomy.com/wwwboard/messages/327.html

[Mooney252]

About 15 years ago the Wall Street Journal ran an article about a university professor who promoted the idea of eliminating the mooon. I don't recall all of his arguments, but some of them related to the emotions 'caused' by full moons. It was rank pseudo-science.

From the start of the argument, it seems that he -- and Cecil -- have underestimated the impact on life that would result from elimination of the inter-tidal zone. It would eliminate an environment for spawning of thousands of species. At worst it would limit the area in which crabs, turtles and countless other species lay eggs and have them incubate. Results: less breeding ground, increased competition for environment, increased predation, disruption of age-old patterns of feeding and breeding.

Disclaimer: I'm not a biologist but simply someone who lives near an inter-tidal zone.

[The_Marquis]

You are all going about this the wrong way. Rockets, nukes, ion drives??? Piffle.

If we want to destroy the moon all we need to do is shuttle the population of the Peoples Republic of China up to the Sea of Tranquility, with one chair each. Then we simply get them to stand up on their chairs and all jump off at the same time.

I can't believe that no one else thought of this idea.

[Junior Spaceman]

I just wanted to welcome Bad Astronomer to the boards. You helped me out when I was after some info on the 'moon landing hoax' conspiracy, and I hope you stick around to add your scientific knowledge for the benefit of those of us with a great knowledge of science, but not much in the way of background.

HenrySpencer

[Junior Spaceman]

Actually, I just noticed you (badastro) joined in April , so can you change that greeting to a wish that you'd jump in more often than four posts in seven months.

HenrySpencer (needing more sleep).

[Gollum]

Bad astronomer, I think that you are overestimating the energy required to destroy the moon. I dont want the thing vaporized, though it would be nice. IF (half of it) it must rain down in big chunks, killing millions, so be it. Surely their are enough nukes to shatter it into more managable bits?
We could get a really long anchor and get the moon to drag it around the earth till its orbit decays and it comes home to papa.Or if we could borrow a warp drive and run a ship through it at greater than light speeds , or a hyperdrive...(i always wondered why they didnt blow up the deathstar that way). If we could put enough space junk in its path it might hasten its departure from orbit.
oh, the possibilities....

[messiah]

We could just paint it black, and pretend.

[Gollum]

Better- Paint it pink and get a small SEP field generator. (Hitchhikers guide)

[Dr.Pinky]

I am truly disturbed by this thread (as opposed to all the other things on this 'board that would disturb, say, your vocational counselors or your parents, should they stumble across it.)

I have finally despaired of the available US political parties, and have incorporated "The Friends of the Moon" as a political party in Alaska... (coming soon to a mall near you.)

I have been a professional poet for 23 years. If you take the moon away from me as a topic, I'll have nothing to write about except my penis...

Please, reconsider this drastic manuever. The consequences are more dire than you imagine...

[Gollum]

You could write about the glorius destruction of the moon, and how the destruction of the moon is symbolic of the destruction mankind inflicts on its self. Or for a feminist perspective you could write about how the moon represents the female and the rocket/whatever used to destroy the moon represents the male. That way you can still write about your penis, whilst reminiscing on the moon. If we blow it up you will be among the last generation of poets to use the moon as a muse. This would surely boost your profile many times. In summary- is not the fleeting beauty of the moons destruction more poignant than the enduring eye in the sky?

Its watching me i tell you. ALL THE TIME. but i'll show it hehe. It wont be laughing at me much longer. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[The Bad Astronomer]

First, to Henry: *you're* happy *I'm* here? I've been reading your level-headed posts to sci.astro for years. I'm glad you're here! I don't post much because for some reason it takes forever for these threads to load. Sometimes I get hits on my website from these threads so I take a look to see what's going on.

Second, to the thread: all the nukes we have ain't gonna do much to the Moon. We could make a nice crater, I suppose, and screw up hope for future colonization, but remember, the Moon is *big*. A single asteroid 1 kilometer across moving at typical orbital speeds would dwarf our nuclear aresenal if it impacted, yet it would only leave a crater a few tens of kilometers across.

Face it. We think we're hot stuff, but the Universe is vastly bigger, older, more powerful and patient than we are.

[CalMeacham]

There was a calculation og how much energy would be required to blow up Alderaan in The American Journal of Physics back when Star Wars first came out in 1977. I don't recall the numbers, but it's in line with the magnitudes The Bad Astronomer suggests. It's good to see that the AJP tackles these important questions.

[Gollum]

Well, we obviously need a less conventional solution. Nukes wont cut it. For the moment i am out of ideas, unless Dr Evil and spare us a 'laser'.

[hardcore]

Well obviously Bad Astronomer has given you enough hints about how to do it. First, you find a near earth orbit asteroid or comet, at least 100 kilometers in size (please don't ask me to do the calcs). Then, use one of the ideas for nudging asteroids OUT of earth collision orbits to push it INTO a collision course with the moon (as if that wouldn't nearly be impossible). Sit back, watch the fireworks, and what's left will probably take a few million years to reform.

If anybody asks, you didn't hear this from me.

[messiah]

So if we can move the moon with the aid of a 100km rock, I take it that we can set that rock on a collision path, by the way of a well aimed blow from a 10km rock. A 1km rock should be able to do that job, aided by a precise blow from a 100m rock.

So basically to move the moon all we need is a small stone thrown very very accurately.
(Surprised someone on this site hasn’t already done the math)

[erislover]

The quickest way, as demonstrated in Star Trek: Generations, is trilithium shot into the sun. That took out a whole planet.

Oh, you mean we were suppoed to live after destroying the moon?

[WarmNPrickly]

Back to the original question about the effects of blowing up the moon. There was a math professor at Iowa State University thatmade this proposal suggesting it would solve all of mankinds problems. I only remember this for having been there. I just think he said it to get published.

[Achernar]

The Bad Astronomer's numbers look good, but there's a much easier way to blow up the Moon than with warheads - just push it into the Sun. My cursory calculations state that it will take no more than 1.8×10¹³ Megatons of Energy to "ionize" the Earth and send the Moon to its fiery doom. That's only 60% of the Energy needed to do it directly. If we covered the Moon with 10% efficient solar panels, we could draw that much Energy from the Sun in only 41 Million years. Actually less, since as time went on, we'd be rocketing the Moon closer and closer to the Sun, so the panels would pick up more Energy. All in all, a foolproof plan.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I'm afraid I disagree with you, Achernar. It *must* take more energy to vaporize the Earth than the Moon, and by quite a bit. It has 81 times the mass of the Moon, so it takes 81*81 = 6500 times the energy to blow up the Earth.

Worse, that won't change things much with the Moon. The Moon orbits the Earth at roughly 1 km/sec. The Earth (and therefore the Moon as well) orbits the Sun at about 29 km/sec. If you were to magically whisk away the Earth, the Moon would still happily orbit the Sun, though on a slightly more elliptical orbit.

To plunge the Moon into the Sun, you would need to slow it down enough to fall in. That is essentially the same as stopping it dead in its tracks. Using good old energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2, I calculate that will take 7x10^15 megatons, or 200 times the energy needed to simply vaporize the Moon. Better just to blow it up.

There is a way out. If we just want to get rid of the Moon and not necessarily destroy it, we would only need to give it a small kick to give it escape velocity. Escape velocity is 1.4 times the circular velocity, so if we can get it moving just .4 km/sec faster, it'll leave the Earth on its own. That's only 1.5 x 10^12 megatons, or 1/20 what it takes to destroy it.

The only problem then is that it will still be in roughly the same orbit as the Earth. Gravity from the other planets will perturb it into different orbits, and eventually it might get onto a collision course with us. That would be BAD. It might be better to spend the extra energy and vaporize it.

[ZenBeam]

Solar radiation is 1353 watts/m^2 and the Lunar radius = 1738 km, so the Moon receives 1.284E13 kWatts. There are 8766 hours / year, so this is 1.125E17 kWatt-hours / year.

Using 1 kiloton = 1.162E6 kWatt-hours, this becomes 9.69E10 kilotons/year = 9.69E7 megatons/year

The Bad Astronomer says we need 1.5E12 megatons, so this will take 1.5E12 / 9.69E7 = 15,500 years.

I'm telling you, mirrors are the way to go.

The only problem then is that it will still be in roughly the same orbit as the Earth. Gravity from the other planets will perturb it into different orbits, and eventually it might get onto a collision course with us. That would be BAD. It might be better to spend the extra energy and vaporize it.

As we gradually increase the Moon's orbit radius, the effect of Venus's gravity becomes more important. Eventually, we'll just need one small asteroid or Nuke to tip it out of Earth orbit. Timing it right, we should be able to use Venus to direct the Moon into the Sun. Problem solved.

Of course, a better solution would be to leave it in orbit around Venus, slowing it down using the same mirrors. Some people (e.g. Dr.Pinky, and I'm sure at least one or two others) might not like destroying the Moon outright. Plus, if it turns out we really do need the Moon, we'll be able to get it back.

[Achernar]

If you ionize a Hydrogen atom, you give the electron enough Energy to escape the proton's pull. I thought it would be terribly clever of me to refer to the giving of the Moon necessary escape velocity as ionization. Now I realize it was just confusing. I don't want to destroy the Earth, at least not until I leave. So, we had the same idea about shooting the Moon off, but your solution is a bit more elegant and conservative. I was just counting the brute force needed to push it. Your numbers look better than mine, too, so I concur.

[Gollum]

sweet progress! We're down from 41 million years to a possible 15,500 with mirrors. Lets take that a bit further and get it down to say.... 20 years. I want to be able to watch it happen. Who will remember in 10000 years? no one. Especially if we really do need the moon. 7E15 megatons for destruction and 1.5E12 for movement, hopefully into the sun. Now that would be a solar flare. Or would it? if we put the moon into the sun, would you be able to see it from earth?
If we spent 20 years just making nukes would we get enough energy to move te moon?

[malden]

Welcome to the SDMB, Bad Astronomer! I have been reading your website for a long time.

What I haven't seen discussed in this thread is what to do with the debris left over when our destroy-the-moon scheme is complete. Perhaps some of the debris would fall to earth, and some might end up in solar orbit, but wouldn't a sizable proportion end up as a ring around the planet, a la Saturn (and the other gas giants?)

One word: Bitchin'! I hereby volunteer all the nuclear weapons I own to the cause.

[Schieschkopf]

Let's just do it the good ole fashion way! Build a huge mobile pressurized tent, get some shovels and force convicts and soccer mom's to start digging. Surely we could move enough dirt from one spot to another to make the moon wobble, or better yet, just jettisson the crap out into space, or send huge chunks of it down to earth so we can use it for our own environment diminishing purposes. Hell, if we can destroy our own environment, I'm sure we can destroy the moon!

The Universe may be bigger and more patient, but we got a big budget surplus, and not to mention too many convicts and soccer moms!

Who knows, maybe we could dig a whole through the center of it and make it look like a big donut, similar to Ringworld if you know what I mean!

If we can't blow it up, or knock it out of orbit, I think we should at least change it up some, make it really obscene or something! :P

Nukes? Bahhh... Rockets? Nah... Mirrors? We're not boyscouts, were Americans!

Let's do it with what this country was built on, good old sweat and blood, and ummm Slavery? Damn, I gotta rethink that one. (Note: I hold no prejudices or Bias, the previous was meant as a satirical but pathetic poke at our history)

[Schieschkopf]

I just had the hugest breakthrough!

Let's use the ideas from my previous post to dig around sizeable chunks of the moon, and then (for fun of course) we can launch them off using controlled detonations and rocket engines to intersect with other planet's we don't like! The Moon be damned! I want to knock Mercury into the sun like a billiard ball into a pool pocket.

And of course, since I thought it up, I get to launch the first few pieces of sizeable rock. Shoot, I think I'll just file a patent on it, pick a popular business model, and file for an IPO... I can see the cover of Wallstreet now
"Nukes? Armies? He's got the MOON!"

MmmmMmmm....

[Duck Duck Goose]

Geez, I can't believe I waded through this entire thread and nobody's even mentioned Bruce Willis.

[JoAnneSchmitz]

I got one word for you: mice.

-JoAnne

[Schieschkopf]

I don't want anyone here to say:

Dude! Let's get Steve Buscemi and Bruce Willis to drill a hole into the middle of the moon and drop a nuke, just like they did in that one movie!

Use your noodle folks, not your torrid experiences of watching bad movies! :P

I know someone can figure out what the required velocity for a goat or some other type of animal is to actually knock the moon out of orbit.

So, come on! Let's blow up the moon!

[Gollum]

Like the soccer mums idea. But i suggest we get them to hurl abuse at the moon till it cries and runs home. As plausible as it would be to have bruce willis blow up the moon i dont want him to be accorded any of the fame and glory and power that will surely be awarded to he/she that succeeds in destroying the eye in the sky. Mice is good. Giant, mutant, rock eating mice that can survive the harsh moon type environment. If we make them efficient enough they can convert the moon rock into energy which can be piped back to earth and used to power our robotic death squads. YAY! assuming we make mice with reactors as efficient at the sun, but able to process elements with a lower potential energy we should get 48.32 Trillion tonnes of waste and 6.032E28 Megawatts of energy. More than enough energy to expand Intracorps interests extensivly. We shall protect all our buildings from those pesky government forces via giant tesla coils, and electrify the ocean. If you wish to swim or boat or look at the ocean, you will have to pay.

Muahahaha...

Fish will just have to make that step onto land pretty damn quick. At least for a little while there will be toasty fish and fish for all.

tehehehe.

What? You are reading this! egad, you know too much. Guards-n sieze them.

Resistance is amusing.

[Montfort]

I think this is a neat thread, so I'm bumping it. While doing some searches on Swedish geography today, I stumbled upon this site, which details the plans the Soviets came up with in '58 to explode a nuclear bomb on the moon. Why? To prove they went there:

Like all the other projects the lunar surface nuclear explosion proposal came from the circle of Academicians. Its originator was the famous Soviet nuclear physicist Jakov Borisovich Seldovich. The primary aim of the project was to prove to the whole world that a Soviet spacecraft had really reached the surface of the Moon. Seldovich had the following in mid: The spacecraft would in itself be quite small and its flight to the moon would not be possible to observe for any astronomer on earth. Even if filled with conventional explosives, its drop on to the lunar surface would not be possible to observe from Earth. But, if a nuclear device was exploded on the Moon's surface, the whole world would be able to observe the event and nobody would be able to pose the question: has a Soviet spacecraft really reached the Moon? It was assumed that a nuclear explosion on the Moon would be accompanied by such a light flash that it would easily be observable by all observatories on Earth.

Cool