Not a Cafe Society question IMO.
The premise of Space 1999 (TV show) was that nuclear waste on the far side of the moon ignites into some sort of inferno.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but since this is occuring on the side that doesn’t face Earth, shouldn’t this push the moon toward Earth rather than away from it?
This has always bothered me.
Only if the waste was exactly opposite the earth. It might well have been just over the limb of the moon…
But, even an enormous explosion on the side directly opposite of the Earth isn’t going to cause the Moon to hit the Earth, it’s just going to make it orbit faster.
Any explosion large enough to shift the orbit of the Moon by any perceptible amount is large enough to shatter it into fragments. Space 1999 was a very silly show.
It’s all kinds of bad science.
The size an explosion would have to be to move the moon out of orbit would have much worse consequense than a lack of tides.
But yes, if the explosion is on the far side of the moon, the moon would move closer to Earth. But if it’s a big enough explosion it might accelerate the moon, in the process of altering the trajectory to one more inwared bound, to escape velocity and after performing a classic SlingShot manuver (in Star Trek IV this creates speeds capable of time travel), be ejected into space.
The whole show was full of bad science, but most wasn’t really science as much as the perceived science of an imaginative hippie on drugs. I liked the show, but nothing in the science presented should be taken seriously. It’s about as scientifically accurate as the show Land of the Lost.
What, you mean dinosaurs DIDN’T look like Claymation? :eek:
Actually, I ran some numbers on that once, and the most energetically-efficient way to fragment the Moon is to lower its orbit to below the Earth’s Roche limit (which would certainly count as a perceptible change to the orbit).
Bad science, bad schmience. That show had some kick-ass threads.
In orbital mechanics, everything is backwards. Firing forwards makes you go faster in a lower orbit, and firing aft causes you to go slower in higher orbit. Thrusting in or out for a short impulse changes the eccentricity; if you fire radially outward near perigee, the result would be a more eccentric ellipse or even a parabolic (escape) orbit.
The science of Space: 1999 was bollocks, of course, but at least the first series did have a number of notable and innovative characteristics, like the comm-locks (a combination PDA, wireless security access, and video cell phone), the intricately detailed exterior models (a vast improvement over Star Trek and Blake’s 7), and of course, the Eagle Transporters, which actually look like something that might be used for space transportation.
Stranger
Stranger, could you talk a little more about … thrusting?
That show IMO had one of the best intro sequences of any tv series period, scifi or not. I get all tingly just thinking about it.
Yeah, much of the science was terrrible, but when push comes to shove you almost have to have bad science (or just go “its magic”) to make most space travel scifi “work”.
Talk about poor impulse control.
The best science was in biology and psychology. They showed the guys and gals hitting on each other and being in relationships. The clothing was obviously made for it’s ability to show off the human form and be seducing to encourage reproduction. That show was about human biology and psychology.
Well sure, but aren’t they all?
If the moon doesn’t get blown apart in the “explosion” is it really going to exit the solar system and then fly through the galaxy passing by a new habitable planet every week, slowing down to let the Eagle transports get to the planet and back several times and then speed up again in time to hit another habitable system next week? No. If the moon were on an uncontrollable trajectory outside the solar system, it would never come near any star within anyone’s lifetime unless it was at relativistic speeds. In which case the Eagles could never catch up once they left orbit. Bad science. Bad, bad science.
But remember, all you have to work with is one massive impulse. Can a single explosion shift the Moon’s orbit below the Earth’s Roche limit without fragmenting it in the process?
It was a really lonnnnng, slooooow…um…explosion.
Obligatory—> 
Forget the stupid Nuclear Waste Dump Blows Up That Sends the Moon Out of Orbit and Out of the Solar System at Relativistic Speed idiocy. That’s the premise that starts the whole damned series. If you can suspend your disbelief enough to swallow that whopper, then you can try to enjoy the series, right? Just ignore it and see if the rest of the series is any good.
So I tried that. then I saw a scene where one crewman* goes space-crazy and assaults a port with his helmet, coming close to breaking it, and they are all saved only by his fellows restraining him.
…and at that point I turned the show off and never watched it again.
I mean, I couldn’t take a motorcycle helmet, bash it against one of the ports on the Great Tank at the Boston aquarium and have a reasonable hope of breaking the glass. You’d figure that a viewport between atmospheric pressure and vacuum on the moon would be at least as sturdy.
If they can screw up on so obvious and intuitive a point as that, they certainly weren’t going to be any good on more speculative things.
*Well, what would you call him? “Moonman” doesn’t seem right, and “astronaut” is over-used. he can be “crew”, even if he’s not on a ship.
??? It could fly millions miles away and back no problem. The relative speed is about the same so what would be the problem?
BTW. The Moon is the only satellite in the Solar system that is more gravitationally affected by the Sun than its parent body. Its effectively orbiting the Sun with the Earth putting a small wobble in its orbit. A small object orbiting the Earth at the Moon’s distance is trivial to put into a purely Solar orbit.
All these posts and no one has brought up the 1/6th gravity issue?
In the future, everyone wears knits.