Could we blow up the moon?

[Incubus]

With today's technology? What would it take to blow up the moon, realistically? I mean, would it be possible to do it like they tried to blow up the asteroid in Armageddon (drill a deep hole, set a nuclear bomb in it, detonate). Given enough Megatons, would this destroy the moon, or just make it angry?

How big of an object (ie asteroid or comet) would it take to destroy the moon from a collision? Say some planetkiller asteroid is flying along, but the moon takes the bullet for us by happening to be in the way at the right time, and gets clobbered instead?

How would this affect earth? How bad would pieces of blown-up moon falling on earth be? How about the change in tides from no longer having a moon? (evenings would be a lot darker too, I imagine).

[Munch]

I'd think any explosion/force great enough to clear the mass of the moon out of Earth's gravitational well would also have a pretty adverse affect on the Earth.

[Chimera]

We don't have enough nukes, let alone the drill technology or capability, to make more than a dent in the moon.

Which I propose to use to draw a real face on the moon.

[tdn]

As far as the tides, we'd still have two a day, but they'd only be about a third as big as they are now.

And if the explosion isn't too big, the Moon would probably just re-form.

[ftg]

This is a recurring topic here. Searching reveals several threads as well as Cecil's column. Here's a good post from Measure for Measure that has links to some columns, etc.

Moon destruction effects.


Old board how to.

[phreesh]

I think we can all agree that smug, tide-causing jerk needs to be taken care of.

However, I don't think we have anywhere near enough explosive for the job. I wonder what all the nukes on Earth would do to it. I am not a planet destroyer (IANAPD), but I can't imagine we'd be able to take care of more than even 5%.

[Chimera]

This reminded me of something I saw 20 years ago or so where this nutjob was proposing to blow up the moon and cause the pieces to soft-land in the oceans and fill them in so that we would have more land mass to use. No word on where all that water was supposed to go, let alone how we were to accomplish 'soft landing' continent sized pieces.

[kayaker]

But. . .I like the moon.

[OtisCampbellWasRight]

I find it's always easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, so OP, you go ahead and knock yourself out blowing up the moon.

Well, since you already asked...but you didn't say "please."

[tdn]

Originally Posted by kayaker

But. . .I like the moon.

But it doesn't always like itself. Last week it was feeling kind of blue.

[Qwakkeddup]

It is already blown up, ever since the real one went missing.
The man in the moon, he eats a lot of beans to keep it nice and inflated.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Chimera

We don't have enough nukes, let alone the drill technology or capability, to make more than a dent in the moon.

Which I propose to use to draw a real face on the moon.

Hey! I don't want your great Darsh face hanging over my garden wall!

[Thudlow Boink]

Obligatory Mr. Show clip

"America can, should, must, and will blow up the Moon!"

[Flander]

Maybe we should draw a butt on the moon? You know...so that the moon is...heh..mooning us.




OK, I'm leaving now.

[Jonathan Chance]

Charo wanted for questioning!

[Dr. Strangelove]

No.

Blowing up the moon would require accelerating all of its mass to the escape velocity of the moon. The escape velocity is 2400 m/s and the mass 7.3477e22 kg; this comes to 2.1161e29 joules. This is quite a lot of energy; the sun for instance produces 3.846e26 W, so blowing up the moon would require over 9 minutes of the sun's total energy output.

Alternatively, we could use about 4000 trillion bombs of the scale used on Hiroshima.

There is a remote possibility that we could divert an asteroid or comet (the moons of Mars would actually make pretty good projectiles) and make a decent dent in the Moon. Not enough to destroy it completely, though. The moon is big.

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by kayaker

But. . .I like the moon.

Coz it is close to us?

[TriPolar]

Could we knock a piece of the moon off, accelerate it, but keep it in the moon's orbit so it comes back around and hits the moon again? Could we break it into several pieces and create a giant Newton's Cradle that way, sans strings and frame?

[Martian Bigfoot]

I'm just thinking that this would be one hell of a Mythbusters episode.

[si_blakely]

There is a sci-fi novel called Moonfall - the moon is struck by an extrasolar asteroid with a huge velocity, it breaks up. The earth gets hammered with falling rocks, but the bulk of the shattered moon stays in orbit, and could smear out into a ring or could coalesce back into a smaller body.

The science seems pretty good, so it was a fairly good read.

Si

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by Chimera

This reminded me of something I saw 20 years ago or so where this nutjob was proposing to blow up the moon and cause the pieces to soft-land in the oceans and fill them in so that we would have more land mass to use. No word on where all that water was supposed to go, let alone how we were to accomplish 'soft landing' continent sized pieces.

The water would go down the plug hole at the North Pole and fill the hollow Earth.

Jeez. Everyone knows that. Don't you listen to Coast to Coast AM?

[RadicalPi]

See How to Destroy the Earth, http://qntm.org/destroy, and then just divide everything by 81.

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by RadicalPi

See How to Destroy the Earth, http://qntm.org/destroy, and then just divide everything by 81.

Sounds like somebody already tried to do it four years ago:

Urgent update, September 10, 2008

It is our duty to inform you that as of 7:35:05am UTC on September 10, 2008, the Earth has been destroyed.

[split p&j]

The bad astronomer says it would take a 100 billion megaton bomb just to get the results seen in Armageddon.

I'm guessing it'd be a no for the moon.

[RadicalPi]

Urgent update, September 10, 2008

It is our duty to inform you that as of 7:35:05am UTC on September 10, 2008, the Earth has been destroyed.

Why am I always the last to know?

[Alka Seltzer]

No-one is going to blow up the moon in an election year people.

[drewtwo99]

Could we put Newt Gingrich and his followers up there first, please? Then we can talk about blowing the place up.

[Meurglys]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Hey! I don't want your great Darsh face hanging over my garden wall!

Beat me to it!

[echo7tango]

If you're going to blow up the moon in an election year, please wait until after mid-October. I'm going to visit the Bay of Fundy and I want to see the big tides.

After that, go ahead.

[Chronos]

Quoth TriPolar:

Could we knock a piece of the moon off, accelerate it, but keep it in the moon's orbit so it comes back around and hits the moon again? Could we break it into several pieces and create a giant Newton's Cradle that way, sans strings and frame?

Believe it or not, there already is one of those in the Solar System. Behold, Janus and Epimetheus.

Quoth si_blakely:

There is a sci-fi novel called Moonfall - the moon is struck by an extrasolar asteroid with a huge velocity, it breaks up. The earth gets hammered with falling rocks, but the bulk of the shattered moon stays in orbit, and could smear out into a ring or could coalesce back into a smaller body.

The Moon is well above the Earth's Roche limit, by a considerable margin, and so it would re-form in a relatively short time. You only get proper rings below the Roche limit.

[Kenm]

"Earthlings — every galaxy has 'em, or something like 'em, I suppose," Clax 972 thought. "They see a moon and their only curiosity is how to blow it up."

Clax 972 reached out with a left tentacle and pushed a lever. A wide beam of dark red light shot from the insecticide cruiser's bow. It shot past the system's sun then the red planet, and a few seconds later boiled the Atlantic moments before Earth disintigrated into particles no larger than grains of sand on his home planet. Already they were nearly invisible as they dispersed through space.

Clax 972 glanced up at his work schedule. Only one more infestation to eradicate. Well, this tour wasn't so bad; Andromeda was relatively close, and after that he could set the cruiser for home.

Self-satisfaction slowly turned Clax 972 cyan, for there was no higher honour than making the universe safe for civilization.

The cruiser turned to head for a system in the nearby galaxy. As it gathered way, Clax 972 slept.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Believe it or not, there already is one of those in the Solar System. Behold, Janus and Epimetheus.

That is way cool. And more argument in favor of the Moon being a planet. And then through attenuated logic showing that Pluto is still a planet after all. Shove it up your asses anti-Plutists.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

Could we put Newt Gingrich and his followers up there first, please? Then we can talk about blowing the place up.

[Moderator Note]

drewtwo99, political jabs are not permitted in GQ. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Shove it up your asses anti-Plutists.

I can't believe you passed up the chance to say "Shove it up Uranus."

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

No.

Blowing up the moon would require accelerating all of its mass to the escape velocity of the moon. The escape velocity is 2400 m/s and the mass 7.3477e22 kg; this comes to 2.1161e29 joules. This is quite a lot of energy; the sun for instance produces 3.846e26 W, so blowing up the moon would require over 9 minutes of the sun's total energy output.

A few years ago, I calculated the energy to dissect the moon (to give all the mass in the moon escape velocity - I took into account the fact that after the outer surface is taken away, the escape velocity decreases) and got 1.24 * 10^29 joules - pretty close to your approximation. We're both neglecting the non-gravitational binding energy of the moon's material, but that's going to be pretty small compared to the gravitational binding.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Incubus

What would it take to blow up the moon, realistically?

An Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator?

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by Andy L

A few years ago, I calculated the energy to dissect the moon (to give all the mass in the moon escape velocity - I took into account the fact that after the outer surface is taken away, the escape velocity decreases) and got 1.24 * 10^29 joules - pretty close to your approximation. We're both neglecting the non-gravitational binding energy of the moon's material, but that's going to be pretty small compared to the gravitational binding.

To put that into perspective, even if all fossil fuels and uranium reserves were put together into one big bomb, they would fall far short of the required energy; according to Wikipedia, fossil fuel reserves contain 3.9×10^22 joules and uranium reserves 2.2×10^23 joules, for a total of 2.59 x 10^23 joules, only around a millionth of the required energy (also only about half the energy in the dinosaur-killing asteroid impact, and far larger impacts have occurred on the Moon).

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Michael63129

To put that into perspective, even if all fossil fuels and uranium reserves were put together into one big bomb, they would fall far short of the required energy; according to Wikipedia, fossil fuel reserves contain 3.9×10^22 joules and uranium reserves 2.2×10^23 joules, for a total of 2.59 x 10^23 joules, only around a millionth of the required energy (also only about half the energy in the dinosaur-killing asteroid impact, and far larger impacts have occurred on the Moon).

Yeah; I figured out it would take the kinetic energy of Ceres (the largest asteroid) moving at 50 km/sec or Halley's comet at 35,000 km/sec to approach that amount of energy.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Colibri

I can't believe you passed up the chance to say "Shove it up Uranus."

Damn! You're right. I missed an opening there.

[bardos]

Originally Posted by ftg

This is a recurring topic here.

Why in God's name would this be a recurring topic, blowing up the moon? People have too much free time on their hands or what?

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Meurglys

Beat me to it!

Always nice to meet a fellow enthusiast. /secrethandshake

[Bozuit]

Originally Posted by Andy L

Yeah; I figured out it would take the kinetic energy of ... Halley's comet at 35,000 km/sec to approach that amount of energy.

I think it would be worth the consequences just to see that happen.

Originally Posted by bardos

Why in God's name would this be a recurring topic, blowing up the moon? People have too much free time on their hands or what?

Because it's awesome. Roland Emmerich should get on it.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Could we blow up the moon?

I could, but I've outgrown that kind of thing, since the last time.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Andy L

A few years ago, I calculated the energy to dissect the moon (to give all the mass in the moon escape velocity - I took into account the fact that after the outer surface is taken away, the escape velocity decreases) and got 1.24 * 10^29 joules - pretty close to your approximation. We're both neglecting the non-gravitational binding energy of the moon's material, but that's going to be pretty small compared to the gravitational binding.

Hmm. I wonder if that is a fixed ratio? Wouldn't surprise me if there were a fixed numeric constant on the order of 60% that accounts for the decreasing gravity (for homogeneous, spherical, etc. objects).

We're also both neglecting that, aside from something like a slowly working mass driver, most scenarios would put a lot of thermal energy into the rock. Basalt has a specific heat of something like 840 J/kg-K; an event that increased the temperature to the melting point of basalt would be a non-trivial fraction of the total energy.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Hmm. I wonder if that is a fixed ratio? Wouldn't surprise me if there were a fixed numeric constant on the order of 60% that accounts for the decreasing gravity (for homogeneous, spherical, etc. objects).

Yes - for a spherical object with constant density (which is what I assumed...), the energy required to dissect is 3/5*G*M*M/R (G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object and R is the radius), while your method (multiplying the mass times the initial escape velocity) amounts to G*M*M/R.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

We're also both neglecting that, aside from something like a slowly working mass driver, most scenarios would put a lot of thermal energy into the rock. Basalt has a specific heat of something like 840 J/kg-K; an event that increased the temperature to the melting point of basalt would be a non-trivial fraction of the total energy.

Yeah.

[TriPolar]

Also, it could only be done at night.

[bardos]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Also, it could only be done at night.

Wouldn't happen for obvious reasons. Night is the only time open to travel to the sun.

[ohnodano]

The energy needed to do so is FAR beyond anything anything we could put out. To answer your other question. Not having a moon would lead to some very bad things. The big two being the loss of tides and doing all kinds of crazy stuff to the speed and rotation of the earth.

[Hari Seldon]

Some years ago, maybe 30 years ago, a man named Smbat (Alexander) Abian proposed blowing up the moon in order to create a ring around the earth so that we could have 24 hour daylight. To call him a nutjob would be an understatement. I knew him personally. He is deceased so libel is not an issue. His daughter uselessly threatened me with a libel suit after I went into some detail on another site.

[Trans Fat Og]

Originally Posted by kayaker

But. . .I like the moon.

Why does there always have to be someone being negative?

Heh.