Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: NASA's gunna kill the earth!

  1. #1 NASA's gunna kill the earth! 
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    check this

    http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=15105


    clearly the only course of action is for all america to commit mass seppuku



    ok a bit of an exaggeration but seriously WHY has NASA not been disbanded yet? it's an insane money sink (I think the 4b on a pen that works in space is a great example, specially since russia just used a pencil) and fails and near enough everything it does, why should a potentially catastrophic 'mission' go well this time just because it involves intentionally blowing something up, instead of accidentally


    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    LOL...

    Maybe nobody can precisely predict what will happen, but trust me. A 2 kton blast is insignificant. If you don't understand this then please learn more about basic physics.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: NASA's gunna kill the earth! 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms


    ok a bit of an exaggeration but seriously WHY has NASA not been disbanded yet? it's an insane money sink
    Actually, it isn't. Every 1$ spent on space exploration produces 8$ of economic benefit to the US. A part of this is due to the fact that every technological advance developed by NASA is patented and licensed by the government. These licenses bring in dollars that are put back into the US treasury.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Not to mention all the media coverage that is profited from.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    2 ktons would be about 4x10^12 J or 4x10^12 kg * m^2 * s^-2. The moon has a mass of 7.5*10^22 kg. So, putting the full force of the blast into moving the moon would give it a kinetic energy, and using the formula v = sqrt(2*m*E)/m, that gives a velocity of 1x10^-5 m/s or 10 micrometers per second.

    Of course, that's somehow directing all of the energy of the blast into a straight line that somehow doesn't dissipate through breakage or other such things. (The goal of the experiment is exactly the opposite of that. They want the energy to break rocks and kick up a cloud of dust.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    That, and the pen story isn't true. NASA did not develop the pen, and it did not cost 4 billion. The Fisher company spent significantly less, and developed it in much less time.

    Reference:
    http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/spacepen.htm

    If a 2T bomb blast would hurt the orbit of the moon, shouldn't the Earth already be far past doomsday with the amount and magnitude of the explosions we create testing such bombs? I'm sure we would have noticed something by now.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Not to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...aintop_removal. (It says they detonate about 3 million pounds, about 1.5 kilotons, of explosives a day.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms


    ok a bit of an exaggeration but seriously WHY has NASA not been disbanded yet? it's an insane money sink
    Actually, it isn't. Every 1$ spent on space exploration produces 8$ of economic benefit to the US. A part of this is due to the fact that every technological advance developed by NASA is patented and licensed by the government. These licenses bring in dollars that are put back into the US treasury.
    Yeah. There's a certain advantage to running an organization that attracts the smartest people in the world to work for it, and only asking for governmentally reasonable salaries (since they're motivated more by patriotism than profit), instead of what they could have been making in the private sector.


    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    That, and the pen story isn't true. NASA did not develop the pen, and it did not cost 4 billion. The Fisher company spent significantly less, and developed it in much less time.

    Reference:
    http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/spacepen.htm

    If a 2T bomb blast would hurt the orbit of the moon, shouldn't the Earth already be far past doomsday with the amount and magnitude of the explosions we create testing such bombs? I'm sure we would have noticed something by now.
    Yeah. 2 Kton's vs. um... how many tons of mass does the Moon have? Is that in the billions, or trillions? Googling it gives me: 7.36 10^22 kg. So it's actually two steps up from "trillion" to what? Pentillions, or something like that?

    People think that 73 pentillion kilograms of solid rock is going to be significantly slowed/accelerated by a single 2 Kiloton (worth of dynamite) blast?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    People think that 73 pentillion kilograms of solid rock is going to be significantly slowed/accelerated by a single 2 Kiloton (worth of dynamite) blast?
    You forget. The moon is hollow and artificial. :|
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: NASA's gunna kill the earth! 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Actually, it isn't. Every 1$ spent on space exploration produces 8$ of economic benefit to the US. A part of this is due to the fact that every technological advance developed by NASA is patented and licensed by the government. These licenses bring in dollars that are put back into the US treasury.
    Although I'm very pro-space exploration in general, I've always been pretty skeptical of the numbers that people like to throw around for "dollars returned" on money spent on NASA.

    They usually seem to be based on studies done in the 1970s that come up with numbers by trying to project future economic benefits a decade or more into the future. One would think that it would be interesting to go back and see how their predictions panned out, but if those sorts of studies have been done I've never come across them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    2 ktons would be about 4x10^12 J or 4x10^12 kg * m^2 * s^-2....
    It's not even 2 kt, it's just 2 tons. Virtually nothing; probably comparable to how much energy was transferred to the moon when the lunar landers touched down and lifted off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Oh. Well then it works out to about a third of a micrometer per second then. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    It's not even 2 kt, it's just 2 tons. Virtually nothing; probably comparable to how much energy was transferred to the moon when the lunar landers touched down and lifted off.
    Oh. Well then it works out to about a third of a micrometer per second then. :P
    Ooops, sorry if my mistake in my post caused the problem.

    From years back in the military supporting EUCOM, I learned allot about nuclear bombs, and kilo-Ton and mega-Ton was stuck in my head.

    There is an error in the calculations anyway. The 2 ton figure means it's the equivalent explosion of two tons of TNT. Not a two tin explosion! What that amounts to is far greater than two tons of force.

    The explosion from a ton of TNT is 4,184 mega-joules of energy. Two tons would be 8,368 mega-joules.

    How does that fit the formula?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You're right. I forgot to multiply by 2 there. It'd be around half a micrometer then. I just took my numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tons_of_TNT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You forget. The moon is hollow and artificial. :|

    If it were, it would have no gravitational effect on the Earth and not raise the tides it does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2
    theres a pretty simple explanation, we are all going to die... but the government just want to make it look like an accident, an intentional accident. Fight back, if not then lie back and watch the show... pretty awesome way to die if you ask me, watching the moon get blown up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    On blowing up the moon:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2113458AADvZ2j
    http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/2...g-up-moon.html
    http://catch22blog.com/2009/07/if-st...w-up-the-moon/
    http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/...DeathStar.html

    Anyway. By the time someone manages to blow up the moon, I'll be laid back, enjoying the show from my house on Mars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    VANCOUVER, BC
    Posts
    7
    NASA should make its own Death Star. That would kick up some dust.

    :-D

    -TR
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •