Is the bomb being sent to the moon conventional or nuclear?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

I would have to think nuclear for no other reason than you can launch a smaller weight bomb to the moon and get a bigger blast. The amount of fuel and rocket power needed to send something into orbit (or the moon) will depend greatly on the payload weight of the bomb.

BUT!!! If it's a nuclear bomb and they do find water won't it now be fallout contaminated water?
Making me think they might just prefer a conventional bomb...

[Statistical]

1. It is a science-fail bomb and it already exploded.

[Soylent Brice]

43. + a brazillian

[Swamp Rat]

2. nucular1

[KittyWampus]

91. Swampy! Your graphics have evolved and become so much more wonderful!

I'm glad you stuck to it.

Did you save your graphics over the years? I'd love to see a retrospective. :)

[SidDithers]

3. Hehehe...

:spank:

Sid

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. It's a heat-seeking moisture missile

I've got those amazon women in my sights.

[dysfunctional press]

5. neither.

it's not explosive.

[ddeclue]

6. neither - it is really just a kinetic energy weapon

it will transfer it's kinetic energy to the moon when it impacts.

[Rise together]

7. Neither. it's boom will be pure kinetic energy

just like a meteoroid. Scientists will then examine the absorption spectrum of the dust cloud to see if there's water in it.

It's not a bomb. :/

[leeroysphitz]

29. How radioactive is kinetic energy versus regular nukular energy?

[Javaman]

44. You're not serious, right? nt

[hobbit709]

8. Jeez, the stupid-it hurts

[EOTE]

21. It really wasn't a stupid question.

Not every one is entirely on top of NASA's methodologies. No one should be discouraged from asking such a benign question.

[hobbit709]

27. If everybody actually READ the article instead of the headline.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. I really wasn;t interested in the mission...

I just noticed scores of people semeingly complaining about it.
I figured there MUSH be some sort of actual bomb action happening.

Nope... overreaction. I shouldn't be so surprised, really.

[EOTE]

36. There's no article in the OP.

And last I checked, there's no rule that a person can't ask a question if the answer to that particular question exists in an article somewhere. This is a discussion board and one of the big reasons people come here is to ask questions and receive answers (even answers to questions which exist in print somewhere).

[Javaman]

46. sigh,

got to any frigging news net site and read it.

it's happening tomorrow morning, you can't swing an internet dead cat without being able to read a story on it.

:banghead:

[EOTE]

48. I've read a number of articles regarding it.

And if YOU had read this thread, you'd know that it is not I who had the question pertaining to it. Kind of ironic if you ask me. And while I'm not the one asking the question, I will tell you that a number of the articles I've read on this simply state that NASA will be sending a missile to the moon while not divulging further details on the nature of the missile. That's why I was defending the OP for posting the question. So while I won't be needing to "got to" any frigging news sites, I appreciate your assistance.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truth2power]

71. *sigh* Thank you, ETOE.....

What's wrong with people just answering the damn question, even if that answer has appeared somewhere before? We can't all keep 100% up on every single current event.

Sometimes I want to say, "The cranky! It hurts."

[EOTE]

73. You're very welcome.

Some people would rather express their outrage that someone would dare ask a question to which an answer exists in print somewhere than spending a good deal less time and effort to him them out. I guess some people aren't happy unless they're pissed off. I follow current events in science avidly, but there are quite a few political issues that need to be explained to me. If my dad isn't able to help, I'm glad I've got DU. If I got this kind of response every time I asked a political question, I'd find somewhere else very quickly.

[Confusious]

83. You should know the difference between kinetic and nuclear

if you had paid attention in high school.

[EOTE]

89. And what makes you think I don't?

Could it perhaps be your ridiculously poor reading comprehension? You really should have paid attention in high school.

[Confusious]

82. My hand hitting my forehead is kenetic energy

the splitting of an atom is nuKlear. so is the fusing of and atom.

[timtom]

87. You should know how to construct a proper sentence,

if you had paid attention in high school.

[EOTE]

90. And you should really learn some sentence structure and spelling.

Your random lashing out is pretty pathetic considering.

[slackmaster]

9. As I understand it, the device isn't really a bomb at all (if "bomb" means explosive device)

It's an impactor.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wilms]

28. Wrong. It's a death ray.

See?

[krispos42]

49. Hell, it's a used-up rocket booster

Not quite 3 tons of metal moving at Mach 8

Let's see... 5,083 pounds mass = 158 slugs

Impact velocity is 5,600 mph, or 8,213 ft/s.

Kinestic energy is one-half mass times the square of the velocity, so that would be...

0.5 x 158 x 8,213 x 8,213 = 5,328,816,151 foot-pounds of energy, if I did my math right.


Or for the metric types...

2,305 kg @ 2,500 m/s, so kinetic energy is 7,203,125,000 Joules. 7.2 GigaJoules.


Now a ton of TNT is 4.184 GJ, so this actually would have the energy release equal to 1.72 tons of TNT.

It's about the explosive impact of dropping 4 2,000-lb bombs by an F-16.

[phantom power]

10. It's kinetic. They are crashing two craft into the moon.

Really, it's the equivalent of dropping a couple rocks from orbit. Artificial meteors. The kinetic energy will be released as heat, and they'll try to detect water from the spectrum absorption lines. Or the emission lines. I forget which.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. First, you need to start thinking ...

before you decide.

It's not a bomb.

[redqueen]

12. It's nucular, duh.

A conventional bomb wouldn't be strong enough to crack it. They have to crack it to get the water out.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. Crack it like a coconut to get out that sweet Moon Milk!

[MilesColtrane]

74. NASA will crack open the Moon's skull and feast on the goo inside.

[NeedleCast]

19. +1

[Wilms]

15. My internet connection is down. But once it's up...

...I'll google that, stat!

[sakabatou]

16. Might just be an impactor like they did with that asteroid.

[NeedleCast]

17. Do you people fucking read at all?

There is NO EXPOLOSIVE in the probe being dropped on the moon. Its a spent fuel stage from a previous rocket. Its a big metal can.

Sweet Weeping Jebus the stupid is on high alert.

[era veteran]

22. Yes, Saturn fuel tank

[dixiegrrrrl]

76. They have fuel tanks on Saturn??????

Wouldn't sending one from Earth be closer than one from Saturn?
'course, I guess from Saturn, it being down hill and all.....so to speak.

[BlooInBloo]

38. (shrug) They're Americans. You don't expect much more.

[Posteritatis]

56. People freaking out over scientific experiments? If they read they wouldn't be. (nt)

[Ozymanithrax]

18. It is a high tech meteor, meant to throw up debris to see if there is water.

It is not a bomb.

The did exactly the same thing done with the Deep Impact experiment on a Comet in 2005. Of course, on of the stupid headlines at the time was "Deep Impact - NASA Nails Comet." I don't remember anyone thinking a group of NASA engineers did the down and dirty with a Comet.

Someone should outlaw cutesy misleading headlines.

[imdjh]

20. Who cares? Bomb it! Blast the damned thing to bits.

I am so sick of listening to my friend Bolivia go on about stupid full moon mythology.

[Uncle Joe]

23. It's one of those smart bombs

which should reduce collateral damage against the innocent moon people.

They're so accurate now, they can send a missile straight down a 2' x 4' moon crater and get the terrorists where they live.

[leeroysphitz]

33. They could probably even hit womp rats in Beggers Canyon...

[SIMPLYB1980]

80. Sorry Red Squadron you're on your own.

The race is about to come on.

[leeroysphitz]

86. That is excellent.

[tammywammy]

24. Nuclear, and I heard they're going to trap the radiation

In order to parachute it down to rain over Iran. It'll only work if the moon doesn't crack in two after the massive earthquakes upon impact.

[Morning Dew]

25. Photon Torpedoes - due to NASA budget cuts, no quantum torpedoes are available at this time.

:(

[shadowknows69]

26. Fucking Star Fleet.

[sweetloukillbot]

30. But if we blow up the moon it might lead to peace with the Klingon Empire. n/t

[shadowknows69]

32. Ok, well there's that.

[Morning Dew]

39. The Klingons have their own Pu'DaH dak cha

so peace would be good.

[drm604]

34. I blame the media for this.

Saying that we're going to "bomb" the Moon is misleading since there is no explosive bomb involved. But what do they care about accuracy so long as it gets ratings.

[Renew Deal]

35. Maybe, but it will be at least 50 years before we colonize the moon.

:D

[BlooInBloo]

37. (facepalm)

[JHB]

dupe

dupe

[JHB]

40. Nuclear, to cover up the explosion of the secret nuclear waste storage site...

...which has hit critical mass and is ready to spontaneously explode.

Twitter @moonbasealpha for updates! :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:









:sarcasm:

[Dr. Strange]

54. Space: 2009!

Just a decade off!

[JHB]

55. Time dilatoration n/t

[Tesha]

67. Praxis? 'Zat you? (NT)

[Javaman]

41. Friendly advice...

step away from the keyboard.

go outside and enjoy nature. Play with your kids, if you have any, drink a good wine, read a book, or perhaps...

DO A LITTLE FUCKING RESEARCH!!

For the love of god, stop pushing the stupid ball forward.

The inanity of this line of thinking is just fucking blinding.

Go to the fucking NASA site and just fucking read!!!

Jesus Christ in a hand basket.

[Posteritatis]

59. On the modern intarwebz, everyone wants someone else to find their links for them

Notice the growing trend in "URL or it didn't happen" type statements? I'm running into folks all over the place, and not just here, who wouldn't believe the sky was blue until someone gave them a link to an ideologically-acceptable blog saying so.

Those types of attitudes are largely responsible for the great bellowing herd of people freaking out about this without having so much as read beyond the first half of a poorly-written news headline the other day, IMHO.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

42. I think it's a moawb

Mother of All WaterBalloons.

Whatever it hits, we discover water. Discovering water will guarantee next year's budget.

:hi:

[onenote]

45. when brett favre throws a 60 yard bomb, is it nuclear or conventional?

[BlooInBloo]

52. I went to a movie and it bombed. Was it nuclear or conventional?

[ieoeja]

61. I got bombed last night. Was it nuclear or conventional?

[BlooInBloo]

64. I saw this really hot girl last night - she was the bomb. Was she nuclear or conventional?

[MilesColtrane]

75. Was Doctor Bombay on 'Bewitched' nuclear or conventional?

[Confusious]

84. Is bombay sapphire nuklear? 'cause its like blue and shit

I like blue.

[Cid_B]

47. Two things...

1) I love how this has brought out all the Star Trek and Star Wars nerds..

2) I have lost all ability to determine who is being subtley sarcastic and witty and who is just plain retarded. Use the damn sarcasm tags DAMMIT!!!11!!

[yawnmaster]

53. I believe, in most cases, having to use the sarcasm tags destroys the entire...

purpose of sarcasm.
I do support them, though, if someone might be truly offended.

[Zix]

79. :D

Energy chickens have taken your brain into new dimensions.

[Posteritatis]

58. What if the sarcasm tags are themselves sarcastic? (nt)

[ieoeja]

63. You have a point.

I don't like using the sarcasm tag as it dilutes the message.

But I can't tell you the number of times I've laughed at something so over the top I knew it had to be sarcasm, only to read through the followup posts and discover it wasn't.

[Dogmudgeon]

50. Not this !@*%& again!

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-'". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

--d!

[NoPasaran]

51. I thought we would try diplomacy with the Moon first

"Change we can believe in"

Yeah, right!

:nuke:




















:sarcasm:

[Liberal In Texas]

57. Owww Owww Owwww

Look, it's cheese not water!

[Swede]

60. What happens well that blown up cheese starts hitting earth?

Think of the cheese!

[Confusious]

85. MMMMM feta

My part of the moon is made of Feta. But what if I eat so much as it rains down I hate it?

[Nye Bevan]

62. This is worrying

Since the moon controls the tides, could the forthcoming lunar nuclear explosion contaminate the oceans? I hope these boffins know what they;re doing. Nuking the moon, indeed.

[JHB]

66. You were being sarcastic, right?

In this thread, it's been hard to tell sometimes.

[Nye Bevan]

68. I'm a lifelong Doctor Who fan

and the Doctor would absolutely *not* approve of NASA nuking the moon. ;-)

[Javaman]

70. they are not "nuking" the moon.

good god.

have you even read a single article on the mission? if you did you would understand they are basically throwing a tiny brick at the moon attached with various tech.

it has no payload, it will not "explode". nothing, zero, zilch will be "irradiated".

do you know what kinetic energy is?

it's like everyone fell asleep in 10th grade science class.

:banghead:

[Nye Bevan]

72. Well *that's* a relief.

I think I'll have a few beers to celebrate the fact that NASA is not going to nuke the moon.

[Zix]

78. Bad karma will come upon you! Energy chickens can see your aura!

But don't you think it's time to form a conga line and dance off a cliff?

*I* certainly think it's time to form a conga line and dance off a cliff.

[flvegan]

69. The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there.

[Buns_of_Fire]

77. Be calm... All is under control...

You see, I have determined that the 5000-Brazillaton nuclear device soon-to-be-exploded on the lunicular surface WILL, in fact, split the moon asunder. Half of it will head towards Mars. The other half will head towards Earth.

But, in a sheer chance of fortuitous fate, they'll also be cranking up the Giant Hardon Collider tomorrow morning, too. Yes, it will create a Black Hole. But the wayward moon-half will be sucked right into it and all mankind will be saved. Just before they're sucked into the Black Hole, too.

That, or my calculations indicate it'll land just north of Pismo Beach.

(I don't know what was in that drink, but I think I'll have another.:beer:)

[MilesColtrane]

81. Damn!

Chessmaster Obama has got interplanetary skillz!

All...saving the Earth and shit!

[B Calm]

88. I'm trying. . .

[pampango]

92. It's a neutron bomb. Kills lunar people (lunarians?) but leaves the buildings intact. n/t