Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I heartily endorse this product and/or service.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                         

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Moon 2

another moon to sweep junk, etc.
  (+6, -8)
(+6, -8)
  [vote for,
against]

Why does the moon have more craters than the earth? Yeah, erosion, plate tectonic, blah blah... but one of the reasons is that most stuff hits the moon before it even reaches us. Jupiter also sweeps up stuff (remember the comet impacts?)

Have a smaller moon in lower earth orbit. All the space junk in its path would either collide or bounce off into space or burn in reentry. It will also be a platform for satellites and an orbiting billboard.

the great unknown, Jun 28 2007

We like the Moon http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/
[Dub, Jun 30 2007]

Map: Space Junk http://discovermaga...nov/map-space-junk/
[nuclear hobo, Jul 02 2007]

Satellite orbits http://science.nasa...ck/3d/JTrack3D.html
NASA J-Track 3D [nuclear hobo, Jul 02 2007]

Not-So-Brilliant Pebbles Not-So-Brilliant_20Pebbles
[nuclear hobo, Jul 02 2007]

One proposal of how to rid space debris.... http://www.answers.com/topic/laser-broom
laser-broom [quantum_flux, Jul 02 2007]

[link]






       christallfugginmighty
Murdoch, Jun 28 2007
  

       Ok, I am bunning the second paragraph. I think the first is a bit dodgy.   

       But two moons would be cool.
Galbinus_Caeli, Jun 28 2007
  

       The earth gets bombarded equally as much as the moon, but most of the stuff burns up in the atmosphere or lands in an ocean.
quantum_flux, Jun 28 2007
  

       but consider that everything that hits the moon will never hit the earth.
the great unknown, Jun 28 2007
  

       //one of the reasons is that most stuff hits the moon//
The Earth, being a hundred times more massive, get far more junk coming in than its little ole moon. After all, the moon was created by a massive collision with the Earth.
ldischler, Jun 28 2007
  

       Lot's of potential here, especially for tidal flooding. Eclipses would get much more interesting, too.   

       The Moon could ordit in reverse - west to east - or longitudinally, appearing and disappearing over the poles.   

       Very nice. [+]
nuclear hobo, Jun 28 2007
  

       But what about the tides and all the other things that depend on gravitational pull?
Dub, Jun 28 2007
  

       No problem. Let's mix it up a little bit.
normzone, Jun 28 2007
  

       Idischler, you're the king of exaggeration. The earth is only 6 times the mass of the moon, not "a hundred times"( I guess it looks that small in the sky) My new moon would be less massive, causing no tidal disturbance. It won't need to have gravity to attract the space junk, just knock it out if it's path making a clean corridor around the planet. It could even be a large umbrella like shield on the same trajectory as the ISS, stopping junk from hitting the station.
the great unknown, Jun 29 2007
  

       The gaps in Saturns rings have been created by small moons "sweeping up", so it's not really a terrible idea. What do you plan to make this moon out of?
wagster, Jun 29 2007
  

       //My new moon would be less massive, causing no tidal disturbance.//   

       Then it would not be a very effective junk magnet.   

       //What do you plan to make this moon out of?//   

       Nuclear waste is not only undesirable here on earth but also quite dense. That makes it harder to get into orbit but more effective as a sweeper.   

       Moon 2 could have a nice glow to it, though critical mass may become a problem as the moon is being assembled.
nuclear hobo, Jun 29 2007
  

       //Idischler, you're the king of exaggeration. The earth is only 6 times the mass of the moon, not "a hundred times"( I guess it looks that small in the sky)//

You have facts that are new to science. (Could you be confusing mass with surface gravity?)
ldischler, Jun 30 2007
  

       Everybody: The Earth is almost exactly 81 times as massive as the Moon. As for worries about tides, what tides? A constructed Moon (presumably from lunar or asteroid stuff?) would not have to be so massive as to generate tides, even if it is in a closer orbit. I like this idea and would like to see more development of it. . .
Moonguy, Jun 30 2007
  

       ...That's no moon.   

       No seriously, a moon is a natural satellite. Anything man made by definition would not be a moon.   

       I vote that we listen to [Moonguy]. He seems to know what he's on about.
hidden truths, Jun 30 2007
  

       first off, making a moon...hmm...out of what, quebec? getting into orbit would be a tad bit tricky...messing with tides...do we currently have a problem with getting hit by space debris? last time i checked, there are more urgent threats to humanity, including, but not limited to, global warming, holes in the ozone layer, and bloggers
jackoknives, Jun 30 2007
  

       //a moon is a natural satellite. Anything man made by definition would not be a moon.//   

       Or, from the second noun definition: "any object resembling a moon". There is also the verb form, which is entirely manmade.
nuclear hobo, Jun 30 2007
  

       I have issues with any definition that goes 'X= things similar to X'. I'm pretty sure that in a number of iterations, that would make everything a moon. Kevin Bacon especially.
hidden truths, Jul 01 2007
  

       If you put Kevin Bacon in orbit around the earth he would be a moon.
nuclear hobo, Jul 01 2007
  

       Not if you send him up with trousers on.
Galbinus_Caeli, Jul 01 2007
  

       I really love [Dub]'s link! and I really love the moon, but 2 moons might be cool, but I don't think we should put more stuff up there, so I'll stay neutral because I can't make up my mind.
xandram, Jul 02 2007
  

       This space junk you intend to clear up, would that be mostly old stuff we've put up there? Therefore, roughly in the same orbital region of most current satellites etc. So if it were good at sweeping up the rubbish, wouldn't it also sweep up the none rubbish? [-]   

       Is there really that much of a problem with space rubbish anyway? Lets just make a second moon for the fun of it - at an orbit safe from our satellites. And why would it have to be made of rock or anything heavy and costly to get to space, why not have a very large hollow beach ball structure - maybe with some mass fixed in the center for stability of keeping its orbit!
strayllama, Jul 02 2007
  

       If you turn this around and put more junk in space, like Not-So-Brilliant Pebbles [link], you would have an effective missile defense shield.
nuclear hobo, Jul 02 2007
  

       The Laser-Broom [link] is clearly a ploy to develop an anti-satellite laser weapon.
nuclear hobo, Jul 02 2007
  

       Orbital debris will become a significant problem if/when a space elevator is constructed. Anything travelling towards Earth is almost as unlikely to hit the moon as a lunar eclipse.
marklar, Jul 03 2007
  

       Everbody: im sorry to have to state the obvious but the moon is blocking far less than 1% of earthbound asteroids and comets. Look up into the sky and compare -the size of the moon- to everywhere else you possibly look(up down sideways) and that is the relationship between earthbound asteroids blocked by the moon and earthbound asteroids. Sorry but your plan to make a asteroid moon blocker would not in the least help to save earth from a asteroid. though another moon would be awesome.
yuridasuks, Jul 30 2008
  

       It's not quite that simple, [yuridasuks]. Objects impacting with the earth generally don't approach in a straight line, most are about to miss earth but get caught in its gravity well and spiral in. A proportion of these will transfer to the moon's gravity well as they spiral and impact with the moon instead.   

       Of course, it's not even that semi-simple, in fact celestial mechanics is extremely complex and I wouldn't even know how to start to calculate the ratio.   

       By the way, your moniker is either very funny or childish and insulting. I haven't decided which yet.
wagster, Jul 30 2008
  

       //most are about to miss earth but get caught in its gravity well and spiral in.//

Nope, that's impossible. If they don't hit the atmosphere or break up due to tidal interactions, there's no "spiraling in." To spiral in you'd have to lose energy, and there's no mechanism for that.
ldischler, Jul 30 2008
  

       So [yuridasuks] was right?
wagster, Jul 30 2008
  

       //So [yuridasuks] was right?//

Yep. The two factors are area and mass, and since the mass is a bit more than 1% of the earth, and the area is less than 8% of earth's, the chance of something hitting the moon is less than 1% of it hitting the earth. The only reason the moon has more craters is they haven't been erased by erosion and volcanic activity.
ldischler, Jul 30 2008
  

       All we have to do is wait for another gigantic flaming ball of space evil to be thwarted from devouring all life in the universe by a supreme being of light.   

       We'll get flying cars first, of course, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
theleopard, Jul 31 2008
  

       You could put a giant date and time display on it.
nineteenthly, Jul 31 2008
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle