Home » The Crystal Hall » Canon Material Comments » The Moon
| Re: The Moon [message #46586 is a reply to message #46578 ] |
Mon, 10 October 2011 20:59   |
 |
Cockle
Messages: 646
Registered: July 2011
Location: UK |
|
|
|
| dpragan wrote on Tue, 11 October 2011 00:06 | The Moon is tidally-locked (Same side always facing Earth)...
|
No! You don't say!
| Quote: | ...and only the part that is on the outside of the Shackleton Crater would EVER face the sun.
|
There is sufficient eccentricity in the Moon's orbit that the "dark side" is less than half of the surface. We can actually see beyond the poles, when conditions are right.
A base inside Shackleton Crater might not be visible from Earth but that's because of its depth and the mountains around it. That's part of the reason why it's in permenant darkness, which would make it a fairly iffy place for a base. You'd want to be nearby, for the (hypothetical) water but not actually in the crater.
|
|
| | |
| Re: The Moon [message #46601 is a reply to message #46590 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2011 08:35 |
|
Cockle
Messages: 646
Registered: July 2011
Location: UK |
|
|
|
| XaltatunOfAcheron wrote on Tue, 11 October 2011 02:44 | The Wikipedia article referenced says that NASA has (or had) Shacklton Crater earmarked for a base. Any place on the Lunar surface that's exposed to sunlight at all has to be able to handle both extremes.
Besides, I expect that any lunar base there would be visible from Earth, if for no other reason than the publicity value. Except for that, I'd put it underground if it was at all feasible. Which I suspect it isn't.
|
The point about Shackleton, and the reason it might have water ice in it, is that it's in perpetual shadow. Unlike the "dark side" of the Moon, at the bottom of the crater it really is dark.
You'd need a pretty powerful telescope to see any lunar base, unless it was setting out to be visible. Building underground is almost essential for protection from meteorites and radiation. Even in a world of force fields it's got to be easier to dig a hole.
If you used solar energy - which I sort of assumed, hence why I wouldn't have a main base sited inside Shackleton - the solar array might be visible from Earth although that would be less likely near the poles as you'd be seeing them almost edge-on.
|
|
| |
| Re: The Moon [message #46611 is a reply to message #46605 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2011 11:44 |
|
Cockle
Messages: 646
Registered: July 2011
Location: UK |
|
|
|
I was thinking about it a bit more. And although there's no true dark side the Moon's "day" is rather long, so you get a fortnight of darkness wherever you are. That might make any reliance on the Sun problematic, either for direct energy or cultivation.
You'd need either some pretty impressive storage system, or an alternative power source: probably nuclear energy.
Orbiting energy satellites? Lack of atmosphere would make beaming energy down a bit easier than it would for Earth. The Earth's shadow might be a bit of a pain, though. And in a world with supervillains I might be a bit uncomfortable having multi gigawatt microwave beams anywhere near me so on balance I think I'd go for nuclear fusion, or thorium fission.
|
|
|
| Re: The Moon [message #46612 is a reply to message #46601 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2011 11:55 |
 XaltatunOfAcheron
Messages: 1930
Registered: July 2005
Location: Atlantis |
|
|
|
| Cockle wrote on Tue, 11 October 2011 06:35 | | XaltatunOfAcheron wrote on Tue, 11 October 2011 02:44 | The Wikipedia article referenced says that NASA has (or had) Shacklton Crater earmarked for a base. Any place on the Lunar surface that's exposed to sunlight at all has to be able to handle both extremes.
Besides, I expect that any lunar base there would be visible from Earth, if for no other reason than the publicity value. Except for that, I'd put it underground if it was at all feasible. Which I suspect it isn't.
|
The point about Shackleton, and the reason it might have water ice in it, is that it's in perpetual shadow. Unlike the "dark side" of the Moon, at the bottom of the crater it really is dark.
You'd need a pretty powerful telescope to see any lunar base, unless it was setting out to be visible. Building underground is almost essential for protection from meteorites and radiation. Even in a world of force fields it's got to be easier to dig a hole.
If you used solar energy - which I sort of assumed, hence why I wouldn't have a main base sited inside Shackleton - the solar array might be visible from Earth although that would be less likely near the poles as you'd be seeing them almost edge-on.
|
As far as visibility is concerned, NASA is always interested in publicity, and so is Congress, although for different reasons. I have no idea what they'll do, but whatever they do will be visible in a moderately powerful pair of binoculars.
From the Wikipedia article:
| Wikipedia |
Because the orbit of the Moon is tilted only 5° from the ecliptic, the interior of this crater lies in perpetual darkness. Peaks along the rim of the crater are almost continually illuminated by sunlight, spending about 8090% of each lunar orbit exposed to the Sun.[4] Continuously illuminated mountains have been termed peaks of eternal light and have been predicted to exist since the 1900s.
|
| more |
Some sites along Shackleton's rim receive almost constant illumination. At these locales sunlight is almost always available for conversion into electricity using solar panels, potentially making them good locations for future Moon landings.[20] The temperature at this site is also more favorable than at more equatorial latitudes as it does not experience the daily temperature extremes of 100 °C when the Sun is overhead, to as low as −150 °C during the lunar night.
|
| and more |
NASA has named the rim of Shackleton as a potential candidate for its lunar outpost, slated to be up and running by 2020 and continuously staffed by a crew by 2024. The location would promote self-sustainability for lunar residents, as perpetual sunlight on the south pole would provide energy for solar panels. Furthermore, the shadowed polar regions are believed to contain the frozen water necessary for human consumption and could also be harvested for fuel manufacture.
|
Xaltatun
Oxymoron: Jumbo Shrimp
Impossible: Sustainable Growth
|
|
| |
| Re: The Moon [message #46614 is a reply to message #46613 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2011 15:24 |
Isodecan
Messages: 844
Registered: May 2011
Location: Fort Worth, TX |
|
|
|
|
Actually, I have found that NASA's plans for how something could be done to be quite accurate and to stay within known scientific capabilities. It is the execution where problems usually occur, and those are usually a matter of funding. It doesn't help though that they often have problems with budgets on their end also, as well as having a fundamentally unreliable funding source (the US Congress).
|
|
| |
| Re: The Moon [message #64640 is a reply to message #23033 ] |
Mon, 03 September 2012 23:44 |
dontz125
Messages: 86
Registered: September 2012 |
|
|
|
| XaltatunOfAcheron wrote on Wed, 21 January 2009 10:50 | | dpragan wrote on Wed, 21 January 2009 03:07 | | Gemma Ethan Whitaker wrote on Wed, 21 January 2009 03:15 | negation, I was asking the authors, if I decide you let you known, it would be through a story, so why give away the plot?
|
|
I took Negation's comment to be Negation simply being Negation: making comments that make no sense whatsoever in context. In another forum I'd call it trolling.
Xaltatun
|
Hi, folks! Recent lurker, first post - howdy!
I took Negation's comment to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Babylon 5's 3rd and 4th seasons, and not a troll. Slightly off topic / out of context? Perhaps, but still worth a chuckle, and far from what I'd call a trolling effort.
Sara - “Well, he did mention something about femurs...” She stopped when the sound of claws tearing flesh sounded out and Carl screamed over a loud, wet, cracking noise. “Oh, there it is.”
|
|
|
| Re: The Moon [message #64696 is a reply to message #64640 ] |
Tue, 04 September 2012 14:28 |
 |
Diane Castle
Messages: 2505
Registered: September 2007
Location: Oregon, USA |
|
|
|
| dontz125 wrote on Mon, 03 September 2012 20:44 | | XaltatunOfAcheron wrote on Wed, 21 January 2009 10:50 | | dpragan wrote on Wed, 21 January 2009 03:07 | | Gemma Ethan Whitaker wrote on Wed, 21 January 2009 03:15 | negation, I was asking the authors, if I decide you let you known, it would be through a story, so why give away the plot?
|
|
I took Negation's comment to be Negation simply being Negation: making comments that make no sense whatsoever in context. In another forum I'd call it trolling.
Xaltatun
|
Hi, folks! Recent lurker, first post - howdy!
I took Negation's comment to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Babylon 5's 3rd and 4th seasons, and not a troll. Slightly off topic / out of context? Perhaps, but still worth a chuckle, and far from what I'd call a trolling effort.
|
Hey, welcome to the madhouse, D.
I took it as a joke, but then I usually assume a joke rather than an attack, unless it's an ongoing thing. It's so hard to pick up irony, sarcasm, satire, what-have-you without context and tonality and facial expressions. I try to put in enough emoticons to make my position clear, but even that doesn't always work.
Diane
"WHO has deactivated my BEAUTIFUL frogs?"
|
|
|
| Re: The Moon [message #64799 is a reply to message #23006 ] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 15:52 |
Cryptic
Messages: 369
Registered: June 2012
Location: PA |
|
|
|
|
You know, everyone on this thread is assuming the WU Moon hasn't been tampered with some how past bases being built. Between the Gadget heads and the others who can get into space, the Moon could have been set to spinning on it's axis for what ever reason. Now what that would do to the Earth and the moon's structural integrity, I haven't a clue.
|
|
|
| Re: The Moon [message #64801 is a reply to message #64799 ] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 16:37 |
Laudator
Messages: 940
Registered: February 2009 |
|
|
|
| Cryptic wrote on Thu, 06 September 2012 20:52 | You know, everyone on this thread is assuming the WU Moon hasn't been tampered with some how past bases being built. Between the Gadget heads and the others who can get into space, the Moon could have been set to spinning on it's axis for what ever reason. Now what that would do to the Earth and the moon's structural integrity, I haven't a clue.
|
I shouldn't think it would have much effect on Earth, but I'd think it would cause more moonquakes during the many years (centuries?) it would take for the moon to find a new equilibrium.
[edit] Having said that, the energy required to set the moon spinning would be colossal - to spin the moon up to rotate once a day would require the entire Earth's energy input from the Sun for about a hundred years. (unless I did the calculation wrong)
[Updated on: Thu, 06 September 2012 16:49]
Newbies annoy you? Cut them some slack. Communities with no newbies tend to die.
Not 100% sure if that word/phrase is right? : Common Errors in English Usage
|
|
|
| Re: The Moon [message #64806 is a reply to message #64801 ] |
Thu, 06 September 2012 17:18 |
Cryptic
Messages: 369
Registered: June 2012
Location: PA |
|
|
|
| Laudator wrote on Thu, 06 September 2012 16:37 | | Cryptic wrote on Thu, 06 September 2012 20:52 | You know, everyone on this thread is assuming the WU Moon hasn't been tampered with some how past bases being built. Between the Gadget heads and the others who can get into space, the Moon could have been set to spinning on it's axis for what ever reason. Now what that would do to the Earth and the moon's structural integrity, I haven't a clue.
|
I shouldn't think it would have much effect on Earth, but I'd think it would cause more moonquakes during the many years (centuries?) it would take for the moon to find a new equilibrium.
[edit] Having said that, the energy required to set the moon spinning would be colossal - to spin the moon up to rotate once a day would require the entire Earth's energy input from the Sun for about a hundred years. (unless I did the calculation wrong)
|
Hmm, good point on the quakes. I forgot about the Star Trek Novel where they use a few million Impulse engines to get the planet rotating Counter clock wise.
Well we could also use the old stand by "A Wizard Did it!"
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 23 21:39:06 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01131 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
