I've tried, but it turns out that I kind of suck at Kerbal Space Program. I'm lucky when I'm able to build something that will break orbit.Colour Scientist said:
Poll: "Would you miss it?"
- Thread starter FalloutJack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd no doubt miss it, seeing as I'd likely be camping with the other raiders in the ruins of my city, the world pummeled and smashed beneath a great shower of radioactive rock. And it'll hardly get better when all the long term effects kick in.
And all the people skulking about pretending to be zombies to cope would get rather vexing after a while.
And all the people skulking about pretending to be zombies to cope would get rather vexing after a while.
Yes since Luna (MLP) will be redundent.
Well ok serious anwser is still yes since I like it being the "brighest natural light" when the night is out and there are no streetlights about. Yes there are still stars but the moon shine the brightest at the night.
Other than that there is the question of tidal wave (without it, you will only see tidal waves created by those machine althought in saying so huge tidal wave killed people at the sea).
Well ok serious anwser is still yes since I like it being the "brighest natural light" when the night is out and there are no streetlights about. Yes there are still stars but the moon shine the brightest at the night.
Other than that there is the question of tidal wave (without it, you will only see tidal waves created by those machine althought in saying so huge tidal wave killed people at the sea).
If the moon was blown up or hit hard i would have thought it would cause major issues on Earth. Especially as the tides are effected by the Moon. Or could the Moon be pushed away from the Earth if hit with a powerful enough nuke? Just pay Dr Evils $1 million so we can keep our moon.....though we may want to destroy his "laser" because that "laser" would be a threat.
It is a big targ-damn, jokes has already been done.
The moon is kinda necessary for keeping the earths tilt stable so yes I'd miss having it there if we didn't all die horribly from that or the debris from the explosion. It's also responsible for the tides and I'm not quite sure what effect screwing up the tides would have (aside from screwing over animals that rely on it) but I doubt it would be a good thing.
The moon is kinda necessary for keeping the earths tilt stable so yes I'd miss having it there if we didn't all die horribly from that or the debris from the explosion. It's also responsible for the tides and I'm not quite sure what effect screwing up the tides would have (aside from screwing over animals that rely on it) but I doubt it would be a good thing.
Nope, because I'd like to think I'd be smart enough not to fire nukes at the moon. I'd instead leave Dr. Evil up there, and let lunar dust do him in. Seriously, lunar dust is kinda awful stuff, and I'd just attack any ship he moves to send back to earth. Then it's a waiting game..
Kinetic energy of the moon: 4.27x10^28J
Energy of all 30,000 nuclear warheads on Earth: 2.93x10^19J
That difference is a factor of a billion, so we'd need millions of times as many nukes as there are on Earth just to cause an appreciable difference in the Moon's orbit. Hundreds of millions of times as many (so, like a trillion nukes) to punt it out of orbit. Blowing it up? Good luck with that.
Energy of all 30,000 nuclear warheads on Earth: 2.93x10^19J
That difference is a factor of a billion, so we'd need millions of times as many nukes as there are on Earth just to cause an appreciable difference in the Moon's orbit. Hundreds of millions of times as many (so, like a trillion nukes) to punt it out of orbit. Blowing it up? Good luck with that.
Zontar said:
The two things on my mind about it are {A} that there really are enough nuclear missles lying about to do more damage to the world than Fallout six times over, blasting the everloving hell out of at least the Earth's surface and all life, so it might just do it...and {B} I have no idea what the interaction of nukes and Helium-3 will do, of which I hear there is plenty on the moon. Just thoughts banging around in my head there.TheVampwizimp said:
This is probably the origin of the joke and something I never knew about until now.Kiardras said:
Well, actually, it was...SonOfVoorhees said:
...in 1969. Very bad things. And he would've fired off the "Laser" anyway.
Moon dust? He was protected by that re-goddamn-diculous spacesuit!Armadox said:
Could we hit a lunar installation whose location was known? With just missiles as they exist now we actually couldn't. ICBMs aren't designed to fly that distance, or achieve escape velocity in the first place, or navigate without Earth's magnetic field to guide them.
As far as blowing the moon apart or knocking it out of orbit? All the nuclear weapons in the world wouldn't do shit, assuming they got there at all. Luna is far too massive. The biggest bomb we have would be equivalent to a firecracker detonated on the roof of a small school. It wouldn't make a difference how many of these flea bites we used.
And again, nukes are designed for atmospheric detonation. The blast wave is made of superheated air and steam. That's why they blow up above ground instead of on impact. This wave is where your large-scale damage comes from. No air or water to create that wave on the Moon.
And forget about environmental damage or extinctions. You can't make nuclear winter in a place that has no winter to begin with. We couldn't choke its sky with dust because it hasn't got an atmosphere, dust doesn't so much settle slowly there as fall like rocks.
When we've spent all our fury, the Moon will look and behave pretty much the same as before: a big gray ball revolving around us. Insultingly, given the pounding it's sustained over the life of the solar system, it basically wouldn't even notice our nukes.
The question of how much effect nuking Luna would have on Terra is more interesting. Radioactive dust from the skies, that kind of thing. I'm less sure about that.
I'll go back to KSP when it's less buggy. Half my ships seem to come apart despite scrupulous care taken bolting everything together. Games where you do everything right and still fail are only fun in very short bursts.
As far as blowing the moon apart or knocking it out of orbit? All the nuclear weapons in the world wouldn't do shit, assuming they got there at all. Luna is far too massive. The biggest bomb we have would be equivalent to a firecracker detonated on the roof of a small school. It wouldn't make a difference how many of these flea bites we used.
And again, nukes are designed for atmospheric detonation. The blast wave is made of superheated air and steam. That's why they blow up above ground instead of on impact. This wave is where your large-scale damage comes from. No air or water to create that wave on the Moon.
And forget about environmental damage or extinctions. You can't make nuclear winter in a place that has no winter to begin with. We couldn't choke its sky with dust because it hasn't got an atmosphere, dust doesn't so much settle slowly there as fall like rocks.
When we've spent all our fury, the Moon will look and behave pretty much the same as before: a big gray ball revolving around us. Insultingly, given the pounding it's sustained over the life of the solar system, it basically wouldn't even notice our nukes.
The question of how much effect nuking Luna would have on Terra is more interesting. Radioactive dust from the skies, that kind of thing. I'm less sure about that.
I made another planet by accident when a ship worked a little too well and broke orbit on its last drop of fuel. Radar still tracks the capsule, millions of miles away, just outside Kerbin's orbit. I felt guilty at first, but Kerbals don't seem to eat. I think the little guy is fine. One of my ambitions is to send a craft to retrieve him. Not sure how stable his orbit is, though.Scars Unseen said:
I'll go back to KSP when it's less buggy. Half my ships seem to come apart despite scrupulous care taken bolting everything together. Games where you do everything right and still fail are only fun in very short bursts.
My problem is getting something that can go to the moon and have enough fuel to orbit and return.Scars Unseen said:
I'm not quite to the landing stage yet.
ICBMs are ballistic. Once you fire them, they don't need to navigate. Likewise, when firing something at a given spot on the moon (which was what the Apollo landings more or less were, just with some mucking around for a soft landing), you don't need to either, unless you get it wrong.Johnny Impact said:
...
Oh, nobody is talking about that doctor who episode "Kill the moon"? Good, that was awful.
Ah. Hence the term ballistic. (Smacks forehead) I oughtta know better. And now I do.thaluikhain said: