Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Moon Science

Japan Launches Lunar Orbiter Mission 121

Posted by Zonk from the bring-us-back-something-nice dept.
Sooner Boomer writes "In a historic event, Japan today launched its first lunar probe. The mission is nicknamed Kaguya after a fairy-tale princess from Japanese myth. The news media is calling it the 'latest move in a new race with China, India and the United States' to explore the moon (don't forget Google). From the article: 'The rocket carrying the three-metric ton orbiter took off into blue skies, leaving a huge trail of vapor over the tiny island of Tanegashima, about 1,000 km (620 miles) south of Tokyo, at 10:31 a.m. (9:31 p.m. EDT) as it headed out over the Pacific Ocean. The mission consists of a main orbiter and two baby satellites equipped with 14 observation instruments designed to examine surface terrain, gravity and other features for clues on the origin and evolution of the moon. China has plans to launch an orbiter later this year, with unmanned rover lander mission scheduled for 2010. India and the US also have orbiter missions scheduled for next year.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan Launches Lunar Orbiter Mission More

Japan Launches Lunar Orbiter Mission

Comments Filter:

  • SELENE (Score:5, Informative)

    by Poromenos1 ( 830658 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:12AM (#20602111) Homepage
    Interesting choice of name. Selene [wikipedia.org] was a lunar deity and is the Greek word for the moon.
    • Not surprising. The Japanese love acronyms. Particularly ones that are pronounceable in English. And most well-educated Japanese technical and business folks are pretty well versed in lore and myth outside of their own culture. They are a very worldly people.

    • Interesting choice of name. Selene was a lunar deity and is the Greek word for the moon.

      No, it's not an interesting choice of name! It's like Anime going to the moon or sommat. What we need here is name like Susano and he's going to go all samurai on the Moon! Good grief, what is the world coming to? ;-)

      china, not to be outdone by fierce rivals Japan have announced plans to lauch their own lunar surveyor named Ripple of Leaf Falling on Water of Still Pond at Sunrise

    • SELETE, a Japanese consortium of semiconductor manufacturing companies, collaborating on research.
  • "unmaanned"? Show some respekt for the craft, fer fuck's sake!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Poromenos1 ( 830658 )
      Dude, there were no Maan [wikipedia.org] in it, the thing's correct. Stop nitpicking!

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by eno2001 ( 527078 )
      More fucking proof that no one actually learns to write anymore. Kids are allowed to get away with making videos in grade school as "reports". Kids are allowed to use calculators in math class. It's pathetic. They're all a bunch of lazy bastards who are proud of their ignorance.
      • In my day, we didn't even have paper and pencils. We had to solve long division by carving our work into our own arms with broken shards of glass. Now get off my lawn!
    • Perhaps we should be more concerned with how they misspelled "second" (as "first"). From Red Orbit [redorbit.com]:

      Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) had previously launched HITEN in 1990, delivering the small lunar orbiter HAGOMORO. Kaguya is said to be the largest lunar mission since NASA's Apollo programme.
      Despite several news services saying this is Japan's first lunar probe, lunar orbiter, etc., it is not. It is the largest one, and the first in over a decade, but it is not it's first.

  • Thank God! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Slad ( 155536 )
    I can't wait for these lunar satellites to be in position. I have a $50 bet with a "nut case" friend of mine that NASA's moon landing was real (he is a real conspiracy theorist - I blame drugs). Once these babies are in position, they'll be able to take nice pictures of the Apollo mission sites.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Everyone knows the Japanese are secretly working with the NSA to provide so-called "proof" of the non-existent Apollo landing sites. The truth is out there people!

    • Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mdm-adph ( 1030332 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:30AM (#20602293)

      Once these babies are in position, they'll be able to take nice pictures of the Apollo mission sites.
      ...which he'll probably claim are faked, too. Never underestimate the power of the human mind to ignore blatant proof.
    • I can't wait for these lunar satellites to be in position. I have a $50 bet with a "nut case" friend of mine that NASA's moon landing was real (he is a real conspiracy theorist - I blame drugs).

      Hmm. I've noticed the link between conspiracy theories and drugs before. There's a certain irony in some pothead insisting that pot is harmless and then launching into a conspiracy filled rant that shows strong signs of clinical paranoia. Not that they can appreciate the irony anymore of course.
      • Hmm. I've noticed the link between conspiracy theories and drugs before. There's a certain irony in some pothead insisting that pot is harmless and then launching into a conspiracy filled rant that shows strong signs of clinical paranoia. Not that they can appreciate the irony anymore of course.

        I've never used pot on a regular basis, but I've noticed that (1) it helps the mind bring together seemingly unrelated facts, events, and patterns (2) when this happens, you get that strong sense of discovery or enl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      . I have a $50 bet with a "nut case" friend of mine that NASA's moon landing was real (he is a real conspiracy theorist - I blame drugs). Once these babies are in position, they'll be able to take nice pictures of the Apollo mission sites.

            You can't win an argument with a nutcase. He'll just say that the pics from the Japanese mission are fake, and probably create some conspiracy about the US paying the Japs to "keep the secret". Don't count on that $50.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        In the words of the wise:
        "Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."

    • Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jeek Elemental ( 976426 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:43AM (#20602415)
      I bet they find a fake lander.

    • Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) * on Friday September 14, 2007 @10:01AM (#20602625) Journal
      The Soviet Union was able to view the landing site with *their* satellites in 1969. If he's not going to be persuaded by the SU's golden chance to embarass the USA if the landings were faked, I don't think this would make a difference.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AsnFkr ( 545033 )
        Not to troll, but do you have linkable "proof" that the soviets were actually viewing our Apollo landing sites at (or around) the time of the missions? Seriously, I've never seen a reliable source indicate they had monitored our activities on the moon from lunar orbit as opposed to just tracking radio signals sent back to earth.
        • I don't, but it's not relevant to my point, which was that if they had any doubts, they could have looked at the spot and broadcast it to the world, and they had every reason to do so if they thought the landings were fake.
          • Most 'conspiracy nuts' as you call them don't question that something landed on the Moon. The issue was whether this something had humans on board instead of going all-robotic as the Russians have done.

            Also, in most cases them 'nuts' are at least partially correct, in that there usually is a conspiracy where they suppose there could be.

    • We get telemetry back from the Moon. There's a mirror array up there so that we can bounce a laser off the moon and measure its distance. There's also a seismometer that beams back earthquake data.

      Are there any Russian or telescope pictures of the Apollo sites online? I get students who ask me about this occasionally and some long-distance pictures of the junk we left on the moon would satisfy most doubters.

      • We get telemetry back from the Moon. There's a mirror array up there so that we can bounce a laser off the moon and measure its distance. There's also a seismometer that beams back earthquake data.

        Neither of those require a human presence to set them up.

        • Neither of those require a human presence to set them up.

          How do you figure? In order for a seismometer to function, it must be anchored to the ground properly, be placed on level ground, and calibrated. You can't just drop one from an orbiter. Same goes for a mirror array.

          Now, yes, the Mars rovers were dropped from the sky and functioning on their own within a few days. But (1) That was 2004, not the late 60's or early 70's. And (2) to my knowledge the Mars rovers aren't carrying equipment as sensitive as a seismometer. There really are limits on th

          • How do you figure? In order for a seismometer to function, it must be anchored to the ground properly, be placed on level ground, and calibrated.

            [tinfoil]
            And precisely how do you know that its actually a functioning seismometer? Instead of just a transmitter that sends out fake signals now and again.
            [/tinfoil]
            There is little you can do or show to a TrueBeliever that would "prove" that we landed humans on the moon. All can be explained away. Usually very badly, but they give a good try.

            • You know what might help? Some pictures taken by the later Russian missions or from a telescope showing the Apollo sites . . . like I originally posted about.

              Do such pictures exist and can someone maybe direct me/us to them? Thanks!

            • Even if you could take him to the Moon to see for himself, that can still be explained away.

              [paranoid rant]Well, that's simple really. Obviously if you can bring me to the Moon now the government would've had ample time to plant a fake lander that's supposedly from the 60's. This could've been planted here last week for all I know...[/paranoid rant]

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I can't wait for these lunar satellites to be in position. I have a $50 bet with a "nut case" friend of mine that NASA's moon landing was real (he is a real conspiracy theorist - I blame drugs). Once these babies are in position, they'll be able to take nice pictures of the Apollo mission sites.
      He'll win on technicality because ...

        (*dons tinfoil hat*)

      That's no Moon!
    • I'm afraid you are about to lose $50 my friend.

      Try to find the US flag here:
      http://www.google.com/moon/ [google.com]
      • That's like trying to find your Ralph Nader campaign lawn banner from Google Earth. The resolution isn't high enough.

  • Three metric tons (Score:4, Funny)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:29AM (#20602273) Homepage Journal
    The rocket carrying the three-metric ton orbiter...

    Are you sure about that? [slashdot.org]
    • Why not just add your info to Wikipedia?

      Actually, I just looked randomly at docforge's article on hash tables [docforge.com], and I can tell you the Wikipedia one [wikipedia.org]is far more accurate and complete already.
      • Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Docforge is not. There are articles on Docforge which could never be added to Wikipedia.

  • What The Article Does Not Say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:30AM (#20602291)
    ...is that the spacecraft is in the shape of a giant robot, and that, upon achieving lunar orbit, it will disassemble itself into three smaller robots, a moon buggy, a six-wheeler truck, and a mouse-class pokemon carrying a katana.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 )
      Actually the secret is that the craft actually will be manned by a shrine maiden and a demon sent to investigate the appearance of a fake moon, and find out where the real moon has been hidden. The rover is three metric tons thanks to the bulletproofing [pooshlmer.com] they had to add ;)
  • Were they planning for this date to celebrate the 48th anniversary of first man-made object landing (well, crashing) on the Moon?

    It was a great feat back then [wikipedia.org] and it is a great feat today.

    Kudos to japanese space team!

  • The fools!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:38AM (#20602361)
    They will awaken Gogirra!!

  • Kaguya (Score:2, Informative)

    by penp ( 1072374 )
    Kaguya was also the name of a character in Okami [gamefaqs.com] who goes off into space in a giant bamboo stalk.

    Coincidence?

    I think not.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Shockingly, you seem to be right!

      "The mission is nicknamed Kaguya after a fairy-tale princess from Japanese myth"

      Okami is a game heavily based on Japanese myth!

      In other news, 1 and 1 make 2.

      Seriously, you should look the story up. It's a classic tale of boy-meets-girl, girl-returns-to-moon, guy-gets-really-sad-and-sets-fire-to-things-atop-mountain.

  • Is everyone playing nice? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @09:46AM (#20602435)
    Is the information from all these various probes being shared or is each nation building up its own little pool of data?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lordofthechia ( 598872 )

      Is the information from all these various probes being shared
      God! Korea, we already said NO! You can't borrow our notes, God!

      But seriously, I was wondering the same thing, how are there experiments gonna vary from ours (if at all) considering the near half century technology gap between automated experiment equipment then and now.
    • The moon is made of rock. There is no life on it. There is no liquid water on it. We have sporadic indications that there may be frozen water in some deep, dark places.

      There, that about sums it up. For my next post, I'll share what the nations of earth have learned from Mars after spending billions trying to reach it. That post will be a dupe of this one.

    • Is the information from all these various probes being shared or is each nation building up its own little pool of data?


      Well ... they're certainly building up a nice pool of space junk [nationalgeographic.com] around the moon. Give us a hundred years and I'm sure we will have turned poor Luna in to a garbage dump.

      • Well ... they're certainly building up a nice pool of space junk around the moon. Give us a hundred years and I'm sure we will have turned poor Luna in to a garbage dump.
        And shortly thereafter it will leave orbit [wikipedia.org] and have wacky adventures among the stars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by joeljkp ( 254783 )
      It's being shared.

      The SELENE mission is highly awaited among NASA types because it will help produce a better lunar gravity model (the "shape" of the gravity field around the moon due to irregularities in shape, etc.), which will help in the design of the upcoming LRO mission (and missions after that).

      These models are typically published in journals, then used by organizations around the world to design their own missions.

  • Crap, they're trying for a quick win! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Guys after the apollo program all they'll have left to do is research future tech and start building space colony ship modules, once they got all the modules assembled and reach Alpha Centauri it's Game over man.

  • very high Japan probe failure rate (Score:4, Informative)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @10:04AM (#20602679)
    About six years ago Japan tried to send a probe to Mars. It MISSED the plant so, they sent around the solar system to try to hit Mars again. When it finally got there, it had run out of fuel and died.

    The had a little better luck with a comet probe. It made it there. I was supposed to retrieve samples. They think it might have gotten some. But the probe died on the way back to Earth.

    Good luck next time!

  • Isn't this kinda sad? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2007 @10:05AM (#20602701)
    Hate to get a weepy and jingoist, but isn't this just kinda pathetic? We sent people there almost 40 years ago, fer Christ's sake, and now we're in a "race" to send orbiters around it?

    We should already have moon-based lasers to shoot down them godless foreign spy satellites before they enter orbit. We should own that goddamned moon, complete with a Disneyland! And blackjack! And hookers!

    In fact, forget the moon!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by genner ( 694963 )
      We should already have moon-based lasers to shoot down them godless foreign spy satellites before they enter orbit. We should own that goddamned moon, complete with a Disneyland! And blackjack! And hookers!

      In fact, forget the moon!

      Thats pretty much what happend.
    • Thats' why it clearly says that this is a new race. Otherwise, there woudn't be a race at all: Russians explored the Moon with unmanned rovers 40 years ago.
    • Actually, no. Nobody is in a 'race' to send probes to the moon. The 'race' is product of the journalist's imaginings.
    • That'd be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty), but other than that, I'm all for hooker, blackjack, and singing animals.
  • Japan and China (and probably India, too) have made clear that their plans to "explore" the Moon all target exploiting the Moon, for mining and energy extraction.

    When will the US leverage our huge, pioneering, and still leading Moon exploration to harness that energy? Solar panels on or orbiting the moon could send enough energy back to the Earth to power everything we do, without pumping a single barrel of oil from under treacherous sands, or emitting another gram (net) of Greenhouse gases. The way out of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      You do, of course, have some sort of data that backs up your statement that "Solar panels on or orbiting the moon could send enough energy back to the Earth to power everything we do"? Because I don't believe that for a second.
      • Why don't you believe it?

        The Sun lands over 1.3KW:m^2 [wikipedia.org] on the Moon's surface. The Moon's surface is 3.8E7Km^2 [wikipedia.org], or 3.8E13m^2 [google.com]. The world consumes about 15TW [wikipedia.org]. 15TW is 3 hundredths of a percent [google.com] of the Lunar insolation. Even at 10% efficiency, only 0.3% of the Lunar surface would power the Earth. Since the US consumes only about 3.3TW [wikipedia.org], we'd need only about 0.075% of the Lunar surface.

        Facty enough for you?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Aladrin ( 926209 )
          No. You neglected storage and conversion costs, as well as ALL the costs associated with travelling back and forth to the moon repeatedly.
          • No, I didn't discuss costs at all. I just said there is enough power. You denied that. Now you're moving the goalposts to talk about costs.

            Besides, it's not even necessary to travel back and forth repeatedly. We could send a robot that manufactures the solar panels and other infrastructure on site, as has already been demonstrated. Your idea about storage and "conversion" costs is similarly hairsplitting. They're more than matched by the longterm political (eg. war) and materials costs of our current energy

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KingRoo ( 232714 )
      "Send enough energy back". Um....how, exactly?
      • Lasers to platforms floating at sea, then cables to land. The laser need send only 10x sunlight or so, not enough to cause real damage in any mishap, even though they should be in a looped interlock "dead man's switch" (ie. transistor). Just as long as they steadily transmit, unlike sunlight subject to weather, night and seasons.

        This part of the technology was demo'ed to me and the Planetary Society by Grumman as long as 17 years ago. And they were pitching the Society (at Columbia U) on backing their going

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AJWM ( 19027 )
        "Send enough energy back". Um....how, exactly?

        Really, really long extension cords.

        Of course, extension cords that long would probably be pretty heavy, and impractical, so we'll make them out of something with negligible or zero mass -- like photons. Like microwaves, or lasers.

        See Doc Ruby's post above for details.
        • Funny thing is, that at least some ppl here are busy trying to calculate the copper that will be required for an extension cord that runs from the moon to the earth. And they will still not get it.
    • W. is not pushing the moon because of legacy. He is pushing for it to be able to place nukes and/or weapons on it. But, it is doubtful that it will happen. The truth is that we are shooting for the moon at least a decade ahead of any other nation. And with private enterprise pushing it, we will be on the moon by 2015. And how will they make their money back? Via solar energy. There is a LOT of evidence that indicates that we really have hit peak oil and that future issues will come about. Assuming that W. d
      • The real scam is actually somewhere in the middle. Bush is (literally) promising us the Moon to get us to support his Star Wars militarization of space.

        I am hoping American private enterprise gets first crack at NASA research that will use the Moon for energy, and as a base (guiding slingshots) for further solar system expansion (for more American claims). The mining/manufacting/materials up there (other than energy) are mostly advantageous over Earthbound matter only because they're already out of the grav
        • NASA will partner with Privater Enterprise by 2013 for getting to the moon. But so will the military. The reason is that the next x prize will no doubt be for putting man on the moon. Again. It will almost certainly be more for than 50 million (I would guess 100 million), and will be offered by several companies (like what I mentioned earlier) or possibly the USA. I would guess that it will be for time frame of 201[45]. This will lead to spacex, bigelow, and (armadillo|new shepard) going to the moon by then
          • That is a very plausible scenario (series). I wish we had someone like Heinlein (as if ;) to write an updated "Man Who Sold the Moon". It's my favorite storyline by Heinlein, possibly his most inspiring, especially as "libertarianism". A generation fixated on computer SF instead of space has left us without such visionaries. Unless I'm missing something...
            • I agree with you. I am shocked at the number of short sighted ppl that I have seen on this sight. I would like to say that it is due to lack of education, but it is not. One of the guys here is at CU on one of the telescope projects and sees man leaving the planet as a waste for money. Yet, he is all in favor of robotics and does not realize that the 2 will go hand in hand (human hand in metal hand?). In addition, there have been a number of others here who repeat some of what I heard from the 60's, but I r
              • The movie The Right Stuff explained perfectly why manned space exploration is the goal, not just a means to an end of science: we're doing this for the human adventure, not just the best way to accumulate info.

                I'm a computer geek, but I recognize that we switched priorities (funding and vision) too extremely in the 1980s from space to computers. I recognize that investment in space exploration also improves computers, networks, software, but it's mainly just a lot cooler and more inspiring than even getting

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Teancum ( 67324 )
        Please explain even one potential benefit that would result from having a nuke on the Moon... other than to engage in a war against others already on the Moon.

        Even orbital nukes, which were discussed and explored as viable options in the 1950's and 1960's as something the U.S. Air Force was strongly considering, is something that has long been discounted and dismissed as both impractical and subject to potential counter measures that would render them useless.

        By far and away the most effective device for de

    •   Exploiting NEA resources is a much, MUCH better choice.

        I don't have the time nor room to explain why here; read "Mining the Sky" by Lewis. He presents a great case, with math to back it up.

      Cheers,
      SB
      • The Moon has the advantage of lots of material from which to make the machinery, including the solar panels (and more machinese to make more machinery). And also probably enough materials to support humans, including O2, and even H2 flying from the Sun to make H2O. Plus mass to shield from all kinds of radiation. And a base there would be a much bigger propaganda victory (for encouraging people to support the mission), because everyone can at least see the Moon (if not the base) to remind them, rather than

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Teancum ( 67324 )
          The issue here isn't Lunar vs. Orbital costs of living, but Near-Earth Asteroid costs vs. Lunar costs when you take the whole infrastructure into the equation and large scale mining operations. Also, you have a larger percentage of silicates in Lunar soils compared to the heavier metals you can obtain from the obviously high density asteroids.

          I personally think there is a place for Lunar exploration and mining, but it isn't so cut and dried as some would have you think it is. But there are some very defin
          • One of the reasons the Moon is so attractive for solar power bases is that there is so much silicon, not just heavier metals (like iron and nickel). The solar infrastructure would need a lot more silicon than conductive metals.

            The Moon's advantages (of which I'd like to see more analysis) for human bases isn't just a way to get into space. It's an end in itself: "homo cosmos" is what we must become, and so we must actually have humans living in space, preferably for generations without visiting Earth.

            The Mo
          • "The issue here isn't Lunar vs. Orbital costs of living, but Near-Earth Asteroid costs vs. Lunar costs when you take the whole infrastructure into the equation and large scale mining operations. Also, you have a larger percentage of silicates in Lunar soils compared to the heavier metals you can obtain from the obviously high density asteroids."

            We're talking about bootstrapping operations, tho. The heavier metals are worth a lot more than silicates - we aren't likely to have silica shortages soon -

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Teancum ( 67324 )
              One particular problem that does need to be addressed by those advocating NEA exploration is how to cut down on the cost of getting equipment into orbit in the first place to make it cheap enough to make NEA minerals valuable enough for extraction.

              More to the point.... can we make sending equipment + personnel to an asteroid cheap enough to extract very rare minerals (aka Uranium, Gold, Platinum) at a price that can be competitive with terrestrial-based mining operations? If you can make a business case of

  • Upcoming missions ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2007 @10:29AM (#20602977)
    This mission is just a warmup. Japan's future plans include a lunar mission in 2022 in which gigantic teflon and mylar sheets will be installed at strategic locations extending upward perpendicular to the surface. Upon completion of the complex in 2024, observers on Earth will see that the moon has been transformed into a giant Hello Kitty.

  • Tiny? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Goaway ( 82658 )
    Tanegashima is "tiny" now? The island's 50 km long. It's got a city on it!

  • tons are tons are tonnes (info) (Score:3, Informative)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @10:56AM (#20603247)
    metric, imperial, whatever.

    The difference between the two tons (or tonnes if you must) is so small that to qualify whether you're using one or the other is nit-picking[1]. As it is, unless the weight of the spacecraft is an exact number of tons, the journalistic rounding-off of the weight far exceeds this small difference in definitions.

    [1]unless of course you're using the weight in orbital mechanics calculations, in which case you'll need better accruacy than the 1 significant digit reported here.

  • Now they will witness the moon bases that NASA has known about for many years. HINT Disclosure project.
  • OK, call me no fun at all, but why the hell is anyone committing major resources to getting to the moon? As far as I understand, we're pretty confident it's a big lump of sand. No real advantage of being there vs being in orbit. Nice place for telescopes maybe, but so is high Earth orbit or a Legrange point. Other than a playpen for new technology, what's the draw? Mars at least has some interesting geology and the whole maybe-there's-microbes thing. But the moon? Lunacy! Why doesn't Google give an X-prize

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by djp928 ( 516044 )
      Gravity, for one. If you want to have people live there to man your production facilities that require a hard vacuum, having it on the moon is more betterer than having it in orbit.

      Also, the bulk of the moon itself is useful for things like radio astronomy. A radio telescope on the lunar far side would be able to use the entire mass of the moon as a shield against the background noise of the Earth.

      Other than that... It's just damn cool! Go outside some night and really take a look at the moon. It's the

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close