7/21: Hotel on the moon

Ready for space tourism yet? If NASA isn't, others are getting ready and this is an architect's conception of a possible hotel on the moon. The lower gravity means that a more interesting structure can be built!

and this is an architect's conception of a possible hotel on the moon.

Right. And this is my conception of a possible hotel on the moon. I wonder which one they'll build first?

The amazing thing is, somebody actually got paid to do this! Well... gotta go. I'm off to apply for my new job as a lunar architect! Be sure to watch for my upcoming concepts: low gravity convenience stores, fast-food franchises and pawn shops!

That's hilarious! Leave the light on for me, will you?

Ummm.....I'm probably missing somthign but isin't there a kind of fundamental flaw with building any large structure on the surface of the moon becuase it can get randomly hit by high velocity asteroids...?

Well, the Earth can be randomly hit by high-velocity asteroids, too.

Which brings up two points:
1) The odds are rather slim at any given point of either one getting hit (have we been hit by anything of any size since, oh, Tunguska in 1908?)

2) Exactly what could we do about it if either we or the moon were on a collision course with something big? Bruce Willis isn't on-call 24-7, after all.

jeff. It's hard to argue with things that have both mass and velocity on their side.

No,

the chances are much much less of the earth being hit by a high-velocity asteroid because we have an atmosphere to protect us, and eliminate 99.99% of meteorites that are headed toward the surface.

The moon does not have the luxury of an atmosphere, and so even a small rock the size of a baseball or soccer ball could do some pretty severe damage, as it will not burn up upon atmospheric entry.


No, though meteors and asteroids would be a problem, I would think that if you were on the moon, you should be far more concerned about criminals from another planet escaped from a giant mirror-like prison disk that was destroyed by a massive nuclear blast thrown into outer-space by someone of superhuman strength.

Yes.

All this makes sense, but I wonder: Have any of the smaller structures we have left on the moon been hit by meteorites? Smaller structures i.e, lunar landers, rovers, etc.

Not as far as I know. In fact, most of the original footprints are still there from previous missions. The only ones that are gone are ones that have been trampled over.. ;)

They left a ton of stuff up there... Lunar rovers, landing vehicles, golf clubs and balls, flags, etc, etc...

Again, the aforemented aliens from Krypton could have destroyed a lot of it by now though.... ;)

Hmm k .That stuff aht is up there is obviously absolutely tiny compared to the size of the palent - i if we started building cites i would have thought it would be an expodential curve risk wise..

Originally posted by jaguar
Hmm k .That stuff aht is up there is obviously absolutely tiny compared to the size of the palent - i if we started building cites i would have thought it would be an expodential curve risk wise..

Naa, only linear (directly proportional to area occupied)

You have a good point there.....urgh - reminds self not to post at 2am. I can explain my flawed thought process behind that but i won't

Originally posted by russotto


Naa, only linear (directly proportional to area occupied)

theoretically, yes. but imagine if it was sticking up far enough and say a baseball-sized meteor went flying through it, as if you threw a baseball at a barn. you're correct in that the probability of something being hit from above is linear to the area it occupies, but what about sideways? without an atmosphere, could something not hit it from the side? if so, is the probability not then increased to the volume occupied instead of the area?

True - on the upside the amount of meteors around keeps going down - most of the impacts on the moon are millions of years old. All the saem it only takes a baseball sized one to rip though a wall of an airtight section and cause havoc and death.

Originally posted by dhamsaic


theoretically, yes. but imagine if it was sticking up far enough and say a baseball-sized meteor went flying through it, as if you threw a baseball at a barn. you're correct in that the probability of something being hit [B]from above is linear to the area it occupies, but what about sideways? without an atmosphere, could something not hit it from the side? if so, is the probability not then increased to the volume occupied instead of the area? [/B]

I haven't done the math, but I think the additional chance of being hit caused by height is either negligible or makes it proportional to surface area rather than volume.

Originally posted by russotto


I haven't done the math, but I think the additional chance of being hit caused by height is either negligible or makes it proportional to surface area rather than volume.

well, i haven't done any math either :) but suppose that you had a piece of paper standing upright on the moon. so when you looked down on it, you could only see a very thin line. now, the chance of it getting hit from that angle is obviously very slim, and is directly proportional to the surface area it occupies.

however, sideways, supposing it is possible, the chances of it being hit increase because the size increases as well. this isn't a particularly good example, because a piece of paper really lacks measurable volume, but it's the same idea - if you had, say, a block that was 1" thick, 300 miles wide and 800 miles tall... the chances of it getting hit by a meteor sideways are much higher. correct, though, in that the chances of this getting hit are proportional to the surface area of the object.

so basically, i think we're both right :) we just both weren't super clear in our explanations.