mdatspace

The Moho is the boundary between the crust and the mantle of a planet.But back to the topic. I was not here during 0.18, but Moho looks like a somewhat resurfaced mun now. Moho should have some volcanism, but not too much. But I have an idea: Vulcanoid asteroids. While these are still hypothetical, and searches have not found traces of them, I think it would be an interesting idea. These asteroids are supposed to reside inside of mercury's orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcanoid_asteroid#History_and_observation

I think Moho is named after the MohoroviÄÂić discontinuity, commonly called the Moho. Either that or project Moho, an attempt to drill into the mantle. It did not get very far. The Moholes may be a reference to this.

I agree. This is the reason I do not use the pod so much(also, weight concerns).

Just think of tidal heating for a moment. Half Km tides will wreck a planet.

Go China! I am rooting for them.

Missed it. At l;east it was a success, at least for now. Godspeed!

@Weegee It did on its site. I looked around. I would like you to list other sources.

Source? The one you cited is disreputable. They claim NASA is covering up something about ISON. Why would they? They say ISON may hit earth(It pretty much burned up, so not a chance). They have a litany of conspiracy theories and they are really hyping events up. Those sources may be just as disreputable.

That source seems disreputable by looking at it. I would not trust it.

That is a nice place to land, unlike most of our Mun.Go China.

Good work!

I guess congress is right. Thermonuclear bombs are big things.

Why can we not work with the Chinese?Because congress has "national pride" and for some reason that means we cannot work with the Chinese.

The issue with Europa is, if you go outside, you will die. Even if you are invincible to the cold, the radiation will kill you.This part is not a reply to you. I don't think moving resources from one sector of science to the other is a good idea, considering how little most of them likely get. Earth science matters. We wouldn't have volcano monitoring without it. The USGS gets 1.1 billion a year. What will cutting that do?

Commercial asteroid mining is likely going to be a very expensive undertaking. You have to find the asteroids with the stuff, get them where you can mine them, and then set up operations. Private companies will struggle with the costs.

I would go to Europa and titan, and I would bring back NERVA. So, close to Idobox.

I agree. The parties reflect their sponsors. The media reflects their politicians.

Stony-iron and especially iron asteroids tend to survive reentry the best.But pulverizing it is no easy task, assuming it is a rigid body with very little or no porosity.

Deep impact. DI: A comet is going to hit the earth. Uses nuclear weapons to destroy it. A nuclear weapon impact on the comet would cause it to out-gas there. Armageddon: A Texas-sized comet messes things up. Uses nukes to destroy it. I doubt a comet of said size could even form. While nukes could work on a small comet, it will do jack to this one.

I agree. We will have little to go to if oil and coal runs out. Thus, it is a good idea to develop alternative energy before said fuels run out. I think we can agree. I dislike fear-mongering, even if it is to raise awareness about a problem. I think your last part is important. We cannot help the environment and disregard economics, and we cannot do the opposite. I think sustainability is a noble goal.

None of us know.

@Stern You paragraph goes the exact same for the opposition. The green movement has become one with the democrats, and their opposition has become one with the republicans. The debate descended into the political realm, where there is little regard for fact and science.

I will recant my statement.But I will continue on. I think global warming has become the sole cause of the environmental movement, and I think the lack of movement to solve it is simple. It is not imminent. Back at the beginning of the environmentalist movement in the 70's, rivers were on fire, toxic waste everywhere, and people were quite afraid. Fast forward to now. Many of those problems have been mitigated or no longer exist. The US is a safer(Environmentally)place. Those issues were imminent threats to Americans. Is GW such an imminent threat? No. It could be imminent 50 years from now. But it is not ready to wreck havoc now. People are not afraid. People are complacent. No motive to take action will mean no action at all.

I don't think it makes evidence wrong. The evidence shows we are the cause. However, the debate has fallen apart as both sides are fighting politics. The other side is doing the same.

I think it is the GW camp who is losing.First off, they are fighting complacency. Most of the world will do nothing about GW. They may care and acknowledge the issue, but that is as far as it goes. But I think the biggest issue is polarization. Thanks to politicians like Al and others, the environmental issues of today are more about politics than action. They are now fighting left versus right. This leads to stagnation. Politics is an issue where concessions are not in anybody's vocabulary. They stay put on that issue. That means that the issue is entrenched as the both sides of the field become immovable.