Star Trek and the moon.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In what way does terraforming affect a planet's gravity?

In a lot of ways. For one if you created a atmosphere and a huge lake it would effect the moon's gravity and hence the effects the moon has on Earth.

Why?

There's apparently full Earth gravity aboard the Enterprise and other Starfleet ships and none of them ever appears to exert a planetary gravitational influence on other objects. It's obvious that what Trek calls "artificial gravity" is a technology that satisfies a specific need within a very circumscribed distance without actually creating additional apparent mass.

 

[sojourner]

^I think your talking apples to his oranges. Shawn12 was under the mistaken impression that the added mass of an atmosphere and a lake would significantly change the gravitation pull of the Moon. Besides, the Earth still has more mass than Enterprise. If anything, the Enterprise's artificial gravity would pull it to the Earth.

 

[T'Girl]

^ But then why would Riker say that you could see Lake Armstrong from Earth, if it was under a dome?

When saying that you could see Lake Armstrong from the Earth's surface, Riker might have been referring to the dome itself. if the community were named for the lake, and the dome named for the community it enclosed.

The dome must be fairly large to be observable with the naked eye, hundreds of miles in diameter?

 

[kkozoriz1]

On April 4, 2063, the moon will be 35% illuminated. If the settlement of lake Armstrong is on the darkened portion then the lights could make it quite visible from Earth, depending on it's size.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Perhaps the dome is see through.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Or at least they can tint it for darkness otherwise the days and nights would be two weeks long.

 

[shawn12]

^I think your talking apples to his oranges. Shawn12 was under the mistaken impression that the added mass of an atmosphere and a lake would significantly change the gravitation pull of the Moon. Besides, the Earth still has more mass than Enterprise. If anything, the Enterprise's artificial gravity would pull it to the Earth.

sojourner, where are the materials for a large body of water and the atmophere coming from, materials on the moon?

What kind of atmophere would that be?

"daytime temperatures that reach the boiling point of water."

"The amount of water in any one place is tiny. Clark estimated it at about a quart per ton of soil.

The moon "is almost as wet as a bone," Lucey said in an e-mail interview with The Times. "It is in the form of an imperceptible film on soil grains, perhaps several molecules thick."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-moon24-2009sep24,0,791176.story

I am not saying what your saying is untrue, but there are some aspects of it I want to ask some people about that you might not have thought of about it all.

"In the late 21st century the Lunar colonies were founded. People who live in those colonies, even by the 24th century, still refer to Luna as "the Moon", though outsiders are often surprised by this. (DS9: "Valiant")

The USS Defiant passed Luna on its way to Earth in 2371. (DS9: "Past Tense, "

"As a major Human settlement, Luna falls under Federation jurisdiction and protection.
"Terra Prime", a xenophobic group of Humans which manifested in 2155, originated from the Orpheus Mining Colony on the Moon.
In the 24th century there are over 50 million people living on the Moon. (Star Trek: First Contact) In Earth slang people who lived on the moon were called Lunar schooners. The occupants of Luna were aware of this but chose not to use the term on the moon.
Dorian Collins was born on Luna in the 2350s. (DS9: "Valiant") "

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Luna

"The Lunar colonies mark the first effort of the Human colonization of space and were established in the late 21st century on Earth's moon, Luna.
In the 22nd century, Lunar One colony was the largest of all Lunar colonies. The Orpheus Mining Colony was another settlement on Luna during the 22nd century. (ENT: "Zero Hour", "Demons")
In 2373, the population was about fifty million and primary points of interest on the Moon included Copernicus City, Lunaport, Tranquility Base, Tycho City, New Berlin and Lake Armstrong. (Star Trek: First Contact)
Among the humans born on the Lunar colonies are Beverly Crusher and Dorian Collins. (TNG: "Conundrum"; DS9: "Valiant"). People born or living on the Lunar colonies are often called Lunar schooners by Earth-based Humans. (DS9: "Valiant") "

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Lunar_colonies


Lake Armstrong is said to be near New Chicago.

 

[Finn]

^Dude, you aren't helping your case. Sojourner knows what he's talking about. Even if one added a sea (it might be a very shallow one) and an atmosphere, it would still be insufficent to affect any gravity or orbit paths or anything like that.

 

[shawn12]

Finn, I am sure he does know what he's talking about, although I am not sure he has factored everything into it all yet. I am not disagreeing with him per se, but I am not sure yet I fully agree either.

My questions are legit and matter to the process and if he knows then he can answer them all the better. This isn't a pissing contest for me, I am trying to understand some major complex issues here.


This also depends on a lot of different factors involved for one though.

For example a big enough moonquake from mining could cause issues. Its not just that simple with it all. For example

"But, earthquakes still do cause some minor change to Earth’s rotation; it is purely an inescapable consequence of physics."

So would using a bunch of nukes to create an atmophere on the moon cause moonquakes for example? Not that that is the only way of course.

However, what kind of atmosphere and where the material comes from I believe does matter.

They have found more water then originally thought on the moon. You still have to mine it or collect it however.

Moonquakes

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15mar_moonquakes/


"Truly Terra-forming the Moon, if possible at all, could take thousands of years and might yield violent Moon quakes and a highly unstable, chemically aggressive environment during this long period."

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/hoekzema/katman/nick/work/moonat.htm

This is only ONE of many issues on a couple different things I am looking into about it all.

I respect sojourner contributions. Hopefully he respects mine and if my investigations lead nowhere, there we have it.

 

[sojourner]

My only contention was with your idea that the Moon's gravity would be affected, which is not the case. As to how terraforming may affect the Moon in other ways, I don't really know or worry about. Just don't get the silly idea from the most recent film version of "The Time Machine" that we could accidentally split the moon in half. We can't. Not with all the energy from all the nuclear bombs and all the power ever produced by mankind put together.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Apparently in the Thundarr universe, a COMET did it.

 

[Timo]

FWIW, Tranquility Base would be in the shadow when Riker takes the look in ST:FC:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/firstcontacthd/firstcontacthd1567.jpg

If Lake Armstrong is any sort of an artificial structure or feature "locationally associated" with Armstrong's moon visit, then it being visible to Earth would depend on it being lit. And when we see the moon in other Trek occasions, that location basks in sunlight, so it would be unlikely for us to spot Lake Armstrong unless it featured both the lights necessitated by ST:FC and some other feature that creates daylight visibility.

Now, bright lights stand out even when a location or a structure has humble dimensions. But a non-glowing Lake Armstrong would have to be really big for an artificial structure if it were to be visible to the naked eye in bright sunlight.

There really isn't a contradiction between ST:FC and our other views of the moon, then. Provided that we accept that Lake Armstrong is a lit structure or feature... Or then one that is sometimes highly reflective in the direction of Earth, but not when in direct daylight.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[shawn12]

My only contention was with your idea that the Moon's gravity would be affected, which is not the case. As to how terraforming may affect the Moon in other ways, I don't really know or worry about. Just don't get the silly idea from the most recent film version of "The Time Machine" that we could accidentally split the moon in half. We can't. Not with all the energy from all the nuclear bombs and all the power ever produced by mankind put together.

Haven't seen the movie at all. Probably the only thing that could crack the moon in half is a very large impactor from space.

Which almost happened to earth when the moon actually formed, but the impactor hit us at an angle instead of directly.

 

[kkozoriz1]

FWIW, Tranquility Base would be in the shadow when Riker takes the look in ST:FC:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/firstcontacthd/firstcontacthd1567.jpg

If Lake Armstrong is any sort of an artificial structure or feature "locationally associated" with Armstrong's moon visit, then it being visible to Earth would depend on it being lit. And when we see the moon in other Trek occasions, that location basks in sunlight, so it would be unlikely for us to spot Lake Armstrong unless it featured both the lights necessitated by ST:FC and some other feature that creates daylight visibility.

Now, bright lights stand out even when a location or a structure has humble dimensions. But a non-glowing Lake Armstrong would have to be really big for an artificial structure if it were to be visible to the naked eye in bright sunlight.

There really isn't a contradiction between ST:FC and our other views of the moon, then. Provided that we accept that Lake Armstrong is a lit structure or feature... Or then one that is sometimes highly reflective in the direction of Earth, but not when in direct daylight.

Timo Saloniemi

With night being two weeks long they would need some sort of artificial illumination, Perhaps it was noon, local lunar time, when Riker spotted it.

 

[Gary7]

Even in the 24th century, putting that much water on the moon to have a lake visible with the naked eye from Earth would be enormous, requiring a containment dome just as large. It's far easier to accept that Riker meant a "dry lake bed". Why push it any further? It's just folly to consider a body of water that large on the moon.

Yes, they did find traces of water on the moon. Very subtle traces. Any estimates to be made would be mostly imagination, as there would have to be sub surface probing performed across a tremendous area to confirm anything. Traces on the surface will not divulge much at all about what might be submerged.

Any efforts to terraform the moon would require enormous resources, which we do not have. We need to curtail the damage we're doing to the Earth first, regroup, and then perhaps in a century or two resume thoughts of pursuing moon colonies.

On a related note, I do wish there was an episode showing an active moon colony. But perhaps the producers didn't want to put a stake in the ground about that kind of development.

 

[sojourner]

We need to curtail the damage we're doing to the Earth first, regroup, and then perhaps in a century or two resume thoughts of pursuing moon colonies.

Not really. A robust space program is still pennies on the dollar compared to "cleaning up the earth". Better to pursue both. never put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Shatnertage]

How about this for a compromise:

"Lake Armstrong" is the name of Riker's favorite watering hole (bar) on the moon. They have a very, very, very, very bright and large neon sign in the parking lot that is visible from Earth under certain conditions. No terraforming, no parasailing, and no moonquakes needed. It satisfies me.

If anyone wants to share some real science, just out of curiosity, how big does a lunar object have to be to be visible at all from earth? Something the size of a football stadium? Central Park? Manhattan?

 

[Finn]

^considering the moon appears to be the size of a dime at an average arm length....HUGE

 

[Timo]

Yet if it's a lit or reflecting object in the unlit part of the Moon, it might be really tiny.

Even a very small water lake under a transparent dome or somesuch would stand out as exceptionally reflective, and could really be but a tiny dot yet still change the face of the Moon. And we want tiny, because anything big and permanent should have been visible in our 23rd and 24th century views of the Moon.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

If anyone wants to share some real science, just out of curiosity, how big does a lunar object have to be to be visible at all from earth? Something the size of a football stadium? Central Park? Manhattan?

With a four inch telescope (like I used to have) you can see things down to just under a thousand feet, with decent eyesight you can see things that are a few miles across, craters that are ten miles across are quite easily seen. Big problem with anything smaller is the Earth's atmosphere which is constantly moving.

Yes, they did find traces of water on the moon. Very subtle traces.

Far more than just traces, in addition to the fair amount of ice found at the poles, the lunar soil in general also contains water, about a liter per ton of soil (half a cubic meter), this is according the the European Space Agency based upon returned soil samples and the readings from satellites orbiting the moon.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech/2009/1116/how-much-water-is-on-the-water

There is also the source of water to be found in comets, a space fairing people could easily carry down or simply crash comets onto the area of the moon where they wanted to increase the amount of water.

Even a very small water lake under a transparent dome or somesuch would stand out as ...

There is also the consideration of seeing something which is colorful against a generally grey surroundings. The clusters of agricultural irrigation circles so common in western America can easily be seen from space because they are such a color difference from the surrounding terrain and they're of a uniform shape.

A much large circle on the moon would draw the eye, especially if you were actively looking for it and knew generally where to look. A blue expanse, with surrounding crops and park land, depending on the size of the enclosure perhaps forests.