Star Trek and the moon.

[sevenstars]

Wasn't there a Voyager episode where Chakotay was dreaming and he'd realize he was dreaming when he'd see an image of the moon?

Yep, "Waking Moments".

I believe there was also a Voyager episode where Q briefly transports the ship back to Earth-- as evidenced by the moon outside the window of the captain's ready room. So in that case, the moon is used as the earth's identifier.

Now that you mention it, I recall having a sense of how unusual that scene was. You don't seem to see it much from space-- for example, when you see Space Dock...

 

[Timo]

Riker mentioned there's a body of water called "Lake Armstrong"

Riker never says anything about water. All we know is that Lake Armstrong is a new feature of the Moon that makes the Moon look different from how it looks today.

If it's a new basalt plain (like the name would suggest), it could be for example the result of a meteoroid impact. However, there's another fairly obvious idea: it could be the result of a nuclear strike against a moonbase in WWIII.

Say, an early moonbase could have been named "Armstrong somethingorother" and perhaps founded around Tranquility Base, mainly for reasons of prestige. The enemies of the founders would then nuke that facility at earliest opportunity, again mainly for reasons of prestige. The resulting landmark need not be particularly visible, perhaps a mere smudge - but again for reasons of prestige, people of the future would make the effort to see it.

Also, even if (and perhaps because) the original base was nuked (or destroyed by a kinetic impactor or whatnot), a new base may have been built around it, marking the spot with the bright lights of civilization - again chiefly for reasons of prestige. Riker could be talking out of his ass when claiming that the Lake would be visible in daylight, simply making a point to Cochrane. Or then the base around the Lake would feature reflective surfaces that make it visible even in daylight.

We've usually seen the Moon mainly from off-angles, not from directly below. If Lake Armstrong is a historical landmark marked with lights or reflections, care might have been taken to have those lights or reflections only be visible from Earth, not from other directions.

You don't seem to see it much from space-- for example, when you see Space Dock...

Uh, every time they reuse the Spacedock footage from ST3, the Moon lurks on the background - even when the reuse is supposed to depict a starbase orbiting a distant planet in a faraway star system!

Apart from that, though, it should be noted that the Moon is really small and space is really big. There's no NASA photography that would squeeze the shuttle or the ISS in the same frame with the Moon, for example - not unless a shot like that was specifically arranged, and that would often require split-second timing.

Timo Salolniemi

 

[sevenstars]

Oh, well-- now I will pay better attention!

 

[The_Baroness]

Riker mentioned there's a body of water called "Lake Armstrong"

Riker never says anything about water. All we know is that Lake Armstrong is a new feature of the Moon that makes the Moon look different from how it looks today.

If it's a new basalt plain (like the name would suggest), it could be for example the result of a meteoroid impact. However, there's another fairly obvious idea: it could be the result of a nuclear strike against a moonbase in WWIII.

Only, when Riker met Cochrane, WWIII was over and done with.

 

[JarodRussell]

Easy, they harvested the Moon for helium-3 and other ressources near the Apollo 11 landing site. That's like brown coal mining. The resulting quarry is called "Lake Armstrong".

 

[USS Excelsior]

Lake Armstrong was mentioned in connEction with 50 million people living on the moon.

 

[JarodRussell]

Lake Armstrong was mentioned in connEction with 50 million people living on the moon.

Rather in connection with what you can see on a clear day: "You can see Tycho City, New Berlin, even Lake Armstrong on a day like this."

 

[shawn12]

I think in reality we would have to be somewhat careful of terraforming the moon, because of possible impacts it might have on earth and gravity. Of course in the future this might be corrected somehow.

 

[Canadave]

I think in reality we would have to be somewhat careful of terraforming the moon, because of possible impacts it might have on earth and gravity. Of course in the future this might be corrected somehow.

I don't see how even a full-scale terraforming effort of the Moon would affect Earth. The amount of mass added would be negligible, relative to the Moon's overall size.

 

[JarodRussell]

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

 

[ToMaHaKeR]

^ It shouldn't affect gravity at all. By the way, on many Star Trek wallpapers, the Moon seems extremely close to Earth...

 

[shawn12]

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.



The moon is actually slowly drifting away from the earth measured by lasers from Earth the Apollo program put up there. So in the future it will be somewhat further away. However the sun will go red giant before the moon drifts away from us.

 

[kkozoriz1]

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.



The moon is actually slowly drifting away from the earth measured by lasers from Earth the Apollo program put up there. So in the future it will be somewhat further away. However the sun will go red giant before the moon drifts away from us.

The amont of water that would be added woild be insignificant. They could also use the water recently discovered at the poles of the moon and not change the mass one bit.

 

[shawn12]

If they didn't change the mass, it maybe okay.

However there are still major issues, for example creating an atmosphere.

Terraforming the Moon is itself a misnomer, as true terraformation would require increasing the lunar mass to be
equal to the Earth’s, something that would be detrimental to life on Earth, and would likely destabilize our twin
planetary system. The correct terms would be caeliforming, and ecogenisis; the creation of a terrestrial
atmosphere, followed by the introduction of terrestrial life. However, although inaccurate, terraforming the term
most people know and associate with the process, and therefore will be used in this article.
Terraforming the Moon presents similar problems to the terraformation of Mars and Venus; like Mars, the moon
would need the substantial increase of atmosphere, and like Venus, it does not have a terrestrial day-night cycle.
However, terraforming the moon, sans the mass/gravity issue, is possible on the same timescale as Mars and
Venus; likely taking longer than Mars, and less time than Venus, to become habitable.

http://www.terraformers.ca/Terraforming-the-Moon.html


Question


Is it possible to terraform the Moon?

Probably not. Our tiny moon has such low gravity that it is very unlikely that any atmosphere conducive to life could be created there. Only the heaviest of gases could “stick” to the moon’s orbit, and even then they would probably dissipate quickly as they break into smaller substituents under constant bombardment of solar radiation. Without tremendous advances in our technology and capabilities, the moon is probably not a good candidate for terraforming. For more information on the moon, check out
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/features/planets/moon/moon.html
October 29, 2001
On earth, the size of earth and its core create the van allen belts also that protect us from solar radation.

The moon has a noticeable effect on the earth in the form of tides, but it also affects the motion and orbit of the
earth.

This could really mess with the tides of the earth and the motion and orbit of the earth. Even mining the moon long term and reducing its mass could have detrimental effects on the two bodies gravitational interactions.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Riker mentioned there's a body of water called "Lake Armstrong", though the science nerd in me protests at the notion of a terraformed moon: it's too small to retain its own atmosphere.

Artificial gravity? A moon-wide containment field? Local containment fields? Pressure domes?

Maaaaaagic?

 

[estar9821]

Riker mentioned there's a body of water called "Lake Armstrong", though the science nerd in me protests at the notion of a terraformed moon: it's too small to retain its own atmosphere.

Artificial gravity? A moon-wide containment field? Local containment fields? Pressure domes?

Maaaaaagic?

Maybe it's just called "Lake Armstrong" and it isn't a real lake. Maybe it's a crater or something. The Sea of Tranquility isn't a real sea.

 

[shawn12]

"Lake Armstrong is a location on Earth's moon.
By 2373, it was large enough to be seen from Earth during the day, since Commander William T. Riker enjoyed
looking at the unfamiliar sight of its absence while looking at the Moon during his mission to the year 2063. (Star
Trek: First Contact)"

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

"Lake Armstrong is a large artificial body of water which was located on Luna near the city of New Chicago. (STreference: Star Charts; ST video game: Elite Force II) The lake was large enough to be seen on Earth on a clear day. (TNG movie: Star Trek: First Contact)
Alana Hart was born in the area surrounding Lake Armstrong on April 4th 2125. (ENT novel: What Price Honor?)
The lake was presumably named after Neil Armstrong."http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Lake_Armstrong

 

[sojourner]

I think in reality we would have to be somewhat careful of terraforming the moon, because of possible impacts it might have on earth and gravity. Of course in the future this might be corrected somehow.

Adding an atmosphere to the moon would have absolutely zero impact on the earth and "gravity".

This could really mess with the tides of the earth and the motion and orbit of the earth. Even mining the moon long term and reducing its mass could have detrimental effects on the two bodies gravitational interactions.

I don't think you are clear on the mass involved in the lunar/earth system. Do you know how much of the moon you would have to remove to make a noticeable affect on it's gravity? or how much mass you would have to add when "terraforming" to affect it's gravity? Changing the gravity of the moon through either of these endevours is the very, very, least last thing to worry about.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Paraterraforming some parts would be more realistic. Another option that would be much faster is to use that thing from the Genesis Project.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Paraterraforming some parts would be more realistic. Another option that would be much faster is to use that thing from the Genesis Project.

I thought the younger Dr Marcus fudged the results by using Protomatter. Might not be an option.