moon advert
 

They're actually thinking of advertising on the moon! I'm so pissed off that's like sacrelige.
http://www.moonpublicity.com/mp/

Pff, why just stop at advertising. We should be building on the damn thing. A space port with a shuttle platform and living quarters for space explorers and a McDonalds with 40.000 Watt lights in that giant M so we can all see it from earth when it's on.

Good times.

Any company that could afford to do this clearly doesn't need to advertise.

Could that voice over guy sound less enthused about the product?

This is just peanuts to the strategic premature triggering of stellar supernovae to advertise Coca Cola.

Wut? :fuzconf:

Soon we will have to include our planet in our address when joining Amazon. Those Martians will surely want what we have to offer.

Haha. Futurama...

It is inevitable.

I think this is pretty funny, actually.
See, you can't see the sky in big cities because of light-pollution and smog and shit, right? And when you do, that sumbitch is tiny. Really tiny. So unless you're advertising telescope parts, noone is going to know you're there.

The surface of the moon as you see it in the sky is big enough to draw a recognizable logo on, I think. They shouldn't write a 2 paper essay on there though.

They shouldn't write anything on there.

The only acceptable modification to the moon would be the lights of a sprawling lunar metropolis.

Well I for one would much rather see a city or a base up there instead of a giant Coca-Cola logo.

I cannot see this happening. I acctually find the idea of a sprawling lunar city far more realistic...

Then you're stupid.

Cool idea, but there's not much reason as far as I can tell. Save for experiments and such of course. And it'd have to be nation neutral. Maybe when the one world government kicks in.

One reason to build a space port there is because it's much easier to launch a shuttle from the moon than it is launching it from Earth. Less gravity. I've heard somewhere that launching from the moon would be much better to get to certain planets like Mars.

A system like that would still produce a massive net loss, needs moar space elevator.

No, space elevators are the golden investment for space travel. It is horrendously expensive to ship materials into orbit from the ground, but after the initial investment you can move materials and personnel into orbit essentially for free. Then you can build your docks, shipyards and spacecraft up there, without the hassle of launches or making them functional on the ground. The elevators would be build as close to the equator as possible, naturally.

Then, when travelling to other worlds, you are already in orbit to start with, so you ship the minimal required supplies to the surface and build a new elevator from orbit (lowering support and scaffold cables down etc) and then you can travel to and from the surface of this new would with the same convenience as on Earth. No more rockets, no more worrying about escape velocity. Major issues with space debris.

EDIT: Damn you, Wings!

But wouldn't the amount of high temperature-resistant material all bound together in such a way as to resist meteors cost quite a pretty penny as well?

Yes. But only once.

That's copied almost word for word out of the final chapter of Science of the Discworld. Do not try to deny this.

Would such a thing even be possible with the endless amount of space junk we have floating around up there?

How much damage would a space elevator cause if it toppled over? I’m… innocently curious.

It wouldn't topple because it's not a solid structure. It's a large geo-stationary satellite with a cable dangling down to Earth. The reason why it hasn't been built yet is because nano-materials haven't progressed far enough to make a cable that is strong enough whilst being small and flexible enough to use. But you can be reassured that our best minds are working on it.

Some application of Carbon nanotubules is the key to structural strength sufficient enough to withstand the forces it would encounter. Currently we fall slightly short of the minimum length of nanotubule required.

I have not read it in sometime, so I could not say. However, I have in the past written an entire A3 page in A-level D&T: Product Design class that was identical word for word to one I had done a couple of years previously in GCSE without referencing or even reading the original at all. Since I had planned on combining the two to bulk out the text, it was a nasty surprise.

Could you Daisy chain one space elevators together?

Like, one leading from earth to the moon than from the moon to say...Mars.

I haven't bothered to edit this yet and I already know it's retarded.

MOON

TIDE

...SCIENCE

Couldn't do it from the Moon to the Earth because the Moon isn't geostationary. The cable would end up being wrapped around the planet. Ditto for Mars, except that the tangle would probably be around the sun, seeing as Earth and Mars have different orbital periods.

But you wouldn't need to. You would use the space elevator to cheaply take the parts for the spaceship in to orbit, assemble them in space, bring the astronauts and various supplied up and then kick off from there. Because the ship won't need fuel and rockets to get past Earth's gravitational pull, it can be much smaller than it otherwise would be.

Guys, if you read the page-- it is justifying using advertising as a means to prepare the lunar surface in case the human race goes extinct. Do you really think they care about that or do you think that someone's got dollar signs in their eyes?

Plus, grilling on the cable in the thermosphere!