15 comments

  • Kirr 2 hours ago
    > a whopping 728 feet across, more than twice the length of an American football field

    For the rest of the world, this is ~222 meters, more than twice the length of a 100 meter track.

    EDIT: Ninja'd! :-)

    • kurthr 2 hours ago
      It’s so big we can see it with a telescope, and so small that the chance of something similar hitting any single spot on the surface minuscule in the next 100 years.
      • ted_dunning 1 hour ago
        But the rate for milligram sized particles hitting a 100m x 100m patch is 2-3 per month.

        At 20km/s, that's plenty big enough to ruin your day.

        • LargoLasskhyfv 44 minutes ago
          Put a chewing gum in it, push a coin or credit card atop it, for a fast fix. Use Fantastic Fast Foam by Lunar Meta Materials for more permanent repair.
        • aeve890 48 minutes ago
          >At 20km/s, that's plenty big enough to ruin your day.

          Is it though? That's pretty slow

          Edit: nvm I read as km/h not km/s

  • JKCalhoun 2 hours ago
  • npunt 2 hours ago
    Basically, moon bases need to be underground to prevent micrometeoroids from messing them up, and any bigger impact like this is going to wipe out anything we build, even underground.

    All the more reason Earth is pretty awesome!

    Fun fact: moon regolith is made of ~45% oxygen, so in a roundabout way digging underground is kind of like having an atmosphere.

    • jedbrooke 1 hour ago
      or just build it on the earth facing side of the moon , then you have the entire thickness of the moon shielding you. But I believe some of the more interesting use cases for lunar bases require the far side, notably telescopes

      Edit: this is incorrect, see below

      • teraflop 1 hour ago
        The lunar near side is not shielded from impact craters in any significant way. Impactors can cross the earth's orbit and hit the near side of the moon just as easily as they can hit the far side.

        The fact that the near side appears to have large areas with few craters, and the far side doesn't, is a result of many near-side craters having been erased by lava flows. It's not because it received fewer impacts.

        • jedbrooke 25 minutes ago
          Interesting, I did a quick search and you are right. I think I remembered the incorrect fact about the near side being shielded from 2001: A space Odyssey (the book). It actually has a few other outdated moon facts since it was written just before the Apollo missions
    • JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago
      Or you need really good asteroid defenses.
      • paimapi 1 hour ago
        that's basically what the moon is for us for most sizes of asteroid (minus very large world ending ones)
        • JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago
          > basically what the moon is for us for most sizes of asteroid

          Popular myth. "While the Moon does undeniably experience asteroid impacts, these impacts do not proportionally alleviate the impact risk to Earth; instead, both celestial bodies are subject to independent and interconnected bombardment" [1].

          [1] https://iere.org/does-the-moon-protect-the-earth-from-astero...

    • kazinator 1 hour ago
      I like your reasoning about oxygen and would like to contribute the factoid that the molecular weight of CO₂ is over 72% oxygen. We really need to be spewing more of this stuff into the atmosphere to improve its oxygenation. Obviously O₂ would be best, but CO₂ is much more practical, and still gets us 72%.
  • devsda 40 minutes ago
    > The impactor would have caused a luminous explosion comparable to one made by 15,500 tons of TNT.

    The crater is small enough that it is probably not obvious to spot visually.

    But I'm surprised that we missed noticing an impact event of that size when it happened, or even the space object that caused it.

  • kazinator 1 hour ago
    Just build right there in that crater. Like lightning, a meteor rarely strikes the same place twice. It's a statistical law, independent random events be damned! :)
  • teraflop 1 hour ago
    The article says a new crater this size is expected about once every 132 years. Presumably, smaller craters are more frequent. So what's the approximate size of the largest crater that you'd expect, say, in an average year? And would it be scientifically useful to design a mission around sending a rover to explore one of those brand-new craters?
  • __MatrixMan__ 2 hours ago
    In some more enlightened timeline there's a spirited competition between institutional and amateur astronomers towards predicting these, and some amateur is sitting on a $10M this-person-told-us-so-and-we-bet-against-them prize, which gets bigger every year (no prizes for the institutional side, they get a salary).

    In that timeline's future we're then competing over who can most reliably prevent them.

    The winners of such frivolous competitions over protecting the moon get funding for the more serious job of protecting Earth.

    • JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago
      You could create a lunar grid on a betting market with yes/no contracts for impacts above a certain threshold.
  • bookofjoe 1 day ago
    • egberts1 1 day ago
      Eh, still have to login.
      • somenameforme 3 hours ago
        I don't even get that far but get a blank page except for: "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker." They're doing a pretty good job of minimizing their traffic.
      • bookofjoe 10 hours ago
        I can only get you so far...
      • b0ner_t0ner 2 hours ago
        Bypass Paywalls Clean on Quetta works fine.
  • bigtech 2 hours ago
    As with Mars (and Silo) we need a very deep pit to protect humans from the radiation.
  • karim79 1 hour ago
    Does anyone really want to live on the moon? I mean it's a cool and dreamy idea but would you actually do it?
    • glitchc 1 hour ago
      Life on the moon is likely to develop in much the same way that humans settled in far-flung places on Earth. The first people to arrive and live on the moon will be there for a work-related reason (research, military posting, etc.). Those people will settle down, have families and form a community. Over time, the communities will grow and evolve into a distinct Moon culture and society.
      • fluidcruft 1 hour ago
        Why hasn't that happened in Antarctica?
        • accrual 1 hour ago
          I feel it has in the sense there is an established culture in some major Antarctic research bases. There are stories, communities, and shared history. But most of those on the ice come home after a season or two, so there's no long term settlement of individual families. Maybe this would also be true of moon bases. Researchers stay for some time, then take the next available ferry home once their season lapses. There would have to be significant infrastructure to make "ordinary" life possible over the long term - schools, hospitals, non-research jobs - reasons for staying there versus migrating back to Earth.

          FWIW, there's a nice series of posts about life on the ice here: https://brr.fyi/

        • karim79 1 hour ago
          It took me some time to dig this up. Here you go and enjoy:

          https://www.wiffa.aq/?hl=en-GB

          Edit: Check out John Wiff

          Also, this is how I imagine people will be spending their time on the moon.

        • serf 1 hour ago
          imo the same reason it hasn't happened on the moon, it's not lucrative.

          old world exploration was caused/fueled/triggered/made-possible by opportunity and commerce.

      • kazinator 1 hour ago
        > Life on the moon is likely to develop in much the same way that humans settled in far-flung places on Earth

        I.e. basically not at all.

      • OccamsMirror 58 minutes ago
        No one is going to raise families on the moon. Why do people believe this crazy nonsense?
  • hattmall 1 hour ago
    Crazy that space is just full of high speed rocks flying around all the time.
  • mkl 2 hours ago
    > previously unseen lunar crater that’s a whopping 728 feet across, more than twice the length of an American football field.

    For the rest of the world, it's about 222m.

    > objects the size of monster truck tires

    FFS, just use metric! Apparently that's about 1.7m.

    • lubujackson 2 hours ago
      But how many Chevy Tahoes across is it? How many cases of Budweiser high? Speak to me in units I can understand, dammit!
      • shermantanktop 1 hour ago
        We can always translate to baguettes, Fiat 500s, and Oktoberfest steins for our European friends.
      • nonethewiser 1 hour ago
        1,510 standard SIG Sauer P365's
  • metalman 1 day ago
  • zx8080 3 hours ago
    It means someone will ask 10x price for building the US lunar base.
  • Kuyawa 51 minutes ago
    > The impactor would have caused a luminous explosion comparable to one made by 15,500 tons of TNT

    Or one hiroshima bomb. Oh wait, nobody to scare here, move along