[ggreer]

The moon is a lifeless rock with nobody on it. That seems like a better place for garbage to go than the earth. And since it's going to impact the moon at 2.43km/sec, I don't think there will be much visible stuff remaining, just a crater and some bits of aluminum.

Also what's the alternative? Moon missions don't have enough extra propellant to go back to earth and deorbit. They might have enough to move to a relatively stable orbit, but then it's just long-lived orbital debris.

[bmitc]

> lifeless rock

Do you know that for a fact? Unlikely sure, but the question isn't helped by ramming a thing that might have Earth-born life on it into it.

[ggreer]

Yes. There is no liquid water on the moon. There is no atmosphere. No life can exist there.

The moon is struck by meteors quite frequently. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter noticed 200 new craters over seven years.[1] Compared to what nature does to the surface, a few rocket bodies and impactor probes is a rounding error.

1. https://lroc.im-ldi.com/images/943

[bmitc]

> There is no liquid water on the moon.

That is not definitive. There is frozen water and even water that sublimates on the bright side of the Moon. And the internal core of the Moon is quite hot. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there are pockets of liquid water.

> Compared to what nature does to the surface, a few rocket bodies and impactor probes is a rounding error.

It's not an excuse. I also didn't comment about the impact itself, although it would be interesting to see a comparison to the meteors it gets hit by compared to the rocket shell, comparing speeds and size.

[ggreer]

I was obviously referring to the surface of the moon, where impacts happen. It is impossible for liquid water to exist on or near the surface, as the lack of atmosphere means that water either freezes or sublimes (and is then split into hydrogen & oxygen atoms by solar wind, causing the hydrogen to escape into space).

Yes, it is physically possible for liquid water to exist deep below the poles of the moon, but it would escape over time. Since there’s no way for any underground water to be replenished, and the moon is slowly cooling, it is very likely that all water on the moon is in non-liquid form (either ice, chemically bound up in rocks, or trace amounts of vapor that is soon to escape into space).

Meteors impact at 5-10x the velocity of the rocket body, meaning they have 12-50x more kinetic energy for the same mass. Their sizes vary, but a 4 ton booster traveling at 2.43km/sec is not going to be the most energetic impact on the moon this year.

[hulitu]

> The moon is a lifeless rock with nobody on it.

Wait till you find out of "Götterdämmerung"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Sky

[estearum]

Same rationale for dumping chemicals in the river. It's a river! It all just flows away! There's so much water, who could even notice?

[whatsupdog]

Not really, rivers flow into oceans where there is life that is impacted by the chemicals, not to mention the life in the river itself. So its not the same rationale. Moon IS a lifeless rock. I agree with the parent, if there was an option between trashing the earth and moon, I would pick moon in a heartbeat.

[somenameforme]

It's not just a lifeless rock, it's a horribly inhospitable location. You go through 2 week long days of hotter than boiling temperatures followed by 2 week long nights that are about as close to absolute zero as they are to 'just' freezing. All the while you're getting constantly pounded by meteorites, to say nothing of more typical issues like radiation, dust, and so on.

It's why I think the idea of starting with the Moon as a jumping-off to Mars is illogical. Mars is much further but is a million times more hospitable in every other way, and has presumably much more to offer in term of unknown unknowns than the Moon. We only found out that Martian regolith is relatively water rich (about 2% water by volume) in 2013, which is kind of insane if you consider that the first probe successfully sent to Mars was in 1962.