3 ms·

Given that the moon is tidally locked to the Earth, all you need to do is put the base on the near side of the moon and you'll dramatically reduce the chance of

Given that the moon is tidally locked to the Earth, all you need to do is put the base on the near side of the moon and you'll dramatically reduce the chance of being hit by a meteor. Compare the far side [1] to the near side [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon#/media/Fi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_side_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_nearside_LRO.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_side_of_the_Moon#/media/F...

grogers 10y ago
Earth being 'in the way' causing fewer meteor strikes doesnt account for the differences between the near and far sides of the moon [1]. It's a fairly small effect apparently. Of course, any moon base would probably be on the near side anyways to communicate with earth. [1] https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-faces-of-the-moon-398fbc85840d https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-faces-of-the-m...
ars 10y ago
> dramatically reduce the chance of being hit by a meteor. As seen from the moon the Earth is only 2 degrees across - that leaves the other 178 degrees wide open for hits. I doubt it makes much difference to the hit rate - and certainly not "dramatically reduce".
- cnlevy 10y ago
  Even though earth's direct shielding is only 2 degrees, its gravitational pull will deflect meteorites coming towards the moon from a far wider angle
  - ars 10y ago
    I thought of that, but Earth's gravitation pull will also deflect meteors toward the Moon. Averaged over the entire sky it's a null effect.
    - astrobe_ 10y ago
      Is the distribution truly random as the article states? For instance, aren't the poles bit more safe?
      - ars 10y ago
        Mostly random. The poles would have less direct hits, but equal number of sideways hits. Mainly because I think most meteors orbit in the same plane as the solar system. So there would be less "from above" hits on the poles.

grogers 10y ago

Earth being 'in the way' causing fewer meteor strikes doesnt account for the differences between the near and far sides of the moon [1]. It's a fairly small effect apparently. Of course, any moon base would probably be on the near side anyways to communicate with earth. [1] https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-faces-of-the-moon-398fbc85840d https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-faces-of-the-m...

ars 10y ago

> dramatically reduce the chance of being hit by a meteor. As seen from the moon the Earth is only 2 degrees across - that leaves the other 178 degrees wide open for hits. I doubt it makes much difference to the hit rate - and certainly not "dramatically reduce".

cnlevy 10y ago
Even though earth's direct shielding is only 2 degrees, its gravitational pull will deflect meteorites coming towards the moon from a far wider angle
- ars 10y ago
  I thought of that, but Earth's gravitation pull will also deflect meteors toward the Moon. Averaged over the entire sky it's a null effect.
  - astrobe_ 10y ago
    Is the distribution truly random as the article states? For instance, aren't the poles bit more safe?
    - ars 10y ago
      Mostly random. The poles would have less direct hits, but equal number of sideways hits. Mainly because I think most meteors orbit in the same plane as the solar system. So there would be less "from above" hits on the poles.