4 ms·

Dear NASA please put a particle collider on the moon

8 points by andrewfromx 6y ago

satya71 6y ago
I'm not a quantum physicist by any means, but won't the background radiation be a big problem? LHC is deep underground to keep out even the residual radiation of the earth's surface (after filtering by the ionosphere, and atmosphere). What chance does a collider on the moon have?
positr0n 6y ago
I'm not convinced that taking two of the hardest technical problems humanity has ever attempted (space flight and particle colliders) and trying to do them both at the same time will go well.
gus_massa 6y ago
Note that the idea is not to put a very big accelerator like the LHC, but something smaller. Does someone have an estimated weight of a neutrino source? The price to GEO is $30000/kg. It't a very low bound to carry some equipment to the Moon. It is strange that the article has only one author. (The other preprint looks interesting and relevant to this proposal, anyway.)
yummypaint 6y ago
To make a source like they're talking about would probably involve either spallation of a heavy metal target with protons (see the oak ridge SNS), or in-flight decay of muons (fermilab). The main (far) detectors would presumably be on earth where background isn't an issue, but neutrino experiments typically also have a detector near the source also. That would probably have to be underground. Some numbers for reference: the SNS delivers MW levels of thermal power to a 20 ton mercury target, which is circulated as it's own coolant. Just the target itself would be a monumental undertaking, and we havent even mentioned the massive proton accelerator needed at the input end. Accelerators also tend to be very heavy because of all the magnets, and they are very sensitive to misalignment, so the surrounding building will have to be well made assuming the seismic situation is workable. It would be great to focus our resources toward being able to do this sort of thing more feasibly. However, this project is well beyond the scope and budget of NASA. It would take concerted political will and military levels of funding sustained over decades to build up the underlying tech. I would love to see this reprioritization, but i have no expectation of it happening in my lifetime.
avmich 6y ago
> But what if, instead of spending trillions hurtling mammals towards distant rocks just to prove it’s possible, we actually did something so technologically innovative it fundamentally changes how we approach science? The author doesn't seem to understand or value the human spaceflight, including its uses for science. I'm pausing to imagine a robot which would build - or run - a highly specialized equipment of a particle accelerator and sensor kind on the Moon. Ain't it easier just to send humans to the Moon to do that? And regarding Mars - let's not go there, it's a whole another topic which alas was so casually dismissed.

8 points by andrewfromx 6y ago

I'm not a quantum physicist by any means, but won't the background radiation be a big problem? LHC is deep underground to keep out even the residual radiation of the earth's surface (after filtering by the ionosphere, and atmosphere). What chance does a collider on the moon have?

positr0n 6y ago

I'm not convinced that taking two of the hardest technical problems humanity has ever attempted (space flight and particle colliders) and trying to do them both at the same time will go well.

gus_massa 6y ago

Note that the idea is not to put a very big accelerator like the LHC, but something smaller. Does someone have an estimated weight of a neutrino source? The price to GEO is $30000/kg. It't a very low bound to carry some equipment to the Moon. It is strange that the article has only one author. (The other preprint looks interesting and relevant to this proposal, anyway.)

yummypaint 6y ago

To make a source like they're talking about would probably involve either spallation of a heavy metal target with protons (see the oak ridge SNS), or in-flight decay of muons (fermilab). The main (far) detectors would presumably be on earth where background isn't an issue, but neutrino experiments typically also have a detector near the source also. That would probably have to be underground. Some numbers for reference: the SNS delivers MW levels of thermal power to a 20 ton mercury target, which is circulated as it's own coolant. Just the target itself would be a monumental undertaking, and we havent even mentioned the massive proton accelerator needed at the input end. Accelerators also tend to be very heavy because of all the magnets, and they are very sensitive to misalignment, so the surrounding building will have to be well made assuming the seismic situation is workable. It would be great to focus our resources toward being able to do this sort of thing more feasibly. However, this project is well beyond the scope and budget of NASA. It would take concerted political will and military levels of funding sustained over decades to build up the underlying tech. I would love to see this reprioritization, but i have no expectation of it happening in my lifetime.

avmich 6y ago

> But what if, instead of spending trillions hurtling mammals towards distant rocks just to prove it’s possible, we actually did something so technologically innovative it fundamentally changes how we approach science? The author doesn't seem to understand or value the human spaceflight, including its uses for science. I'm pausing to imagine a robot which would build - or run - a highly specialized equipment of a particle accelerator and sensor kind on the Moon. Ain't it easier just to send humans to the Moon to do that? And regarding Mars - let's not go there, it's a whole another topic which alas was so casually dismissed.