The Kings beam went through the moon!

[RoyalDiva]

My version of what I wish it could do.

 

[hrdboild]

I love it! The purple stars are an especially nice touch! We might want to run some simulations first or something before we put a moon splitting laser into actual practice though.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Also, I would recommend reading Neal Stephenson's "Seveneves" before blowing up the moon. You know, just in case you might have thought blowing up the moon was a good idea.

 

[RoyalDiva]

Also, I would recommend reading Neal Stephenson's "Seveneves" before blowing up the moon. You know, just in case you might have thought blowing up the moon was a good idea.

No, I'd never want to destroy the moon! It's too beautiful. I'd just like our beam to be a part of it.

 

[joemama]

No, I'd never want to destroy the moon! It's too beautiful. I'd just like our beam to be a part of it.

Yeah
Like draw a smiley face.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Yeah
Like draw a smiley face.

Let's just think about whether this is possible.

The moon has a radius of 1737 kilometers, so that's 1.737e6 meters. That means that the cross-sectional area of the moon is (using pi*r^2) about 9.5e12 square meters. Let's assume that we'd have to light up about 10% of the surface of the moon to make our smiley face (or Kings logo, or whatever) so we'd have to light up about 9.5e11 square meters. That's a lot, but OK. How bright do we have to make it? Well, sunlight hits the moon at about 1380 watts per square meter. Let's not try to compete with the sun by shining the laser during a full moon, let's do it during a new moon when the surface of the moon is otherwise dark (also, that would look really cool in the night sky, though we'd really only be able to do it either right after sunset or right before dawn). Assuming that we could see it pretty well if we lit it up to just half the brightness of normal moonlight, we'd have to hit the surface with about 700 watts per square meter. With our 9.5e11 square meters we want to light up, that's about 6.65e14 watts of power, or 665 Terawatts. Current world electricity production is about 8.5 Terawatts, so that means the laser would have to use about 78 times more power than the entire planet can currently generate.

We might need to dream a bit smaller.

 

[Warhawk]

Let's just think about whether this is possible.

The moon has a radius of 1737 kilometers, so that's 1.737e6 meters. That means that the cross-sectional area of the moon is (using pi*r^2) about 9.5e12 square meters. Let's assume that we'd have to light up about 10% of the surface of the moon to make our smiley face (or Kings logo, or whatever) so we'd have to light up about 9.5e11 square meters. That's a lot, but OK. How bright do we have to make it? Well, sunlight hits the moon at about 1380 watts per square meter. Let's not try to compete with the sun by shining the laser during a full moon, let's do it during a new moon when the surface of the moon is otherwise dark (also, that would look really cool in the night sky, though we'd really only be able to do it either right after sunset or right before dawn). Assuming that we could see it pretty well if we lit it up to just half the brightness of normal moonlight, we'd have to hit the surface with about 700 watts per square meter. With our 9.5e11 square meters we want to light up, that's about 6.65e14 watts of power, or 665 Terawatts. Current world electricity production is about 8.5 Terawatts, so that means the laser would have to use about 78 times more power than the entire planet can currently generate.

We might need to dream a bit smaller.

Killjoy.

 

[joemama]

Killjoy.

Yeah, that was a little over the top, even for Cap.

 

[joemama]

I said "draw," not light it up.

It wasn't meant to be taken serious. It would be easy to etch the smile, since the moon wobbles (back-and-forth).

Ever think you may be over explaining to someone that may know more?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I said "draw," not light it up.

It wasn't meant to be taken serious. It would be easy to etch the smile, since the moon wobbles (back-and-forth).

Ever think you may be over explaining to someone that may know more?

No.

But I frequently think I'm joking around with people who don't know how to take a joke.