Obvious one first.
You would just phrase it like this:I'm trying to think of ways to explain why the moon rock thing is bullshit in a way that ordinary people can understand. Maybe just say such a thing would require rockets that don't currently exist?
Sounds great, roll with it.You would just phrase it like this:
"The world faces tough problems [show picture of putin and trump]
"Brianna Wu's worry? Space X dropping rocks from the Moon. [show tweets]
"Lets get down to Earth. We need common sense leadership. [show lynch]"
That's a bullshit way to discredit it though, because if we have rockets that can get there then we by definition would have rockets that can go the other way. You'd be better off just saying that when you drop something on the moon it falls down to the moon, even though that's only true sometimes.I'm trying to think of ways to explain why the moon rock thing is bullshit in a way that ordinary people can understand. Maybe just say such a thing would require rockets that don't currently exist?
Well the the science is there but Wu is retarded because "literal tons of aerodynamic tungsten" is a far cry from "rocks from the surface of the moon".Its not like 50 years from now maybe someone will build some kind of Catapult that they use in Gundam to launch ships but instead of ships it would be rocks. I imagine a facililty like that would cost a lot and would be more expensive than saying launching a rocket with a nuke or even a rock on a rocket.
You don't have to go into it in depth. Getting stuff onto and off of the moon is really complicated and expensive; firing a big-ass nuke from one part of earth to another is comparatively easy and cheap.Orbital mechanics are too complicated to give the proper explanation to the masses, so I think that entirely rules out something that shows the real reason why it wouldn't work.