Unless the NIMBY crowd change to NIMOrbit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999 [wikipedia.org]

Asking for trouble... 'cos this didn't work out too well for Moonbase Alpha.

Cmon, you never saw Space: 1999? It's a disaster in the making!

(On the other hand, there's Catherine Schell...)

you have to be a lunatic to put fission on the moon. it seems once a month i encounter some sort of hairbraned scheme like this. i wish there were a silver bullet solution to these sort of moonbat ideas

Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really long wires.

Why would they want to send it to Pluto? It's a Mickey Mouse planet!

The reactor is going to explode and contaminate the moon, turning it into a place where a human cannot survive without some kind of protective clothing. Clearly, this is unacceptable.

One big problem with putting a slingshot on the moon capable of achieving escape velocity. I read an analysis [wikipedia.org] on the topic several years back:

First we establish the means of hurling stuff off of the moon sufficient to achieve escape velocity. Soon we realize the potential of using that mechanism for mining and establish a mining colony. Miners realize that, after several years in 1/6 gravity, they cannot return to Earth and their resources are being irreversibly diminished because hurling ore at Earth is much cheaper than hurling water at the moon. Through the aid of an advanced computer, they decide to declare war and start "throwing rocks" at us.

Sure, moon culture may turn out to be pretty cool and incorporate some groovy polygamy, but nobody wants a rock war.

I know what, you could supplement it with wave power from the Sea of Tranquility.

Sure! We can put a reactor on the moon but we can't put a new reactor in the U.S.

Paper beats rock, and we have plenty of trees here on Earth. We can't lose!

Do we really want them to have access to nuclear power? On the other hand, the theme park does have a lot of lights.

Dude, you got it wrong. The reactor is going to explode, sending the moon out of Earth's orbit [wikipedia.org]. Moonbase Alpha [wikipedia.org] will boldly go where no man has gone before. Exploring space one crazy alien at a time.

Why does NASA have to do this for the moon. Why doesn't the moon just develop it's own nuclear reactor if it wants one? It's not like NASA has extra money and resources to be doing every other planet's work.

I personally think it's easy to send things into the sun because I've never had to do it before and it always works great for superman. Also because I rarely figure out the calculus and physics behind wild "what if" scenarios. What's the fun in that?

It's jerks like you who make foreign policy boring by saying stuff like "Yes we could invade Iraq, but then what would we do about the insurgency, building democracy blah blah blah I hate america." Let us build the ever loving nuclear reactor on the moon then chuck it into the sun when we're done with it! Next you're probably going to whine about how tax dollars might better be spent on education or some crap like that!

just use a big slingshot

In the thin/nonexistent atmosphere of the moon, the rubber bands dry out and crumble quickly.

And if only it were massive enough to materially affect the trajectories of the planetary bodies near it!

Zapp Brannigan: It was almost the perfect crime. But you forgot one thing: Rock crushes scissors. But paper covers rock...and scissors cuts paper! Kif, we have a conundrum.

[Kif sighs.]

Zapp Brannigan: Search them for paper. And bring me a rock.

robotic mining is cheaper in 1/6th G, since you can use weaker propulsion systems. with an atomic reactor to power the robots, they can mine all the titanium needed to build more mining robots until we can finally built giant space habitats and then build the giant robots to invade the earth er... ahem.