PDA

View Full Version : NASA To Trigger Massive Explosion On the Moon In Search of Ice




disorderlyvision
06-17-2009, 07:12 AM
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/16/1556254


"NASA is preparing to launch the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, which will fly a Centaur rocket booster into the moon, triggering a six-mile-high explosion that scientists hope will confirm whether water is frozen in the perpetual darkness of craters near the moon's south pole. If the spacecraft launches on schedule at 12:51 p.m. Wednesday, it will hit the moon in the early morning hours of October 8 after an 86-day Lunar Gravity-Assist, Lunar Return Orbit that will allow the spacecraft time to complete its two-month commissioning phase and conduct nearly a month of science data collection of polar crater measurements before colliding with the moon just 10 minutes behind the Centaur."


"The cloud from the Centaur rocket booster will kick up 350 metric tons of debris that should spread six miles above the surface of the moon, hitting the sunlight and making it visible to amateur astronomers across North America. Over the final four minutes of its existence, as LCROSS follows the same terminal trajectory as the Centaur, the spacecraft will train its instruments and cameras on the debris cloud, searching it for the chemical signature of water. Previous spacecraft and ground-based instruments have detected signs of hydrogen near the moon's poles, and scientists are split over whether that is from ice that could have arrived through the impact of comets or by other means. Despite all the serious scientific talk about hydrogen signatures and lunar regolith, flying a rocket booster into the moon at 5,600 mph to trigger a massive explosion is just flat-out cool. 'We're certainly going to be making a big splash,' says Kimberly Ennico, the LCROSS payload scientist. 'We're going to see something, but I don't know what to expect. I know on the night of the impact, I'll be running on adrenaline.'"

Yieu
06-17-2009, 07:17 AM
What if the people living on the moon see that as an act of aggression and fire back!

Original_Intent
06-17-2009, 07:18 AM
Nuke it, nuke it nuke it! :p

acptulsa
06-17-2009, 07:20 AM
During the decade of the Sixties, mankind became infused and enthused by the desire to reach the moon. It was peaceful exploration in a world consumed by the Cold War; it was an overarching curiosity; it was a barrier unbroken. And we reached it!

So, what did we find? More shit to blow up, of course...

Working Poor
06-17-2009, 07:31 AM
aw man this does not sound good to me.

zach
06-17-2009, 07:36 AM
they getting desperate or something?

phill4paul
06-17-2009, 07:48 AM
they getting desperate or something?

Yep, as they have not gotten everyone on board with the global tax on global warming they will now attempt to change the orbit of the moon, thus creating unstable weather patterns.;:p:D

zach
06-17-2009, 07:49 AM
Yep, as they have not gotten everyone on board with the global tax on global warming they will now attempt to change the orbit of the moon, thus creating unstable weather patterns.;:p:D

you know... I could believe that eventually. :eek:

pacelli
06-17-2009, 07:52 AM
I guess a missile is cheaper than a form of satellite-based ground penetrating radar.



Russia proposes mining helium-3 on Moon (commerce to space)

MOSCOW. Jan 25 (Interfax) - Russia's Energia aerospace corporation is doing research on a project to mine helium-3, a potential fuel for future nuclear reactors, on the Moon and bring it to the Earth, and is due to finish the study before 2010, Energia President Nikolai Sevastyanov said on Wednesday.

The Earth's known hydrocarbon reserves will last mankind "50 to 100 years with the present-day rate of consumption," Sevastyanov told a meeting at the Bauman State Technological University in Moscow.

"There are practically no reserves of helium on the Earth. On the Moon, there are between 1 million and 500 million tonnes, according to various estimates," he said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565180/posts

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 08:39 AM
Yep, as they have not gotten everyone on board with the global tax on global warming they will now attempt to change the orbit of the moon, thus creating unstable weather patterns.;:p:D

Yeah - slightly altering the moons orbit and messing up the weather was the second thing that I thought of, though it gets pounded by comets regularly.

The first thing that came to mind was that supposedly a big piece of moon was what caused the extermination of the dinosaurs. Hope they don't knock off more than they bargained for. Then even if it's only small bits, it's only a matter of time before one of them says "hi" to a satellite, rocket or space shuttle II+...

Wasn't it Heinlein that wrote that book about a war between the Moon and earth - where the moon residents hurled large rocks at Earth?

yeah, this doesn't seem like a great idea.

-t

Kraig
06-17-2009, 08:45 AM
Why should we be forced to fund NASA? Especially when they are doing crap like this?

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 08:51 AM
Why should we be forced to fund NASA? Especially when they are doing crap like this?Actually this is a very good thing that they are doing. But it should be done under the auspices of defense research.

orafi
06-17-2009, 08:58 AM
Actually this is a very good thing that they are doing. But it should be done under the auspices of defense research.

Wow dude, this is coming from a Ron Paul supporter?

Don't come crying when we receive blowback from the moon beings..

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 09:04 AM
I've got to agree with Matt on this one. It's good they are doing it, it's HOW they are doing it that give me a "this could come out badly" feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Really, the ability to columnize the moon depends on one of 2 things: Finding water there or finding a way to cheaply get water there.

It would have great benefits - mining, space launch platform, manufacture of perfect bearings, fantastic place to build an observatory... - stuff like that...

-t

zach
06-17-2009, 09:04 AM
Well, this can further any conspiracy theory one may have surrounding space and the moon.

Though, I don't profess yet to say that anything interesting will happen.

A. Havnes
06-17-2009, 09:07 AM
Nuke it, nuke it nuke it! :p

Who needs the moon? :rolleyes:

zach
06-17-2009, 09:08 AM
Who needs the moon? :rolleyes:

Yeah, what's it doing to benefit us anyway? :p

torchbearer
06-17-2009, 09:11 AM
we won't always have a moon. it is slowly moving farther away from us.

acptulsa
06-17-2009, 09:16 AM
we won't always have a moon. it is slowly moving farther away from us.

Well, now that they've started #^@%*&+ with it, don't be too sure. They could wind up inadvertantly parking it in the Pacific and washing California off the map. Sometimes I think the only things the Federal Government are good for are enforcing the Law of Unintended Consequences--and Murphy's Law, of course.

Conza88
06-17-2009, 09:16 AM
Who needs the moon? :rolleyes:

I'm guessing that is sarcasm... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Ocean_tides



we won't always have a moon. it is slowly moving farther away from us.


"The effect on the Moon's orbital radius is a small one, just 0.10 ppb/year, but results in a measurable 3.82 cm annual increase in the Earth-Moon distance.[55]

Cumulatively, this effect becomes ever more significant over time; since astronauts first landed on the Moon approximately 40 years ago, it is 1.52 metres farther away."

lol...

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 09:16 AM
we won't always have a moon. it is slowly moving farther away from us.

If it moves far enough away - we die. Most CO2 is converted into O2 via algae and tidal activity, also rain - imagine how well farms will work with no rain...

-t

moostraks
06-17-2009, 09:17 AM
Yeah - slightly altering the moons orbit and messing up the weather was the second thing that I thought of, though it gets pounded by comets regularly.

The first thing that came to mind was that supposedly a big piece of moon was what caused the extermination of the dinosaurs. Hope they don't knock off more than they bargained for. Then even if it's only small bits, it's only a matter of time before one of them says "hi" to a satellite, rocket or space shuttle II+...

-t

+1:eek:

BenIsForRon
06-17-2009, 09:23 AM
I just hope that when we colonize the moon, we are smart about water usage. Once you use up all the water, it's gone for good.

ramallamamama
06-17-2009, 09:27 AM
Read Hoagland's 'Dark Mission'. They're blowing up ancient artifacts to cover they're asses re: Apollo 13.

Here's a link (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Richard-C-Hoagland/213984790088) to his facebook page. He updates regularly, it'll be interesting to see what his take on it is.

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 09:33 AM
Read Hoagland's 'Dark Mission'. They're blowing up ancient artifacts to cover they're asses re: Apollo 13.

and all this time I thought they were just doing it to take out that Ruskie particle beam weapon hiding in the crater... ;)

-t

phill4paul
06-17-2009, 10:56 AM
Well, this can further any conspiracy theory one may have surrounding space and the moon.

Though, I don't profess yet to say that anything interesting will happen.

It wasn't long ago I saw an article saying how a foreign satellite didn't detect any artifacts at the moon landing sight casting doubt on the event. So this is how they will cover it up! :D

acptulsa
06-17-2009, 11:06 AM
Well, I think we've finally seen how President Itchy is explaining away his 'accidental launch' on Scratchy.

Conza88
06-17-2009, 11:14 AM
Actually this is a very good thing that they are doing. But it should be done under the auspices of defense research.

Since when has robbing billions from the populace been:"a very good thing" ?

:rolleyes:

orafi
06-17-2009, 11:41 AM
Since when has robbing billions from the populace been:"a very good thing" ?

:rolleyes:

It's a good thing whenever we need to find out whether or not outerspace has ice in it.

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 11:48 AM
Since when has robbing billions from the populace been:"a very good thing" ?

:rolleyes:Exploration and discovery is a good thing. And while it's almost always best if done in the private sector there are some things the private sector just won't do because there is no mid-to-short term payoff.


NASA shouldn't exist, except for under the umbrella of defense.

Kraig
06-17-2009, 11:52 AM
Exploration and discovery is a good thing. And while it's almost always best if done in the private sector there are some things the private sector just won't do because there is no mid-to-short term payoff.


NASA shouldn't exist, except for under the umbrella of defense.

So that is your justification to steal from me and fund this type of thing?

Pod
06-17-2009, 12:07 PM
Exploration and discovery is a good thing. And while it's almost always best if done in the private sector there are some things the private sector just won't do because there is no mid-to-short term payoff.

False. The private sector won`t do it, because under our present economic condition it would be putting the cart before the horse and the market won`t stand for an allocation of resources as irrational as that.

The private sector will start projects which are going to be profitable only in the long term, but only under certain conditions. When such a project is made rational by other market forces and thus receives a green light from market signals.

orafi
06-17-2009, 12:19 PM
There are already capitalists out there starting their own space tourist programs for the mega billionaires. And we couldn't have had that happen without the mostly-free market creating these mega billionaires.

Imagine where we'd be right now if our government had stayed away from the whole mess of its parasitic programs.

Kraig
06-17-2009, 12:29 PM
There are already capitalists out there starting their own space tourist programs for the mega billionaires. And we couldn't have had that happen without the mostly-free market creating these mega billionaires.

Imagine where we'd be right now if our government had stayed away from the whole mess of its parasitic programs.

lol you mean if there was no government... :D

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 12:56 PM
and all this time I thought they were just doing it to take out that Ruskie particle beam weapon hiding in the crater... ;)"nooklear veapons"

Kraig
06-17-2009, 01:04 PM
"nooklear veapons"

You didn't respond to my question about justification!

ladyjade3
06-17-2009, 01:12 PM
Looking for ice, my patootie. They are really on a secret mission in search of green cheese.

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 01:33 PM
There are already capitalists out there starting their own space tourist programs for the mega billionaires. And we couldn't have had that happen without the mostly-free market creating these mega billionaires.And we wouldn't have come this far except for the research done by the DoD during the Cold War.


Imagine where we'd be right now if our government had stayed away from the whole mess of its parasitic programs.You mean like DARPA/ARPA? :rolleyes:

Kraig
06-17-2009, 01:40 PM
And we wouldn't have come this far except for the research done by the DoD during the Cold War.

But does that justify theft (taxes) to pay for these programs?

Do you advocate stealing from me to fund these programs?

Dieseler
06-17-2009, 01:46 PM
Seems like another huge waste of tax payer's money to me.
I can find ice in my own freezer, give me a grant and I will prove it.

Mini-Me
06-17-2009, 01:50 PM
False. The private sector won`t do it, because under our present economic condition it would be putting the cart before the horse and the market won`t stand for an allocation of resources as irrational as that.

The private sector will start projects which are going to be profitable only in the long term, but only under certain conditions. When such a project is made rational by other market forces and thus receives a green light from market signals.

This is worth repeating...

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 01:52 PM
You didn't respond to my question about justification!The federal government has the power to raise an army and tax granted to it in the Constitution.

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 01:54 PM
But does that justify theft (taxes) to pay for these programs?

Do you advocate stealing from me to fund these programs?If it's done for defensive reasons, then yes it is justified. As we move closer to a space race with China this could be justified for that reason.

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 01:55 PM
And we wouldn't have come this far except for the research done by the DoD during the Cold War.

Agree


You mean like DARPA/ARPA? :rolleyes:

There is a ARPA-E and IARPA too...

-t

Kraig
06-17-2009, 01:55 PM
The federal government has the power to raise an army and tax granted to it in the Constitution.

Yes I know, does that morally justify it for you? Because of that, or any other reason, do you advocate taking my money, against my will, and funding these programs? I not trying to argue with you I just want to know what you believe from a moral standpoint.

torchbearer
06-17-2009, 02:14 PM
I'm guessing that is sarcasm... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Ocean_tides




"The effect on the Moon's orbital radius is a small one, just 0.10 ppb/year, but results in a measurable 3.82 cm annual increase in the Earth-Moon distance.[55]

Cumulatively, this effect becomes ever more significant over time; since astronauts first landed on the Moon approximately 40 years ago, it is 1.52 metres farther away."

lol...


like I said, we won't always have a moon.

Mini-Me
06-17-2009, 02:19 PM
like I said, we won't always have a moon.

True, but...at the rate it's going, it looks like the sun is going to wipe out all life on Earth before the moon leaves us. ;)

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 02:20 PM
Yes I know, does that morally justify it for you? Because of that, or any other reason, do you advocate taking my money, against my will, and funding these programs? I not trying to argue with you I just want to know what you believe from a moral standpoint.Isn't one of the government's job defense? Doesn't the government have to pay for that defense? Doesn't the government have the authority to raise funds by way of taxation?

torchbearer
06-17-2009, 02:21 PM
True, but...at the rate it's going, it looks like the sun is going to wipe out all life on Earth before the moon leaves us. ;)

give it a million years.
The sun is estimated to survive much longer than that...

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 02:23 PM
True, but...at the rate it's going, it looks like the sun is going to wipe out all life on Earth before the moon leaves us. ;)

Hmmm... yahknow, if we just nuked the sun, maybe we could kick start some of that sun spot activity and get rid of this dang global cooling... :rolleyes:

NOTICE to any congress critters reading this - that was NOT a serious suggestion!

-t

torchbearer
06-17-2009, 02:27 PM
Hmmm... yahknow, if we just nuked the sun, maybe we could kick start some of that sun spot activity and get rid of this dang global cooling... :rolleyes:

NOTICE to any congress critters reading this - that was NOT a serious suggestion!

-t

yes- please don't give them any more ideas.

Mini-Me
06-17-2009, 02:32 PM
give it a million years.
The sun is estimated to survive much longer than that...

Really? If you linearly extrapolate the moon's recession of 3.8m/century (according to Wikipedia), it will only be about 190,000km farther away in 5 billion years, or slightly over 49% farther than it currently is today. While I understand the moon's recession is probably not linear, it seems like it may actually be gradually decreasing according to this snippet, which estimates the moon and Earth will still be in orbit for ten times as long as it takes for the sun to become a red giant (unless there's a typo):

The Moon is gradually receding from the Earth into a higher orbit, and calculations[2][3] suggest that this will continue for about fifty billion years. By that time, the Earth and Moon will become caught up in what is called a "spin–orbit resonance" in which the Moon will circle the Earth in about 47 days (currently 29 days), and both Moon and Earth will rotate around their axes in the same time, always facing each other with the same side. Beyond this, it is hard to tell what will happen to the Earth–Moon system, considering that the Sun is expected to become a red giant in approximately five billion years.

If we blow up the moon Austin Powers style, we'll be sure to miss it for a long time. ;)

Kraig
06-17-2009, 02:33 PM
Isn't one of the government's job defense? Doesn't the government have to pay for that defense? Doesn't the government have the authority to raise funds by way of taxation?

That is what I was asking you. Does the government have the authority to take my money against my will and use it to fund defense? Well if you look at reality, then yes, through force they have that right.

What I am asking you is do you sanction that right? Do you believe it is morally right for them to take my money against my will when it is used for defense?

acptulsa
06-17-2009, 02:41 PM
That is what I was asking you. Does the government have the authority to take my money against my will and use it to fund defense? Well if you look at reality, then yes, through force they have that right.

What I am asking you is do you sanction that right? Do you believe it is morally right for them to take my money against my will when it is used for defense?

Here, let me fix this attempted hijack for you.

[channels Jackie Gleason]

One of these days, Kraig--POW!--straight to the moon!

[/Gleason]

Now you may continue your normally scheduled hijack already as usual in progress, as it can be argued that it has some tenuous connection to the topic of the thread.


yes- please don't give them any more ideas.

Please!! They don't even care if it's a serious suggestion; their only question is how big would the kickbacks be?

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 02:41 PM
That is what I was asking you. Does the government have the authority to take my money against my will and use it to fund defense? Well if you look at reality, then yes, through force they have that right.

What I am asking you is do you sanction that right? Do you believe it is morally right for them to take my money against my will when it is used for defense?Yes, that's one of the few legitimate functions of government; securing individual rights.

slacker921
06-17-2009, 03:43 PM
The booster will be empty of fuel.. it's not like they're shooting a live missile at it. They want to create a big dust cloud and fly LCROSS through it and see if they can pick up traces of water, etc..

LRO makes me wonder what they're up to though. They're going to map the surface of the moon down to centimeter accuracy.. one fun offshoot might be virtual representations of the moon - so you can "go there" and see what some of the big craters look like with the Earth rising above them, etc.

jkr
06-17-2009, 03:46 PM
what is these IDIOTS problem?

sum1 needs to loose thier allowance...

Andrew-Austin
06-17-2009, 03:50 PM
I've seen this on Futurama, this is only phase one. Phase two is when they bring back a massive chunk of ice to earth, and drop it in the ocean to combat global warming.

Seriously though, who the fuck cares if there is ice on the moon.

Objectivist
06-17-2009, 03:55 PM
Impact from a rocket is not an explosion such as a explosive device, but still produces enough energy to scatter tons of debris around.

From some of the posts I read I thought they were launching a nuclear device or explosive device.

Objectivist
06-17-2009, 03:57 PM
I've seen this on Futurama, this is only phase one. Phase two is when they bring back a massive chunk of ice to earth, and drop it in the ocean to combat global warming.

Seriously though, who the fuck cares if there is ice on the moon.

I care.

Objectivist
06-17-2009, 04:02 PM
I have a question about lunar property rights. A few years ago I saw where people were selling plots of the Moon and celebrities like Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood had purchased their own section. Now if this impact alters their plot do they have recourse with the government for creating the damage? I know, I know, but I'm the son of a Lawyer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/LAND-ON-THE-MOON---TITLE-DEEDS-FOR-SALE-+-FREE-BONUS!!!_W0QQitemZ200352905320QQcmdZViewItemQQimsx Z20090616?IMSfp=TL090616031002r24536

Annihilia
06-17-2009, 04:03 PM
Yes, that's one of the few legitimate functions of government; securing individual rights.

He doesn't believe government is a morally justifiable institution at all, so appealing to those ideals won't get you anywhere with him.

Sandman33
06-17-2009, 04:49 PM
We should spend more time and effort exploring the depths our oceans where we KNOW life exists rather than the damn moon.

We know more about the moon than we do the bottom of the depths of the ocean.

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 04:54 PM
He doesn't believe government is a morally justifiable institution at all, so appealing to those ideals won't get you anywhere with him.Well if he wants anarchy he should try Somolia or Afghanistan.

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 05:03 PM
I've seen this on Futurama,They changed the name of that planet to stop that awful joke once and for all. What do they call it now? Urectum. :p




Seriously though, who the fuck cares if there is ice on the moon.If there is ice there is water. If there is water then that means humans can live there. If there is water then that means there is both hydrogen and oxygen which can be used as fuel for use as a staging location to other missions around the solar system.

Bodhi
06-17-2009, 05:38 PM
We should spend more time and effort exploring the depths our oceans where we KNOW life exists rather than the damn moon.


There is no reason we can't to both at the same time. :)

Sandman33
06-17-2009, 05:42 PM
They changed the name of that planet to stop that awful joke once and for all. What do they call it now? Urectum. :p



If there is ice there is water. If there is water then that means humans can live there. If there is water then that means there is both hydrogen and oxygen which can be used as fuel for use as a staging location to other missions around the solar system.

There is no atmosphere on the moon! That means no water unless its frozen...and we aren't going to live on the moon or use it as a space station......it's too close to earth to make a difference.

Its a giant rock...thats it.

Sandman33
06-17-2009, 05:44 PM
There is no reason we can't to both at the same time. :)

I think the reason we spend more money and time researching the moon is just because it's shiny.

OOOHHH SHINY.

Theres more going on down below. Lets go there and make it a priority...we can go jump on the space rock later.:D

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 05:52 PM
We should spend more time and effort exploring the depths our oceans where we KNOW life exists rather than the damn moon.

Hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the Marianis trench = 16,000 pounds per square inch!

Quite frankly space seems friendlier.

We've found life in active volcano's too - I'll let you go first...

-t

Andrew-Austin
06-17-2009, 06:19 PM
They changed the name of that planet to stop that awful joke once and for all. What do they call it now? Urectum. :p



If there is ice there is water. If there is water then that means humans can live there. If there is water then that means there is both hydrogen and oxygen which can be used as fuel for use as a staging location to other missions around the solar system.

Okay thanks for the explanation.

But humans are not going to colonize the moon any time soon obviously, as I can't see it happening within the next fifty to one hundred years, so basically their doing this because their rocket geeks and its tax payer money anyways?

akihabro
06-17-2009, 06:53 PM
We finally found Osama so we are going to take him out. So are any of these rocks that are going to be blown up from the Moon pose a threat to the Earth?

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 07:12 PM
There is no atmosphere on the moon! That means no water unless its frozen...and we aren't going to live on the moon or use it as a space station......it's too close to earth to make a difference.

Its a giant rock...thats it.Again, that is untrue. Why? Because it costs money to get large objects into space. LOTS of money and lots of fuel. If we are going to get a sizeable ship to go to other planets it will have to be assembled in space, not on Earth. The Moon is the perfect place for this because it can (potentially) have fuel, firm ground, and some gravity.

tangent4ronpaul
06-17-2009, 07:20 PM
Okay thanks for the explanation.

But humans are not going to colonize the moon any time soon obviously, as I can't see it happening within the next fifty to one hundred years, so basically their doing this because their rocket geeks and its tax payer money anyways?

naw - they plan on putting oil wells up there and getting the oil that was deposited there after that other asteroid hit the moon and wiped out the greys.

-t

Matt Collins
06-17-2009, 07:22 PM
But humans are not going to colonize the moon any time soon obviously, as I can't see it happening within the next fifty to one hundred years, so basically their doing this because their rocket geeks and its tax payer money anyways?Well humans were not going to setup the United States government for almost 300 years, so why should Columbus have bothered to sail? :rolleyes:

Mini-Me
06-17-2009, 10:01 PM
Well humans were not going to setup the United States government for almost 300 years, so why should Columbus have bothered to sail? :rolleyes:

Sure, but deciding to sail in the general sense is a bit different from taking a buttload of taxpayer money during an economic depression so he can build his ship. ;)

Sandman33
06-18-2009, 12:51 AM
Hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the Marianis trench = 16,000 pounds per square inch!

Quite frankly space seems friendlier.

We've found life in active volcano's too - I'll let you go first...

-t

WAIT...let me grab my snorkel and goggles.....and my swim floaties for my arms...just in case.

Sandman33
06-18-2009, 12:56 AM
We finally found Osama so we are going to take him out. So are any of these rocks that are going to be blown up from the Moon pose a threat to the Earth?

Obviously we're going to conquer the moon and leave it with a paper Rothschild central banking system...

silverhawks
06-18-2009, 01:07 AM
Again, that is untrue. Why? Because it costs money to get large objects into space. LOTS of money and lots of fuel. If we are going to get a sizeable ship to go to other planets it will have to be assembled in space, not on Earth. The Moon is the perfect place for this because it can (potentially) have fuel, firm ground, and some gravity.

You sound as if this is one of your pet hobbies too, Matt; have you ever read about Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)), back in the 50's?

I've got to admit, I recoil in horror at this current NASA idea, and here's why.

According to rock samples taken from the surface, the age of the moon has been estimated at 4 billion years. The moon isn't subject to erosion; footprints from the Apollo moon landings are still there 40 years later, as well as evidence for countless impacts from space over those billions of years. That's due to no atmosphere/air/storms, no surface water, no tectonic activity. The only things that affect any changes to the moon's surface are either impacts from meteorites (which are actually rare), human exploration, and the solar wind that pushes fine particles up and out of the gravitational pull of the moon. Evidence of this kind of ejected particle erosion has been confirmed by discovery of rocky meteorites found in Antarctica which have been chemically identified as having come from the surface of Mars.

That's the scope of the scientific knowledge that would be utterly destroyed by any a surface detonation in even a small area, and this is not a small area we're talking about; its actually somewhere between 350 and 500 metric tons being thrown over a VAST area. This isn't progress, it doesn't display any scientific finesse; it's the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to archaeological artifacts to see what they're made of.

Irreplaceable scientific data that would be eradicated by this mission; the primary reason for the moon missions to go slowly, to preserve, catalog and analyse it. Howard Carter didn't blast his way into King Tut's tomb for similar reasons; likewise, I don't think we shouldn't blast lunar material six miles into space just to look for water.

In short, this is yet another example of government failing miserably at a task that could be done 100x better by a private institution.

KCIndy
06-18-2009, 04:24 AM
So are any of these rocks that are going to be blown up from the Moon pose a threat to the Earth?

No.

To hit Earth, the rocks blown off the lunar surface would have to reach "escape velocity" - that is, their speed would have to be sufficient to overcome the gravitational pull of the moon.

The debris thrown up from the impact will simply, albeit slowly, fall back down across the lunar surface.

Kraig
06-18-2009, 08:21 AM
Yes, that's one of the few legitimate functions of government; securing individual rights.

So you feel it is legitimate and morally right to steal my money for the sake of securing individual rights? Which individuals? Not mine if I am being stolen from. :mad:

Matt Collins
06-18-2009, 08:23 AM
You sound as if this is one of your pet hobbies too, Matt; have you ever read about Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29), back in the 50's?No, I grew up in Orlando. All of my friends dads were either defense engineers, or worked at NASA.



That's the scope of the scientific knowledge that would be utterly destroyed by any a surface detonation in even a small area, and this is not a small area we're talking about; its actually somewhere between 350 and 500 metric tons being thrown over a VAST area. This isn't progress, it doesn't display any scientific finesse; it's the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to archaeological artifacts to see what they're made of. The mass of the moon is 7.3477 1022 kg. You are talking about a very tiny and negligible fraction of that mass and of the surface area.





Irreplaceable scientific data that would be eradicated by this missionOnly on a very small area of the lunar surface.


I don't think we shouldn't blast lunar material six miles into space just to look for water.Well it's the best choice they presently have. They can't send serious drilling / excavating equipment up there.

Matt Collins
06-18-2009, 08:25 AM
So you feel it is legitimate and morally right to steal my money for the sake of securing individual rights? Which individuals? Not mine if I am being stolen from. :mad:How is government supposed to fund its actions to secure individual rights?

Kraig
06-18-2009, 08:27 AM
How is government supposed to fund its actions to secure individual rights?

Voluntarily. How are individual rights secured by theft? :confused:

Kraig
06-18-2009, 08:30 AM
Furthermore, how is funding NASA, for the sake of protecting us from natural disasters, loss of natural resources, as well as for scientific expansion ANY different than funding socialized healthcare for the sake of protecting us from bad health, personal disasters, etc.?

Say no to socialized medicine, say yes to socialized space protection and research??

Kraig
06-18-2009, 08:37 AM
If you want government for the sake of security, safety, protection, etc., at least say that. Don't pretend that it is for the sake of "individual rights" when the only way you can think to "protect" them is by violating them.

JoshLowry
06-18-2009, 08:38 AM
I've got to admit, I recoil in horror at this current NASA idea, and here's why.

According to rock samples taken from the surface, the age of the moon has been estimated at 4 billion years. The moon isn't subject to erosion; footprints from the Apollo moon landings are still there 40 years later, as well as evidence for countless impacts from space over those billions of years. That's due to no atmosphere/air/storms, no surface water, no tectonic activity. The only things that affect any changes to the moon's surface are either impacts from meteorites (which are actually rare), human exploration, and the solar wind that pushes fine particles up and out of the gravitational pull of the moon. Evidence of this kind of ejected particle erosion has been confirmed by discovery of rocky meteorites found in Antarctica which have been chemically identified as having come from the surface of Mars.

That's the scope of the scientific knowledge that would be utterly destroyed by any a surface detonation in even a small area, and this is not a small area we're talking about; its actually somewhere between 350 and 500 metric tons being thrown over a VAST area. This isn't progress, it doesn't display any scientific finesse; it's the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to archaeological artifacts to see what they're made of.

Irreplaceable scientific data that would be eradicated by this mission; the primary reason for the moon missions to go slowly, to preserve, catalog and analyse it. Howard Carter didn't blast his way into King Tut's tomb for similar reasons; likewise, I don't think we shouldn't blast lunar material six miles into space just to look for water.

In short, this is yet another example of government failing miserably at a task that could be done 100x better by a private institution.

+1

Surgeons use scalpels not machetes.

Matt Collins
06-18-2009, 08:40 AM
Voluntarily. As in war bonds?

Kraig
06-18-2009, 08:44 AM
As in war bonds?

As in try to convince me and everyone else to willingly hand their money over to this or that organization, I don't care about the specifics. Just don't put a gun to my head or threaten me with jail time to motivate me to "donate".

RevolutionSD
06-18-2009, 08:46 AM
What a great use of stolen loot!

RevolutionSD
06-18-2009, 08:47 AM
How is government supposed to fund its actions to secure individual rights?

Do you REALLY think government secures individual rights? How do you secure individual rights through collectivism?

Dr.3D
06-18-2009, 08:50 AM
Is there already such a shortage of ice on Earth that they now need to look for it somewhere else?

Matt Collins
06-18-2009, 09:27 AM
Do you REALLY think government secures individual rights? How do you secure individual rights through collectivism?Most governments don't. But ours is supposed to, if it would only follow its original documents.

Kraig
06-18-2009, 09:47 AM
Most governments don't. But ours is supposed to, if it would only follow its original documents.

Supposed to? How can you secure individual rights by violating them? It seems self defeating.

JoshLowry
06-18-2009, 09:54 AM
How can you secure individual rights by violating them?

By blowing up the moons!

Kraig
06-18-2009, 09:58 AM
By blowing up the moons!

lol ok you got me there

Conza88
06-18-2009, 10:00 AM
For the slow learners out there, *COUGH*...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023197.html


Here’s something to lighten the mood. The first privately-funded and privately-developed rocket, Falcon 1, has successfully made it into space. Falcon 1 was developed by SpaceX, a space-transportation startup company founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. Eight minutes after launch, Falcon 1 reached a speed of 5200 meters per second and passed above the International Space Station. Pretty cool.

You can watch the whole launch and flight into space on YouTube, of course.

YouTube - Success SpaceX Falcon 1 - Flight 4 - September 28, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ)

How'sa bout them apples? lol </those posting a rebuttal better not be citing the "accomplishments" of those who robbed an entire populace to accomplish their goal>

JoshLowry
06-18-2009, 10:01 AM
Leave out the insults and you've got a winner.

tangent4ronpaul
06-18-2009, 10:06 AM
Pretty impressive!

At such time as one can go up, hang out in orbit for a couple of weeks, dock with the space station and repair a satellite THEN it would be an appropriate time to discuss de-funding NASA. Until that day, I think we still need the space agency.

-t

Kraig
06-18-2009, 10:08 AM
Pretty impressive!

At such time as one can go up, hang out in orbit for a couple of weeks, dock with the space station and repair a satellite THEN it would be an appropriate time to discuss de-funding NASA. Until that day, I think we still need the space agency.

-t

So the issue of theft is irrelevant to you? :confused: I don't understand how everyone here seems to be pro-individual rights yet they seem to be willing to just brush this theft under the rug.

slacker921
06-18-2009, 10:10 AM
In 2007 the total budget for NASA accounted for only .58% of the total budget (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1)..

I can think of dozens of other things to get worked up about.

In the meantime I'll be tuning in at 5:30EST to watch the launch here:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/
or
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/webcast.htm

and giving a big golf clap when my tax dollars are used to launch something to the moon... even if it's going to smash into it.

Kraig
06-18-2009, 10:13 AM
I can think of dozens of other things to get worked up about.

and giving a big golf clap when my tax dollars are used to launch something to the moon... even if it's going to smash into it.

It's still theft, I'm not going to "golf clap" people who are taking my money.

tangent4ronpaul
06-18-2009, 10:21 AM
So the issue of theft is irrelevant to you? :confused: I don't understand how everyone here seems to be pro-individual rights yet they seem to be willing to just brush this theft under the rug.

It's a point of national pride. It's also critical to the defense of our country. You know, like think about checking the weather and be glad chance of fallout and current rads are not on the menu. Be thankful you can bounce calls off sats and see what is going on in other countries basically "live". If I had any say in where my tax dollars went, NASA would get a hell of a lot more than half a cent on the dollar!

Disclaimer: I used to work there.

-t

Kraig
06-18-2009, 10:32 AM
It's a point of national pride. It's also critical to the defense of our country. You know, like think about checking the weather and be glad chance of fallout and current rads are not on the menu. Be thankful you can bounce calls off sats and see what is going on in other countries basically "live". If I had any say in where my tax dollars went, NASA would get a hell of a lot more than half a cent on the dollar!

Disclaimer: I used to work there.

-t

None of that justifies theft. I mean honestly, could I use a similar justification to break into someone's house because I "need" something.

If you had a say in where your tax dollars went (couldn't really call them taxes at that point), then you could donate however much to NASA and I wouldn't try to stop you. If *I* had a say in where my tax dollars went, I wouldn't give a cent to NASA, which brings me to my point - if I did this, who here would try to stop me? Either directly or by passing laws to do it, both are the same.

It seems there are several here who would indeed try to stop me from holding onto my money, but they don't want to come out and say it like that. It's funny how you say the same thing differently and it then suddenly becomes difficult for people to accept.

Matt Collins
06-18-2009, 11:14 AM
Supposed to? How can you secure individual rights by violating them? It seems self defeating.You are at odds with the Declaration of Independence.

Kraig
06-18-2009, 11:16 AM
You are at odds with the Declaration of Independence.

lol no my odds are with taxes

tangent4ronpaul
06-18-2009, 12:16 PM
None of that justifies theft. I mean honestly, could I use a similar justification to break into someone's house because I "need" something.

If you had a say in where your tax dollars went (couldn't really call them taxes at that point), then you could donate however much to NASA and I wouldn't try to stop you. If *I* had a say in where my tax dollars went, I wouldn't give a cent to NASA, which brings me to my point - if I did this, who here would try to stop me? Either directly or by passing laws to do it, both are the same.

It seems there are several here who would indeed try to stop me from holding onto my money, but they don't want to come out and say it like that. It's funny how you say the same thing differently and it then suddenly becomes difficult for people to accept.

Hay, if you want to practice tax evasion I'm certainly not going to turn you in. But if you feel that strongly about it, grow a set and simply don't pay. I'm not twisting your arm.

I don't like how a lot of my tax dollars are spent, but I do pay them. I'm not forcing you to. My tax dollars are given voluntarily (not happily, but voluntarily). So back to this theft thing?

-t