NASA Is Going To Bomb The Moon

[CessnaDriver]

Originally Posted by sputnik

Clear skies and no plume, damn!

Don't feel bad.

Palomar, Keck, and Hubble didn't see a thing either.

LRO detected a plume though, but I don't know what that data is, images or just data.

I think we will get the desired science data in the end though.

This breeds more questions, why wasn't there the expected plume?

[Ryu]

Well they didn't use explosives, i believe they attempted kinetic energy to try an cause the plume. the rockets were two tons, traveling about 5,400 mph

[CessnaDriver]

Originally Posted by Ryu

Well they didn't use explosives, i believe they attempted kinetic energy to try an cause the plume. the rockets were two tons, traveling about 5,400 mph

I wonder how much explosive energy that translates to? Certainly a significant amount.





http://www.spaceflightnow.com/lcross/091009impact/

"Scientists now know some dust was excavated and kicked up by the impact, but questions remain regarding why the material was not as visible as expected.

Colaprete said this could be due to an impact on sloping terrain or the Centaur striking a rocky area inside Cabeus, limiting the upward movement of lunar soil upheaved by the strike.

Scientists maintain the sum total of the data is enough to fulfill the mission's lofty objectives."

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by CessnaDriver

Don't feel bad.

Palomar, Keck, and Hubble didn't see a thing either.

LRO detected a plume though, but I don't know what that data is, images or just data.

I think we will get the desired science data in the end though.

This breeds more questions, why wasn't there the expected plume?

Precisely. Was the crater more than 1.5km deep? Did we not hit a soft spot? Looking forward to the analysis.

[armitage]

Originally Posted by sputnik

Clear skies and no plume, damn!

you don't get a plume when you shoot into mud.

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by armitage

you don't get a plume when you shoot into mud.

So, you vote yes....there is defiantely water on the moon....and lots of it!

[CessnaDriver]

Well, anything like that would have shown up in orbital data.

There is some guesses right now why...


"Scientists now know some dust was excavated and kicked up by the impact, but questions remain regarding why the material was not as visible as expected.

Colaprete said this could be due to an impact on sloping terrain or the Centaur striking a rocky area inside Cabeus, limiting the upward movement of lunar soil upheaved by the strike.

Scientists maintain the sum total of the data is enough to fulfill the mission's lofty objectives. "



Either way, they have a ton of good data to go through and examine on what we couldn't see with telescopes. So waiting for that first report.

[armitage]

Originally Posted by CessnaDriver

Well, anything like that would have shown up in orbital data.

There is some guesses right now why...


"Scientists now know some dust was excavated and kicked up by the impact, but questions remain regarding why the material was not as visible as expected.

Colaprete said this could be due to an impact on sloping terrain or the Centaur striking a rocky area inside Cabeus, limiting the upward movement of lunar soil upheaved by the strike.

Scientists maintain the sum total of the data is enough to fulfill the mission's lofty objectives. "



Either way, they have a ton of good data to go through and examine on what we couldn't see with telescopes. So waiting for that first report.

Cessna..you seem pretty informed about these things.
Have you ever seen videos or pics of moon anomalies? Towers,domes,bridges,geysers or geometric shapes in photos?
Nasa is also known for smudging areas with photoshop in their photos, why would they go through the trouble if they were'nt trying to cover something up?
Do you think there's any substance to the ancient
structures or bases on the moon rumors?

[CessnaDriver]

Originally Posted by armitage

Cessna..you seem pretty informed about these things.
Have you ever seen videos or pics of moon anomalies? Towers,domes,bridges,geysers or geometric shapes in photos?
Nasa is also known for smudging areas with photoshop in their photos, why would they go through the trouble if they were'nt trying to cover something up?
Do you think there's any substance to the ancient
structures or bases on the moon rumors?

None whatsoever.

I wouldn't say NASA is known to alter anything for purpose of cover ups. I am very down on that kind of thing, it's popular on TV and with the conspiricys crowd, sells books and gets ratings, but in my view it is without any merit at all.

Never in my lifetime of following astronomy and aerospace very closely have I been given to any serious concerns that NASA would do, or has reason to do such things. Why even release the image in the first place? I've met and spoke with astronauts from Apollo to Shuttle, been to dozens of lectures, taken classes, listened to engineers, astronomers and other scientists, subscribed to industry and science literature for decades, done my share of amateur astronomy, I also have personal experience as a private pilot for what that is worth, it does get you exposed to aerospace individuals. That is my background.



Yes, there are transient lunar phenomenon, it's not a completely dead place. There are still many discoverys to make most certainly about the moon.

Light and shadows can make patterns that the human mind picks out and subcribe meaning to. That famous "face" on Mars is a classic example, once hi res images were obtained, it was nothing like a face at all of course. But little industrys get built up around this stuff sometimes, so the cover up stuff begins.


Believe me though, if the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey is up there waiting for us, nobody would be more pleased then I.

[Argonus]

Originally Posted by Alex655321

Hope they don't retaliate