| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 3:40:12 PM | Why the sudden need to bomb the moon, especially in this economy? Richard Haughland thinks there are space stations on the moon. I wonder if there may be a connection. I believe he wrote a book called 'Dark Mission' he says there are all sorts of extra terrestrial beings using the moon for mining, etc...Sounds weird, maybe someone knows more.
BTW some of you folks on the forums get pretty fiesty, and down right mean, I'm just asking a question; I don't need rude people responding....Go Billy Mays' Sham Wow conspiracy thread. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 3:55:11 PM | | I can see it now HEADLINE...."NASA moon bombing violates space law & may cause conflict with lunar ET/UFO civilizations" Id love to watch the UN enforce that treaty,lol | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 4:04:21 PM | They're looking for traces of water.
There are no space aliens on the moon. There is no interstellar war to worry about. The moon is NOT made of cheese and the Earth is NOT flat. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 4:04:22 PM | | http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5566137/Nasa-prepares-to-bomb-the-moon.html | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 4:26:07 PM | It depends on how you define "bomb". What has been happening, is that satellites or fractions of satellites are being allowed (or directed) to impact the Moon. Or other bodies (an impactor was designed to run into another body).
These collisions are all about kinetic energy, there is no explosive on board. That is why I question the definition of bomb.
If an inbound projectile impacts with sufficient kinetic energy, some "parent" material is kicked up. The energy of the collision often means that a significant fraction of the kicked up parent material is at high temperature, and as it cools it may give rise to radiation (colours of light usually) which we can detect. In essence, we are doing chemistry on the remote body. In a sense, this is similar to a technology called PIXE (Proton Induced X-ray Emission).
As far as we know, all small bodies in the solar system lack low atomic number elements (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, ...). If a fluke of geography of the Moon has allowed it to accumulate some low atomic number elements near the south lunar pole, that is useful.
(I am ignoring the fact that some meteorites and asteroids contain low atomic number materials. The problem is that they are never around when you need them.) | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 4:45:45 PM | will these parent materials be used to date the moon; for mineral exploration; find evidence of water (like the poster stated above) or, or, or???
NASA must have a huge budget, or did they get some stimulous cash to do this?
By the way, y'all are being very polite! | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 4:49:21 PM | http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5566137/Nasa-prepares-to-bomb-the-moon.html
Edit: ^^ Okay, so you're wondering at the how and why... I can respect that. But this was a Really Cheap mission. They're using an expended upper stage of the launch rocket as the impactor, and piggy-backing two missions on the same launch vehicle. If you want to talk about "all that money," you should probably be asking about bigger line items than NASA's budget.
| |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:04:23 PM | | well, sorry. I learned a whole lot more from the other posters. Manners and decency are appreciated. I feel bad you have to use a forum like this not as an exchange of ideas and creative discussion, but rather as a format to rant. I hope you find someone who will love you; until then, thank you for your opinion. Now kindly go to the Sham-Wow site, I hear they're 3 for $9.99 if you order now! | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:10:51 PM | Aww... I still find it amazing that you didn't apply any of the information that was provided even in that very brief online news piece before looking for an intellectual handout, while regurgitating a tired, completely discredited, conspiracy theory around the subject.
I mean, who would bother to keep themselves "up-to-date" on conspiracy theories without at least looking into the actual science just a little bit? Oh yeah... never mind.
Edit:
Why the sudden need to bomb the moon, especially in this economy? Richard Haughland thinks there are space stations on the moon. I wonder if there may be a connection. I believe he wrote a book called 'Dark Mission' he says there are all sorts of extra terrestrial beings using the moon for mining, etc...Sounds weird, maybe someone knows more.
When someone who works in "science," and does environmental work spends a lot more time keeping up on the conspiracy theories of Hoagland than even reading the information they themselves provided as a backgrounder... that's just silly.
BTW some of you folks on the forums get pretty fiesty, and down right mean, I'm just asking a question; I don't need rude people responding....Go Billy Mays' Sham Wow conspiracy thread.
....
well, sorry. I learned a whole lot more from the other posters. Manners and decency are appreciated. I feel bad you have to use a forum like this not as an exchange of ideas and creative discussion, but rather as a format to rant. I hope you find someone who will love you; until then, thank you for your opinion. Now kindly go to the Sham-Wow site, I hear they're 3 for $9.99 if you order now!
Okay, so you came into a Science forum and posted an anti-science paranoid conspiracy theory, didn't read a damn thing about the topic at hand, and wonder why anyone would be anything but staggeringly polite...
That's like the kid with glasses running onto the football field, slapping the quarterback and screaming, "don't hit me, I've got glasses!"
Please, don't burden yourself with worry about my love life. I surely wouldn't want to be saddled with someone who was intellectually lazy IN A FIELD RELATED TO THEIR OWN FIELD, and not emotionally strong enough to take a little light criticism for it. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:20:43 PM | I would say to the critics of this moon endeavor, maybe a bit friviolous but with ALL governmental expendatures in the budget for 2009, entitlements (welfare, SS, SSI, DOD etc.) NASA's buget is something on the order of about 1.5% of the entire budget. the department of agriculture gets more money than NASA. granted the ISS could of been done on about 1/3 of its cost..but we all know how effecient they are :/
(btw to the earlier posts ..of course i know thats not the moon's mission ,alien invasion that is..its called sarcasm) | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:33:49 PM | Most of what know about the Moon (or other bodies) is passive. The body is in some kind of an environment, and we watch to find out something about it.
Our ability to make accurate determinations depends on how much we know about the environment and all the interactions which end up in the response we observe.
In an active experiment, we are imposing a stimulus at our time of choosing. We analyze everything we see within a reasonable time-frame of that event, and hope to recover good information.
Doing an abrupt experiment (such as crashing something into the Moon) is of a short time frame, we only see information for a very short period of time. In a passive experiment, the data can almost be forever. They are complementary. What is nice about the "impact" experiments, is that they may provide us with information which makes the passive experiment easier to understand.
In order to get dating information, you need to excite nuclear levels (energy levels in the nucleus). It is not likely that the impact will be exciting nuclear energy levels. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 5:50:18 PM | In regards to aliens hiding/mining on the moon...
Why would their (obviously) far more technologically advanced selves travel across the vast distances of space only to extract resources from a baron rock?... Surely obtaining the Earth and it's resources would be of much higher benefit to them?...
That would be kinda like a burglar managing to break into buckingham palace only to start filing his pockets with dirt from a pot-plant...
Do yourself a favour friend. Dont entertain the idea... | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 6:19:45 PM |
Why would their (obviously) far more technologically advanced selves travel across the vast distances of space only to extract resources from a baron rock?... Surely obtaining the Earth and it's resources would be of much higher benefit to them?...
Why even bother making the trip? They're more than likely to find the resources they need a lot closer to home.
Very poor choice in words by the headline and story writers in the Telegraph story. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 6:22:21 PM | the "bomb" would be more along the lines of a "gas spectrometer"....knowing the colours that burn can lead to knowledge of what IS being burned....which is how they can tell the make-up of various compounds or stars or whatever. Can't quite remember the name of the scince experiment involved in that...gas chronometry or some such thing.
Bases on the moon? not yet......but they will be opurs...not some some aliens.
Try to remember....every dollar SPENT on the space program STAYS on earth. Meaning BIG BUDGET projects creating good jobs and spin-off jobs and businesses which would turn the economy around. We need a WAY bigger budget for space. Let's DO it! | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 6:56:33 PM | Why the sudden need to bomb the moon, especially in this economy? Richard Haughland thinks there are space stations on the moon. I wonder if there may be a connection.
Oh No! Don't tell me that Richard Hoagland crawled back out from under his pile of rocks and is trying to start up another one of his "extraterrestrial frenzies" again! (You may remember him ... He's the guy who pushed his crackpot "theory" about the "face on Mars" a number of years ago. It later was shown to be nothing more than a pile of rocks.) | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/28/2009 8:09:16 PM |
Oh No! Don't tell me that Richard Hoagland crawled back out from under his pile of rocks and is trying to start up another one of his "extraterrestrial frenzies" again!
Mortgage must be due. | |
|
| |
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/29/2009 12:19:21 AM | I know the REAL reason why NASA is undertaking this mission...
To stop the coming 4th Reich! The NAZIS have been hiding in a secret MOONBASE!
OH NOES!!!
http://www.ironsky.net/
Head fer the hills, ma! The SPACE HUNS ARE COMING!
 | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/29/2009 2:35:33 AM | That is so not fair 'themadfiddler', you totally stole my idea of plugging iron sky in an conspiracy moon base oriented thread.
In any case it'll be interesting to see just what's buried under that rocky surface, sure we got moon rocks but those are just from the surface, the stuff buried down 10 to 20 feet would probably be more along the lines of the moon's natural material instead of impact residue. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/29/2009 3:07:51 AM |
will these parent materials be used to date the moon; for mineral exploration; find evidence of water (like the poster stated above) or, or, or???
Do you have any idea how much it cost the Appollo missions to bring back 200 lbs worth of moon rock/soil? Even if the moon was made of pure platinum or gold, you couldn't possibly bring back enough to offset the cost of getting there and back.
It's not a bomb (even though wouldn't that be something to watch a nuclear explosion on the moon from here on earth) it's a collision to cause massive amounts of the moon to be ejected into space so spectrometers can determine if water exists. If water exists it theoretically could be used by a future moon base/station. It can be split using solar cells into hydrogen for fuel and oxygen to breathe. As well as supply drinking water. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/29/2009 8:38:43 AM | A few groups have done similar things, looking to bring back He-3. I believe the He-3 ideas are feasible financially. I believe bring back something like a tonne of rock for gram quantity souvenirs also comes close to breakeven.
For me, if someone is going to go to the Moon to bring back rocks or He-3, they are going to be leaving stuff behind as well. I would like them to leave behind parts, machines, ... made of very particular things: Cu, Ag, V, Sn and a handful of other elements. That way, when we try to set up a base on the Moon, we have a source of alloying elements to use with the Al, Ti and Fe we can find there now. The silver and copper are pretty easy to include as wire for electrical wiring. Vanadium can substitute for Fe in a few places. I have no idea what kind of component one would build out of Sn. I suppose something will come to mind eventually. | |
|
| NASA to bomb the moon-why?
Posted: 6/29/2009 8:43:16 AM |
That is so not fair 'themadfiddler', you totally stole my idea of plugging iron sky in an conspiracy moon base oriented thread.
In any case it'll be interesting to see just what's buried under that rocky surface, sure we got moon rocks but those are just from the surface, the stuff buried down 10 to 20 feet would probably be more along the lines of the moon's natural material instead of impact residue.
Full credit to you, you did do it first as I recall...but it was so good it had to be done again. Of course remember now if anyone else pinches your line they now have to be thrown under a lunar lander (apologies to Python crew) "Oh, you're no fun anymore" | |
|
Home
login 
