It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nasa prepares to bomb the moon

page: 19
69
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I understand what you're saying, it's my fault for trying to sound scientific at 3 in the morning.

What I was trying to say is that the Moon doesn't rotate like the Earth in that the Earth's axis of rotation allows for the casting of sunlight on every part of the planet. As is evidenced by the previous experiments regarding the ice on the moon, there are parts of the moon that never receive sunlight. These areas are generally on the inside of crater walls and portions of the crater floors for craters located at the southern and northern most areas of the Moon.

If you took a ball of clay and poked a punch of holes in it to simulate craters and then moved a desk lamp around it's hemisphere you would notice that some small areas inside the craters will never receive light.

Basically, due to the way the Moon rotates, there are areas in constant shadow.

Damn it Jim, I'm an artist, not a scientist!

EDIT: I think I was also trying to say that the Moon doesn't rotate relative to the viewer on Earth, which is why we only see one side. Next time I'll stay out of scientific discussions when my blurry eyes are quickly closing lol

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Shadowflux]




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


Also, the same side of the moon is always facing the earth...



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Thats the Soul catcher they are firing apon just ask "john Lear" hell tell ya.
It's time the decided are souls were free lol



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seridium
Thats the Soul catcher they are firing upon just ask "john Lear" he'll tell ya.


No the Soul Catcher is in Sinus Medii not the South Pole


Press release, day after impact.

"NASA admits mistake: Nasa scientists today announce that they have mad a miscalculations and there is a slight problem..."

Article from "The Looking Glass" Dec 13, 2009


Caption: Houston we have a problem...







[edit on 22-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by seridium
Thats the Soul catcher they are firing upon just ask "john Lear" he'll tell ya.


No the Soul Catcher is in Sinus Medii not the South Pole


Press release, day after impact.

"NASA admits mistake: Nasa scientists today announce that they have mad a miscalculations and there is a slight problem..."

Article from "The Looking Glass" Dec 13, 2009


WTF????


Caption: Houston we have a problem...







[edit on 22-6-2009 by zorgon]



HUH?

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Trunkeight]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
First I want to say I think NASA/USA are wrong to be damaging the moon without asking the rest of the planet first.

Is it possible they have been firing things into the moon for years and it has been having an effect on the earth… eg climate change. Maybe they are trying to correct an earlier experiment, or maybe they are trying to manage earths climate with the moon, who knows.

I do however have a theory which I would like to share with you. My father mentioned this to me when I was a nipper and that was about 40 years ago. I have kept it in the back of my mind since.

The thing is that any craft that we send into space is made from precious metals. Things like gold, silver, titanium, nickel, copper, lead, etc
These heavy metals have taken millions of years to accumulate on the earth. They are spread over large areas and mixed in with other rock and minerals.

In only the past 50 years man has mined these substances in huge quantities, refined them into concentrated piles and used them to make space craft and then blasted them off the planet into space and more recently onto neighbouring objects such as the moon.

In my view this activity is most unnatural and is quite likely to be having an effect on our gravitational balance and our magnetic field.

With each rocket launch we probably undo millions of years worth of metal accumulation on earth.

With NASA now actually firing lumps of stuff at other bodies such as the moon and mars this process of offloading heavy metal is speeding up and in my view very likely to cause significant shift of equilibrium between the bodies, resulting in changes to climate, weather patterns, air land and sea temperatures, tidal and jet stream flows, and christ knows what else.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Hopefully this isn't true, it will have devestating effects all round. Surely this won't go through, we have the moon for a reason thats naturaly akin to our sun and earth.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, all heavy elements come exclusively from Nova or Supernova explosions. They really are rare.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 



Hey, big!

With all respect for your Dad, it being father's Day and all yesterday, I wouldn't worry too much about the mass we've shot into space just yet.

Here's how massive the Earth is:

en.wikipedia.org...

Earth mass (M⊕) is the unit of mass equal to that of the Earth. 1 M⊕ = 5.9742 × 1024 kg.

Edit: The little exponent notation didn't translate well from Wiki. That "1024" should be read as "10 to the 24th power" (10 with a little 24 next to it)

That is, written out, 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg. ( A Kg = 2.2 pounds) SO, let's see....nearly six septillion kilograms!

Even IF we've launched a Billion Kg into space, never to return (and that is a gross overexaggeration!) it'd be arbout 0.0000000000000059% (or so, my calculator just blew up!) I am probably off by a zero, or two, but it is really quite insignificant.



[edit on 6/22/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
With all respect for your Dad, it being father's Day and all yesterday, I wouldn't worry too much about the mass we've shot into space just yet.


Yup Whachy's right... nothing to worry about, lots of room out there to strew our junque into. And he's a pilot, so he would have no trouble navigating through this...






[edit on 22-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



lots of room out there to strew our junque into.


Hey now, ziggy, let's keep my 'junque' outta this! It's precious to me




...so he would have no trouble navigating through this...


Send some other guinea pig. I have a Union.


However, perhaps the rest of us should invest in extra-strong tinfoil hats, for when it all begins to fall back down??



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Send some other guinea pig. I have a Union.


Well you don't have to go out their if your chicken... you can dodge it down here... and your gonna need more than tin foil


Flaming Space Junk Narrowly Misses Jet
28th March 2007, 11:15 WST
www.thewest.com.au...

Mar 24, 2008 Brazil



Mar 27 2008 Australia




Seems Chicken Little was right after all











[edit on 22-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Im curious. under the U.N resolution. this bombing on the moon against this. Are we the only ones to light missles off and other countries are not. bomb the moon. to find out whats below the surface. a missle, long range, test. maybe other countries can test thier long range missles test. i wonder what other countries will say to this.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pudgeego
Im curious. under the U.N resolution.


Speech by John Kennedy at the United Nations



"Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply."


He also said...


I refer, of course, to the treaty to ban nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water--concluded by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States--and already signed by nearly 100 countries.


And this...


We have, in recent years, agreed on a limited test ban treaty, on an emergency communications link between our capitals, on a statement of principles for disarmament, on an increase in cultural exchange, on cooperation in outer space, on the peaceful exploration of the Antarctic, and on temporing last year's crisis over Cuba.


And this...


We must continue to seek agreement, encouraged by yesterday's affirmative response to this proposal by the Soviet Foreign Minister, on an arrangement to keep weapons of mass destruction out of outer space. Let us get our negotiators back to the negotiating table to work out a practicable arrangement to this end.


Address Before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations

President John F. Kennedy
New York
September 20, 1963
www.jfklibrary.org...


So no WMD's in Space.. but as to any claims... he who holds the land, holds the deed


Besides who has a fleet of spaceships to police what goes on out there?


So... BOMBS AWAY>>>>>>>




[edit on 22-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Uh oh. This couldnt be too good. I was just watching the remake of Time Machine the other day where at one point the moon is broken apart and crashing into the earth. It was not a pretty picture, and I hope that does not happen when they bomb the moon. It could be really sucky if that happened. Someone on here was talking about how the tides could/would get extemely messed up if we bombed the moon, and I could see how that could be a possibility. That would not be good because I live on a freakin island and as I sit here typing i can hear and see the ocean from my house... so yeah tidal changes would be a no go.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaninE.G
Uh oh. This couldnt be too good. I was just watching the remake of Time Machine the other day where at one point the moon is broken apart and crashing into the earth.


Oh yeah that would certainly qualify as 'not good'


Would look something like this perhaps




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Wow.. Well, I don't know about all that. But during the 1950's, even Carl Sagan believed that nuking the moon could benefit science. The plan was in the works for years. It just never came to fruition. Carl Sagan was actually one of the researchers on the project.

Here's the article from Space.com

Air Force Had Plans to Nuke Moon



The U.S. Air Force developed a top-secret Cold War plan to detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon in the 1950s.

In a letter to the journal Nature, physicist Leonard Reiffel, leader of the effort which was called Project A 119, wrote that the Air Force wanted to explore the effects of exploding a nuclear bomb on the moons face. The Air Force wanted the explosion to be clearly visible from Earth.

Reiffel wrote that the military leaders did not seem concerned with the loss to science that would have resulted from a large atomic explosion on the moons surface. Let alone what it may have done to the appearance of the "man in the moon."

Part of the team researching the hypothetical explosion was a young Carl Sagan, who was recruited to study how the mushroom cloud would expand and collapse under the moons lighter gravity. Sagan proposed that a legitimate scientific purpose for the explosion could have been examining the cloud for possible organic material.

Years later, Sagan apparently presented some of the results of his research on the project in an application for an academic fellowship. Reiffel believes that by doing so Sagan breached national security, as the primary secret of the project was its very existence. This breach of security was discussed in a recent biography of the astronomer, but was not detailed in that book.

Striking the moon with one of the then-available Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) was entirely feasible, Reiffel wrote, to an accuracy within a couple of miles (kilometers).


Of coarse, back then the military wanted to test nukes everywhere. And they believed that space would inevitably be the battlefield of the future. They were absolutely right. Their thinking was just decades ahead of reality. Alot of this was probably fueled by the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Russia during the cold war. But comon.. The moon? How would that benefit anything? The original idea was to justify using the nuke for scientific purposes and then use the military to monitor and observe the after-effects on the moon's surface from earth.

In other words it was going to be a secret, carefully orchestrated nuclear test that would have publicly been conducted in the name of science.

But these were completely different times too. The immense sums of money going into nuclear weapons research in the fifties and sixties (post ww2 era) was staggering when you combine American and Russian efforts to refine and perfect their nuke designs. People really thought that a nuclear exchange was only a matter of time.. And most people within the military believed nuclear war was going to be the way future conflicts would unfold. After the arms race kicked off and then the space race.. All bets were off (of coarse, alot of this happened a bit later).

-ChriS

[edit on 23-6-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bigyin
 



Hey, big!

With all respect for your Dad, it being father's Day and all yesterday, I wouldn't worry too much about the mass we've shot into space just yet.

Here's how massive the Earth is:

en.wikipedia.org...

Earth mass (M⊕) is the unit of mass equal to that of the Earth. 1 M⊕ = 5.9742 × 1024 kg.

Edit: The little exponent notation didn't translate well from Wiki. That "1024" should be read as "10 to the 24th power" (10 with a little 24 next to it)

That is, written out, 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg. ( A Kg = 2.2 pounds) SO, let's see....nearly six septillion kilograms!

Even IF we've launched a Billion Kg into space, never to return (and that is a gross overexaggeration!) it'd be arbout 0.0000000000000059% (or so, my calculator just blew up!) I am probably off by a zero, or two, but it is really quite insignificant.



[edit on 6/22/0909 by weedwhacker]



With all due respect to you, you have missed my point. It's nothing to do with mass. You could have a mountain of sand or rock but it wont be magnetic. A tiny piece of iron is magnetic. Throw away enough iron and you will affect the magnetic field of the planet.

Same with the particular qualities of heavy precious metals. It only takes a small quantity to be lost to be significant.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


big, I didn't miss your point, I was trying to dispel some misconceptions.

You said:


The thing is that any craft that we send into space is made from precious metals. Things like gold, silver, titanium, nickel, copper, lead, etc These heavy metals have taken millions of years to accumulate on the earth. They are spread over large areas and mixed in with other rock and minerals.

In only the past 50 years man has mined these substances in huge quantities, refined them into concentrated piles and used them to make space craft and then blasted them off the planet...


Gold, silver, titanium, nickel, copper and lead are not ferrous metals, therefore not magnetic.

Anyways, the Earth's magnetic field doesn't stem from material in the crust -- it is a result of the spinning heavy core of the planet (likely mostly iron, but that is speculative).


Many things can affect the Earth, the rate of spin for instance. The Moon has a huge influence, gradually slowing our rate of rotation. At least two reasons for this, the tidal drag of the oceans due to the Moon's gravitational pull as they wax and wane; the sea floor is very bumpy, not flat smooth. Also, the Law of Conservation of Momentum as the Moon orbits the Earth. Both Earth and Moon actually have a common point that would be the center of the mass of the two (I've read that this point lies at some depth below Earth's surface) but, because of the huge difference in mass, the 'wobble' on Earth is negligible.

Plate tectonics, another natural event. The outer crusts' weight constantly being redistributed. THAT certainly has an effect. Again, so tiny and gradual as to be undetectable by Humans because it would only be noticeable over geological time frames.

Speaking of long time frames, with the impact formation theory explaining the genesis of the Moon, it can be safe to infer that both bodies were rotating much faster as they were coalescing after the big impact. The mutual gravitation over billions of years result in the cycles we observe today. If we had evolved, say, 250 million years ago, the Moon would be closer and the days on Earth would likely be shorter (how much shorter is a matter of conjecture).

Now...tell me again about those spaceships made out of goold and silver. I'd like to get my hands on one of 'em!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Haven't visited this thread in a while, and I see the debate continues!

Interesting stuff, though. Got some clowns on here , too.
(Funny clowns).

I have a question.

Does anybody know what is the importance of Helium 3, and what would we use it for?

I'm thinking (yes, weedwhacker you have convinced me) we are not damaging the moon. Hopefully. As far as we know.

But we are spending a lot of money on this mission.

Does the end justify the means?



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join