Nasa prepares to bomb the moon

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
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?

Researchers and space enthusiasts seehelium 3 as the perfect fuel source
www.space.com...

"Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron, rare on Earth, sought for use in nuclear fusion research. The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years) and the solar system's gas giants (left over from the original solar nebula), though still low in quantity (28 ppm of lunar regolith is helium-4 and 0.01 ppm is helium-3).[1] It is proposed to be used as a second-generation fusion power source."

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by reugen


Wow. That sounds like impressive stuff. Maybe get us out of this oil mess we are in?

Thanks for your comments.

Let's suppose that despite Nasa's official line that the Moon has no air/no atmosphere,that Life is presently on the Moon.That may be a stretch for most of you to imagine.Can I instead interest you in previous life on the Moon as proof? E6722maj www.disclose.tv...

How come it's going to take so long to get to the moon ?! I mean, it's left earth already and impact is due on the 8th of october ! Why the hell is it taking so long ?

reply to post by WeSbO


What??:

It's in orbit now!

reply to post by WeSbO
There is a video on www.space.com which shows a very wide series of orbits after a tight series of circles surrounding the moon.The cammera gets the working order done as the striking body rocket delays,so then it can get captured on cam before /during/after at the target zone.

Originally posted by WeSbO
How come it's going to take so long to get to the moon ?! I mean, it's left earth already and impact is due on the 8th of october ! Why the hell is it taking so long ?

The mission has other goals before the actual impact. There are also two space craft involved LRO and LCross, which itself is two parts as well, both of which will impact.

You can follow it all here

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - Will we finally see the Moon Base?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LCross just sent live TV scans as it flew by the moon this morning at 5.10 am Unfortunately I was not up to watch



[edit on 23-6-2009 by zorgon]

ARE YOU SURE THEY ARE BOMBING OR DRILLING

ARE YOU SURE THEY ARE BOMBING AND NOT DRILLING

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
ARE YOU SURE THEY ARE BOMBING AND NOT DRILLING

No capitals please...

Scientific American says "bombing' so does BBC. There is no drill... the space craft will smash into the moon... so bombing is correct, even if there are no explosives (errrr rocket fuel ) on board

Originally posted by Kashodi
So we are launching it today. Does anybody know when it will be ready to be fired at the moon? Whats the best time to be looking upwards?
Twice as fast as a bullet? I didnt even realize we had the technology to send something the size of a washing machine that fast!

Sorry if this has already been addressed but just to let you know Kashodi we already have plenty of declassified technologies that are capable of propelling objects the size of washing machines and often even larger at those speeds. First off bullets are subjective, a .45 cal handgun bullet for example usually leaves the muzzle at approx.(all numbers from here on out are approximations) 800 feet per second mach 1 at sea level is around 1300 fps so an F-4 phantom (circa late 1950's tech) is capable of traveling twice as fast as a .45 cal bullet. Now lets take a much faster bullet, a .223 rifle bullet (5.56mm, what an M-16/M4 carbine fires) which travels anywhere between 2400 fps and 3000 fps + depending on the grain of the projectile and the amount of powder used, that equates to somewhere in the range of mach 2 to mach 2.5ish, the North American X-15 (again late 50s early 60s tech) reached speeds in excess of mach 6 again twice the speed of a .223 at its fastest point (the time it exits the muzzle.) I should point out that both the F-4 Phantom and the X-15 were both slightly larger than most washing machines. I will withhold my opinion on the moon bomb as it has been called but i just thought that i would share this to put that statement into perspective.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3b51b803160.jpg[/atsimg]

Revelation 8:12
And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

bibleresources.bible.com... ion3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=35&Submit.y=8

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
But we are spending a lot of money on this mission.

No more money than on any other probe. $500 million for LRO and $79 million for LCROSS. To us it's a lot of money, but compared to other similar probes it's not that much. And compared to what the US spends on the war or on bailouts, this is pocket change.

Originally posted by zorgon
Scientific American says "bombing' so does BBC.

I really don't like the term "bombing" for this. It creates too many misconceptions in peoples minds. Many of the posts in this thread being a great example of that. I think the word "impacting" is more appropriate, as it does not imply it being an explosive weapon. But "bombing" is much more of an attention getter I guess.

Originally posted by jra But "bombing" is much more of an attention getter I guess.

Yup that's why the news media used that... and also how many would understand 'impacting'?



But that Scientific American used that term... that concerns me. Almost as if this was planned to stir up the masses?

I mean even NASA is doing it with articles like the Flyby shooting of Venus with a laser... Just what message are they sending to kids these days?

June 5, 2007: Picture this: A spaceship swoops in from the void, plunging toward a cloudy planet about the size of Earth. A laser beam lances out from the ship; it probes the planet's clouds, striving to reach the hidden surface below. Meanwhile, back on the craft's home world, scientists perch on the edge of their seats waiting to see what happens.

Sounds like science fiction? This is real, and it's happening today.

science.nasa.gov...

Way to go NASA Intergalactic Gangsters

Just a thought to throw out.

As we all know with the moon receding away from the earth (what do you mean you didn't know?Tut tut),about 3 cm a year I think has been stated.
I could be wrong on that measurement but it is fact that it is definitely receding.

Could that be a reason for a little tap or two?
The previous taps,and the up coming tap in October.

Crazy thought or maybe not?

Not bad

But maybe they should look for the spaceship that towed the moon here. Norm Bergrun says its hidden somewhere on Farside, maybe near Tsilkovsky Crater

reply to post by 0010110011101


Here is a crazy thought. Maybe they are bombing for construction reasons. They may have a 5 star Hotel going up.




I also used this on my thread

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Weird isnt it. No doubt something is going on!

Lockhead Martin won the contract, for their Orion space crew module.




This is a Spaceport being made in Mexico.




This is the Lunar Space Flight Path

reply to post by wonderworld

This is a Spaceport being made in Mexico.

I heard about construction beginning on a 'Spaceport' in New Mexico. Is that what you meant?

What got me thinking, as I wrote that, is how strange it is to build a Spaceport in the middle of the desert, and not near an ocean. Because, with conventional multi-staging rocketry it seems a hazard to the population as spent stages are discarded over land!

(I know, the Russians do it, but they have Siberia!!)

So....this would lend itself, maybe, to the contemplation of better, more exotic launch propulsion techniques???

Seems a logical disconnect here, awarding the contract to Lockheed for what looks like Apollo's big brother, using multi-staging for the launch vehicle.

Am I missing something?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

What got me thinking, as I wrote that, is how strange it is to build a Spaceport in the middle of the desert, and not near an ocean. Because, with conventional multi-staging rocketry it seems a hazard to the population as spent stages are discarded over land!

Am I missing something?

Don't you usually miss something?

I guess you haven't been following Virgin Galactic's effort. They are NOT using "conventional multi-staging rocketry" They use one stage to orbit dropping from an airplane

www.virgingalactic.com...

Maybe you can get a job I hear they need pilots

This Spaceport America is Branson's place

But this is the Moon Bombing thread not the Spaceport thread

Workers to break ground on New Mexico spaceport
www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 24-6-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by weedwhacker

What got me thinking, as I wrote that, is how strange it is to build a Spaceport in the middle of the desert, and not near an ocean. Because, with conventional multi-staging rocketry it seems a hazard to the population as spent stages are discarded over land!

(I know, the Russians do it, but they have Siberia!!)

So....this would lend itself, maybe, to the contemplation of better, more exotic launch propulsion techniques???

Seems a logical disconnect here, awarding the contract to Lockheed for what looks like Apollo's big brother, using multi-staging for the launch vehicle.

Am I missing something?

You have a good point about the spent rods. I think they drop a lot in the back hills of Nevada and even built a storage facility to hold the WOLDS spent nuke rods, in the Yucca mountains. They are safe there deep inside. I just checked and did not see one burila site for the spent rods in Mexico. Very odd.

I know it's not cheap labor, since we have aeronautical engineers from Lockheed and Ford Aerospace working on them.

Speaking of Russians; Don’t quote me on this but I believe they will be getting assistance from the Russian space agency.

The location was chosen after extensive studies in part because of its proximity to the Equator to be aimed in an eastward direction.. they maximize use of the Earth's rotational speed, and a good orientation for arriving at a geostationary orbitGeostationary orbit.

A geostationary orbit is a geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator , with a period equal to the Earth's rotational period and an orbital eccentricity of approximately zero....
That one has me stumped too. What do you think?

Brazil spaceports are over the Atlantic ocean.

The only one I could find over an ocean was Russia's

There have only been a handful of Spaceports built

list of spaceports, sorted by geographical location
www.spacetoday.org...