Nasa prepares to bomb the moon

reply to post by zorgon


It's the Orion Crew Module and the Spacebots that dispose spent nuke rods. They dont get to space from a plane??

This is an Orion Crew Module both of these need a way to launch. Nukes are the only practical answer.

reply to post by zorgon

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

Sheesh! I know about Sir Richard and his endeavours!

His project is nothing more than a short sub-orbital tourist flight. Where's the payload capability???

Hint: I was alluding to something else and you didn't take the bait...shame.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I am pleased that my thread on the Spaceports and economy has all the info you need. This thread wasnt about Spaceports was it but it's O.K because I have the same conclusion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please look again at cleaned up image of Moon Faces. With different sizes and elimination of surroundings they become clearer.These faces are quite large,and I don't know the exact scale. Look for the circles /pupils of the eyes,perfect circles,not statues. I'm suggesting that we are such newcomers (humanoid Earth people) that we don't know the Earth history yet,so now we are playing with fire by NOT understanding what we are messing with,like kids with loaded guns. If there are ancient Moon civilizations,then there could be present day civilization beneath the Moon and Mars(Venus and other planets too for that matter). Many accounts of UFO abductees report huge massive alien ships near Saturn. I wonder why they prefer Saturn to Jupiter ? While for 5 years I concentrated my efforts toward unmasking life on Mars,I neglected the Moon.Meanwhile I was unaware that "impacting" the Moon was so popular and soon in coming.The timing is before disclosure of the UFO Alien agenda. This could be the beginning of an Alien backlash if it violates their "TURF". Imagines hives of underground miners like grey aliens working in Moon mines or anywhere near the surface.They warned off the Apollo astronauts 1970's,so why wouldn't they stir now if our little pop gun experiments rile their minions,raise their ire,wrankle their last nerve,skeeve their hackles? Mars people might seem TAME by comparrison,and at least THEY are further away.

reply to post by zorgon


With all that we have now and things we take for granted,it would of all been considered things of the impossible by our distant ancestors.
Its a shame many still have not progressed beyond that way of thinking.Also a shame,is that from the future we will be looked back upon as having the same way of thinking as our ancestors.

My mind set is nothing is impossible,things are just subject to change.

reply to post by wonderworld


I've heard the word explosion being used but nothing regarding any explosive-containing vessel. The kinetic energy will do nicely what they want this thing to do. The term "bomb" might only be getting used by the media as a means of explaining what is going to take place on this mission. What is out there that implies this is anything other than just that?

But I will say this.

I worked in munitions for the U.S. Air Force for over 6 years.
In our inventory we had a 15,000 pound bomb that was commonly referred to as the "Daisy Cutter" or aptly "The Cheeseburger". The official name was the BLU-82 weapons system. The explosion has been likened to a very small nuclear detonation..

Something like the new MOAB bomb (GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb) currently being used by the U.S. Air Force after beginning it's R&D phase in 2002. There are also some pretty amazing videos online of a C-130 air-dropping this device using a drop-chute to basically drag it out of the aircraft on a palet. The fins on the back are actually more like giant metal grates.. The GPS guidance system manipulates the grates to increase drag on certain areas in order to change the pitch angle of the device for guidance purposes.

A good image of the daisy-cutter bomb in action can be found here:
Daisy Cutter Test Detonation

It contains a massive amount of liquid tritonol as the primary method of detonation. Liquid tritonol is basically a high explosive with the consistency of wet mud. It is used as the primary explosive for basically all of the U.S. Air Force's conventional bombs. This particular bomb was used in Vietnam and other later conflicts. It was primarily used to clear out trees and brush so that certain areas could be used for logistical/staging purposes and/or helicopter landing zones. The MOAB also uses liquid tritonol as the primary explosive. Since these bombs were used to clear out areas of jungle and desert for purposes of creating staging points for logistical and helicopter landing purposes, it might not be such a leap to believe in an explosive device used to prep a construction site for a moon base.

But there are also alot of problems with this idea.

The problem with any explosion on the moon is this..
It wouldn't leave a perfect, flat surface for construction purposes.
It would leave a pretty large crater that would have to big enough to build something within. If it isn't big enough, that doesn't do you much good since it would have to be re-worked and re-excavated to create a semi-flat building surface. It would make sense to be sure of creating a large enough crater that it didn't have to be re-manipulated in any way before the moon-base mission ever gets there.

First of all, a crater isn't the best building environment for a moon base.. Besides the point that millions of craters already exist on the moon big enough to build such a base within, You would want the solar panels to have the maximum charge potential. Inside of a crater might not exactly be the best position from a simple standpoint of solar power.

But blowing up a bomb on the moon doesnt' really make any sense. There is nothing there to excavate. There aren't any trees that need to be cleared for a construction site. There isn't anything that really needs to be done other than the base to be constructed in the right location. All a bomb is going to do is create a crater.. There are already plenty of craters on the moon to choose from. Nature doesn't need us for that.

You could probably even develop a way of adding water to moon dust to form a simple form of makeshift concrete. And it would probably work pretty good to form an air-tight seal if prepared properly with the talcum-powder-like moon dust we're talking about. Especially since it's hard for air bubbles to get in the concrete when there isn't really any air to speak of.

-ChriS


[edit on 24-6-2009 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by BlasteR
I worked in munitions for the U.S. Air Force for over 6 years.

So why does the military need to test these bombs all the time? I mean they fired off over 900 atomic bombs in 'test' Okay already they WORK Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved that why over 900 tests?

That's a lot of bucks wasted to prove they work... but now that part of the desert is contaminated for 25,000 years

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by BlasteR
I worked in munitions for the U.S. Air Force for over 6 years.

So why does the military need to test these bombs all the time? I mean they fired off over 900 atomic bombs in 'test' Okay already they WORK Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved that why over 900 tests?

That's a lot of bucks wasted to prove they work... but now that part of the desert is contaminated for 25,000 years

As far as nuclear weapons, I agree with you. Most of the testing conducted during the cold war was highly experimental to test the effects of the weapon at high altitudes, on structures, and facilities, etc.. Right down to research involving EMP (Just depending on the test you're talking about). The weapons became more refined, designed differently, and ended up having higher and higher yields. Testing was justified by the government in order to test the effects of these different devices with different nuclear yeilds in different kinds of conditions, environements, and applications. The government also justified the cost of all the development and testing because Russia was doing the same. The best way to make sure your design is really going to work is by testing it.

But those were completely different times. It was just a totally different world than the one we live in today.. Although, it does become more and more like the cold war era these days it seems with rogue nations trying to develop and proliferate their own weapons of mass destruction.

Alot of other research gets conducted with government funding. Things like the effects of certain munitions on underground bunkers, the effects of the explosions to underground storage igloos in order to build better munitions storage facilities for our own weapons, etc.. There are many reasons the military/gov might want to test a weapons system. I would guess that most of the testing these days is experimental and developmental and is thus justified to advance the technology and have the upper hand in any conflict that might take place in the future.

Things like the Paladin GPS-guided artillery round, advances in MLRS rocket technology, new versions of the JDAM, the JSOW stand-off weapon (basically a cruise missile), etc..

Alot of these have to be tested many many times in order to ensure the design changes and revisions all operate as designed. It also lets one know the reliability and flaws in the system when they can conduct multiple tests. Quite simply, you learn more and can hone the design of such weapons to overcome those flaws. With how sophisticated our weapons are these days, the quirks and design flaws inherent in the design can be much more of an issue. Things were so much less complicated with a simple bomb and a fuze.

I used to work in Research and Development in the private sector but not in munitions.

-ChriS

reply to post by zorgon


Now that is a lot,a lot to have tweaked a little for many different uses.

Hmm,I wonder what other uses?
Thumper space drive?

[edit on 25/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

science.slashdot.org... 6 mile high explosive debris expected.

Originally posted by vze2xjjk 6 mile high explosive debris expected.

"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.'"

Okay so just the booster impact will throw 350 metric tons of debris into space? Just to see what it is? What if it IS water ice? That's 350 METRIC TONNES of water ice WASTED

What the heck? And that is not even the main blast yet...

"massive explosion is just flat-out cool. 'We're certainly going to be making a big splash,' says Kimberly"

Are these guys insane? IF there is indeed water up there its still going to be a valuable rare resource... and no one thinks wasting several hundred tons is a problem?


NASA Scientist...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/198c4c325c21.jpg[/atsimg]






[edit on 25-6-2009 by zorgon]

There was a photo in the paper in 1997 stating Nasa had discovered water on the moon in the southern polar region. So why has it took them so long to decide to go blast this crater and send debris 6 miles above the moon???A very costly endeavor and a waste of precious water!! Does anyone have any idea what their real agenda is? Just a crazy idea here..maybe they are going to deliver a PACKAGE! You will probably never see a blast. Blowing up a crater of water is just too...uuh, does insane sound too harsh??

reply to post by ellieN


The bomb blast is to show we can reach the Moon.
Just to lie and say it proves we landed on the Moon years ago.
The should be enough of a blast to show up in all the newspapers.

From: earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter hung on to the coasting rocket for about 8 minutes before separating. In four days, it will reach the Moon, where it will go into orbit just 31 miles above the surface. The Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite is holding on to the spent rocket. In October, it will hurl the empty rocket toward a crater at the South Pole and use its sensors to figure out whether the resulting debris contains water ice. Later, the spacecraft itself will crash into the crater. The debris kicked up by the collision will be so tremendous that it will probably be visible from Earth with a good amateur telescope.

emphasis NOT added - for sme reason HTML codes aren't working atm...

There are a lot of conspiracy theories going on here! I didn't read through all 21 pages, just wanted to state the expected October date of deployment.

I would like to point out that since the plume should be visible from earth, and impact is on the South pole, then the whole conspiracy theory about blowing up the hidden base on the dark side of the moon doesn't really hold water (no pun intended).


[edit on 26-6-2009 by notreallyalive]

I keep hearing pretty wild theories about this moon mission.

I just ran across THIS right wing news site that claims the mission is all a ploy and that the "bomb" is actually going to miss the moon by miles, orbit the moon and then be launched by lunar gravity towards Tehran...

What I'm seeing is alot of confusion... And alot of it is being caused by the word "bomb" being used in alot of the news stories.

Most people see the word "bomb" as implying an explosive device of some kind. Yet, this spacecraft is a kinetic energy device. Nowhere in the news stories that mention "bomb" is there any mention of high explosives or explosions before the device reaches the moon.
There are a few reasons for all the confusion, that I can tell.

1- This is a kinetic energy device. Meaning that the explosion that will be produced will be caused by the device slamming itself into the moon after scanning the crater. No explosive is needed.

2- An explosion will just destroy the device before it even penetrates the surface.. Alot of bombs explode just above the ground, sometimes at a pre-determined altitude (called an airburst). Even bombs without airburst fuses will always detonate just above the ground or just as the front end (one of the fuses) hits the surface of the ground. This would pretty much defeat the purpose of a kinetic energy device going 3 times the speed of a bullet. All that will penetrate the surface is a bunch of small debris from the explosion.. And even then, just as I said before, the explosion could actually hinder the ability of that device to penetrate the surface and disperse the lunar material NASA wants to study in this mission.

3- People are seeing the word "bomb" used in conjunction with the words "explosion" and "missile" when the only thing bomb or missile-like is the impactor (which contains no explosives of any kind). There are no bombs or missiles being carried by the spacecraft.

-ChriS

reply to post by zorgon

Okay so just the booster impact will throw 350 metric tons of debris into space?

Let's slow down, and find some perspective, hmmmm?

One metric ton (tonne) equals 2204.622 pounds (using American units for now).
350 tons is therefore is about 772,000 pounds. Everyone knows the 747, right? So, you can imagine it, and its size, on the Moon. The 747 is 231 feet long and typical maximum weight for takeoff is 833,000 pounds.

Now, compare that to a 5-mile wide crater.

That's 350 METRIC TONNES of water ice WASTED

Whoa! Hyperbole much? (As if I have to ask... )

... and no one thinks wasting several hundred tons is a problem?

I know you like to rouse the lemmings, but can we dispense with the exaggerations? The debris is expected to be thrown up as high as 6 miles. That's only about 32,000 feet. About how high the 747 will fly sometimes. There's this pesky nuisance called 'gravity' that means the debris won't stay up for long, and it certainly won't fly off into space!!

Anyway, if 350 tonnes of rocks and soil (what percentage of that mass is actually water ice??) is going to put a big dent in the total amount out there, then the mission to build a permanent base is doomed.

::

edit: You're familiar with heavy mining equipment, correct? How much Earth is moved around, by weight, in a typical quarry? Or "gold" mine?

[edit on 6/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by BlasteR

I just ran across THIS right wing news site that claims the mission is all a ploy and that the "bomb" is actually going to miss the moon by miles, orbit the moon and then be launched by lunar gravity towards Tehran...

LOL! That right-wing rag is a joke!!! They can't even spell "squirrelly" correctly!!!

It's funny, with all of the Obama-bashing, you'd think the right-wing nutbags would be overjoyed!! Are they now siding with a brutal regime that tacitly supports terrorism? (allegedly!!)

That means, the right-wing nut jobs wish to 'cavort' with terrorists!! Oh, I can see it now....they'll be roasting squirrels over a campfire with al-Qaeda!

edit after KK's post: I almost compared it to the "Onion", but I didn't wish to insult the "Onion"!

[edit on 6/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by BlasteR
I keep hearing pretty wild theories about this moon mission.

I just ran across THIS right wing news site that claims the mission is all a ploy and that the "bomb" is actually going to miss the moon by miles, orbit the moon and then be launched by lunar gravity towards Tehran...

just to note. That is a parody / satire site......like "The Onion." And a very funny one I might add. Besides I don't know of any "right-wingers" who are intentionally that hilarious. ( Thanks Blaster.)

Back On Topic.

I remain puzzled by this. Rocket / Missile Impact story. Why would NASA even make it public? Seems they could / have conducted countless experiments without our knowledge.

For example, some tome ago I happened to witness THEMIS launch from cape in Florida.
www.nasa.gov...
It carried six (or so they say) satellites to study Solar Winds, Sun Flares, Space weather etc. Plus there are many un announced launches from there, Vandenburg and other launch complexes.

Why is this one seem so relevant if not nefarious?

WW, your weight comparison to 747 helped me understand the (in)significance of the anticipated size of "explosion." But wouldn't impact velocity be a factor?

Regards...KK


[edit on 27-6-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious

WW, your weight comparison to 747 helped me understand the (in)significance of the anticipated size of "explosion." But wouldn't impact velocity be a factor?

I'm just going by what is published, and what others have commented on, as to sizes and such.

To be clear: My understanding is that the empty LCROSS rocket stage will have a mass of about (depending on source) 4000-5000 pounds (1818-2273 kg). This is equivalent to a luxury Sedan, or an SUV.

The 747 comparison is just to get an idea of the mass of the ejecta, which of course will be dispersed. What I've read estimates the resulting crater up to five miles wide.

Impact velocity? Well, that will be limited to what they achieve via the orbital mechanics, and I can't do the kind of math to calculate the joules or newtons that will be released at impact (anyone out there who can?)

Wiki has this to say about Lunar density and gravity:

Mean density 3,346.4 kg/m³[1]

Equatorial surface gravity 1.622 m/s² (0.165 4 g)

Escape velocity 2.38 km/s

So, if those numbers are accurate, then the projectile will not exceed 2.38 km/sec if it is dropped from a Lunar orbit...but if they accelerate after a swing around the Earth for the final plunge? Not sure if they'd achieve the accuracy they require that way.

I suppose you could just round it to 3 km/sec for good measure, and do the math.

(Hitting near the pole would require a polar orbital plane, one would think...)

NGC?

jra?




EDIT for this:

I find it interesting to compare a well-known and studied crater on Earth:

en.wikipedia.org...

Meteor Crater is a meteorite impact crater located approximately 43 miles (69 km) east of Flagstaff, near Winslow in the northern Arizona desert of the United States.....[...]....The object that excavated the crater was a nickel-iron meteorite about 50 meters (54 yards) across...

Yet, it is only about 4000 feet in diameter.

Modelling initially suggested that the meteorite struck at a speed of up to 20 kilometers per second (45,000 mph), but more recent research suggests the impact was substantially slower, at 12.8 kilometers per second (28,600 mph). It is believed that about half of the impactor's 300,000 tonnes (330,000 short tons) bulk was vaporized during its descent, before it hit the ground.

The impactor itself was mostly vaporized, very little of the meteorite remained within the pit that it had excavated.

[edit on 6/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

So, October? Any credible references for this approximate date of moon bombing?