NASA To Bomb The Moon....Bad Idea!?

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo


shoot, i remember in 2004 reading in Time magazine about how we would have fully functional cities on the moon by the year 2000

How's that again?

Yea, I don't get it either.

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo
Well I'm really surprised i haven't already seen a thread about hits, but as most of you know NASA is going to bomb the moon to "find water" as they say.

well, knowing that most of us here believe in ET's, don't you find this to be a TERRIBLE IDEA?

We as a planet bombing each other is one thing, but once we start hurling warheads into the galaxy don't we become a perceived threat, liable to be destroyed???

I don't believe there are hidden alien bases on the moon, so I'm not sure how bombing it would be very threatening. And shooting the moon is a long shot from shooting the galaxy. Yeah, and don't show me those fuzzy pictures with obvious _video artifacts_ in them and crow that that's a moon base. Compare the photos with how satellite images of buildings on Earth look and you can see them for what they are: video artifacts. Nothing more.

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo

Originally posted by Republican08
reply to post by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo

 

So...... I'll play along, the ET's see us, blow up 0.0000000000000000add a few hundred zeros 1 % of the moon, and you think they're going to freak out or something? I fail to understand the harm?

no, Et's see us sending missiles into inner and outer space that shows our capability to send them further, and our reckless disregard. that makes us a threat. and about playing along, go play with somebody else child, this is not play time. matter of fact go play with some of the demons you worship, republican.

Don't you think that our being to the moon already shows our capabilities?

That was 40 some odd years ago. If these aliens are smart they would realize our capabilities have grown significantly since then.

LOL i meant by 2006 not 2000

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo
LOL i meant by 2006 not 2000

Even so, how would we have fully functional cities on the moon in two years?

I'm thinking it would take a significant amount of time to pick the builders, train them, build the ships to haul the materials and people. Then you have to figure in the amount of time that it would take to build the city and make it livable. Then you have to build mass transports to haul people up there after they have been trained.

Your 2 year window isn't even remotely possible.

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo
LOL i meant by 2006 not 2000

Even so, how would we have fully functional cities on the moon in two years?

I'm thinking it would take a significant amount of time to pick the builders, train them, build the ships to haul the materials and people. Then you have to figure in the amount of time that it would take to build the city and make it livable. Then you have to build mass transports to haul people up there after they have been trained.

Your 2 year window isn't even remotely possible.

the article didn't say they started WORKING on them in 2004, the article CAME OUT in 2004, it didn't say anything about when they started.

I also didn't bring this up to say anything except this MAY piss some et's off somewhere. for all we know every planet in our solar system could be inhabited. there could be intelligent life that lives underwater on one of the near planets, or one that lives underground. knowing we couldn't survive on another one of these planets does not mean an entire species could be, we haven't even started probing our solar system, so to definitively rule out intelligent life would be foolish.

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo
I also didn't bring this up to say anything except this MAY piss some et's off somewhere. for all we know every planet in our solar system could be inhabited. there could be intelligent life that lives underwater on one of the near planets, or one that lives underground. knowing we couldn't survive on another one of these planets does not mean an entire species could be, we haven't even started probing our solar system, so to definitively rule out intelligent life would be foolish.

underwater on one of the near planers? what are you smoking? haven't started probing our solar system?!?!?!?!?

Dude, I know that in your mind NASA is just this organization that likes to lie about stuff in space, but you should read about what they've actually been doing. For the last 40+ years. Then you can read about how much we understand regarding our solar system. At the moment, the only scientifically plausible place in the solar system for liquid water to exist in any significant quantities is under Europa's ice. Theoretically, if it did exist there, Jupiter's tidal influence could potentially be a strong enough input of energy / heat to allow life to exist with the complete and utter lack of solar energy. Bear in mind life in europa's seas is a theory built on a theory built on a theory.

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by LouieKnowsJeetKuneDo
I also didn't bring this up to say anything except this MAY piss some et's off somewhere. for all we know every planet in our solar system could be inhabited. there could be intelligent life that lives underwater on one of the near planets, or one that lives underground. knowing we couldn't survive on another one of these planets does not mean an entire species could be, we haven't even started probing our solar system, so to definitively rule out intelligent life would be foolish.

underwater on one of the near planers? what are you smoking? haven't started probing our solar system?!?!?!?!?

Dude, I know that in your mind NASA is just this organization that likes to lie about stuff in space, but you should read about what they've actually been doing. For the last 40+ years. Then you can read about how much we understand regarding our solar system. At the moment, the only scientifically plausible place in the solar system for liquid water to exist in any significant quantities is under Europa's ice. Theoretically, if it did exist there, Jupiter's tidal influence could potentially be a strong enough input of energy / heat to allow life to exist with the complete and utter lack of solar energy. Bear in mind life in europa's seas is a theory built on a theory built on a theory.

LMAO, here's another guy getting his info from nowhere, i've been following NASA since i was six, I have relatives that worked for nasa, hell i've got relatives that work in the white house, NASA has more dirty secrets than the CIA and the Bush administration combined. We haven't visited these planets, taking pictures from space doesn't tell us any thing, # outta here.

We watched as Jupiter was hit by a comet. We have filmed meteors striking the Moon with more power than we plan to do. This is nothing new, we have done it before.

I don't understand the issue some people have, and to use aliens as some sort of logical reason not to do it?

First, one must assume aliens exist and just happen to be hanging around Earth. Second, one must assume aliens care for some odd reason about this particular impact, while letting all the other impacts just happen. (note the craters.)

I have not seen any logical reasons not to go through with it (as we have done before) and plenty of reason to do it. Until there is a truly logical reason not to, I look forward to the results of the test.

What if this kinetic bomb was a prototype for a way of defense against a meteor possibly hitting the earth and them trying to find water is just a cover up. Just a thought

Originally posted by lookma,nohands
What if this kinetic bomb was a prototype for a way of defense against a meteor possibly hitting the earth and them trying to find water is just a cover up. Just a thought

The probably know that anything that would modify the moon's orbit is a bad idea. I doubt they would try to nudge it, when there is a chance they could end up with a full moon on their dog house.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by DaMod]