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 "Moon Bombing" mission -- DISAPPEARS

page: 17
71
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People However, like I said above, that's perhaps not NASA's fault -- perhaps that's just the way the moon is built at the impact site. Perhaps the Moon there is harder and more solid than expected.


Hmmm yes a lot of perhaps... but if it's not NASA's fault then whose? After all THEY created a mission that even had Scientific American saying 'BOMB'

Well I can play that game too...

Perhaps it went into a deep hole; perhaps the Aliens really did stop it; perhaps since the Moon is a hologram it just when right through and made a little flicker as it went through the field...

or more likely... NASA just underestimated once again
so that would make this the appropriate image of the day





Jim told me which lost spacecraft this was taken at, but you get the point.







[edit on 9-10-2009 by zorgon]




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theflashor
 

1/6 Earth gravity is not "near 0 gravity".
The Centaur booster was not designed to make any crater, much less a 5 mile one. It was designed to send a spacecraft to the Moon. Using it as an impactor was a free bonus.


You're quite right Phage. However, they did nevertheless expect a bonus 4 metre deep impact crater as a result.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It made me laugh when the guy after the mission was asked what did he make of it, he said it was hard to tell, and the hosts just laughed, laughed as if to say yup we know! i dont like feeling paranoid but i know the technology in my £100 camera is much better than what they was sending back to us. We have sats in space that could of easily relayed a HD Stream to a server on the earth EASY!!! also they only show us the final 10 seconds we all tuned in to watch the journey to the moon but did we see anything but the same rock! it could of easily been a single image! somthin is just bs about the whole thing!¬



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theflashor
yup, more bull# from them, but do you think they shall be challanged? hmm nope i dont think so. Have you heard they are sending a guy to light a fart on the moon tommorow whos tuning in


Weird. I just watched a documentary called "In The Shadow Of The Moon" and Buzz Aldrin said that he was the first guy to fart on the Moon. He said that the pause you see when he is about to jump off the ladder and on to the Moon for the first time is when he's letting one rip.

I thought it was weird that he would say this, even if it's true.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


hmm do your research mate

What don't you get about 5 mile wide deep craters with 40 mile debris clouds? (thats their words)



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 

I don't know how deep but the diameter seems about right.


The crashes created a man-made crater about one-fifth the size of a football field, Brown University geologist and LCROSS scientist Peter Schultz told The Associated Press.

It all worked perfectly, according to NASA. But there were no pictures of a plume. There may not have been a plume at all, or maybe it was just hidden or too small, said LCROSS scientist Anthony Colaprete.

The spacecraft, instead of spewing six miles of dust straight out, could have compacted the lunar soil — sort of like a rock sinking quickly in water instead of making a massive splash.

"We saw a crater; we saw a flash, so something had to happen in between," Colaprete said. The crater was the aftermath of the crash, and the flash was the impact itself.

www.boston.com...

[edit on 10/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theflashor
reply to post by mckyle
 


hmm do your research mate

What don't you get about 5 mile wide deep craters with 40 mile debris clouds? (thats their words)


Wow - a " 5 mile wide deep crater" !!! Explain the physics of that please?

I'll do my research as soon as you get an education.

Oh. And don't call me "mate" Sport!!!


[edit on 9-10-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by theflashor
 

Please provide a NASA source claiming a "5 mile wide deep craters with 40 mile debris clouds".

What is a 5 mile wide deep crater?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
it dont change the fact that the mission was very lame and obviously didnt go to plan. How i read it was that they was meant to make a plume so they could anylize the # that was thrown out into space and into the moons very thin atmousphere. but no plume = no results = FAILURE = a #ing waist of my time and money!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


sorry phage 5 Miles wide i meant,

[edit on 9/10/2009 by theflashor]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by theflashor
 

You don't know that there wasn't a plume, now do you?

In any case there was plenty of data gathered, which was the point. Just because you or I won't be able to understand what the data means doesn't mean there aren't people who will.


[edit on 10/9/2009 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People However, like I said above, that's perhaps not NASA's fault -- perhaps that's just the way the moon is built at the impact site. Perhaps the Moon there is harder and more solid than expected.


Hmmm yes a lot of perhaps... but if it's not NASA's fault then whose? After all THEY created a mission that even had Scientific American saying 'BOMB'...


You are correct -- they DID set up the experiment to find the composition of the soil in that crater (and hopefully find water). However, my point is that the experiment could have been perfectly set-up, but if the bottom of the crater is bedrock instead of loose soils, or if there is no water in the crater, then they would not be able to see a big plume of dust and water...

...and THAT is what would not be NASA's fault.

Some of you would make awful scientists. It seems that if your experiment does not yield the results you expected, you would say "there must be something wrong with the experiment" rather than saying "perhaps I should learn why I got this unexpected result".

Only a close-minded scientist would think he "knows everything", and thus automatically "blame the experiment" when he gets an unexpected result.

The reason could be a badly set-up experiment -- OR the experiment could be perfect, but your scientific understanding needs adjustment.

NASA got an unexpected result, but it's way to soon to "blame the experiment".



[edit on 10/9/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinkarella
According to quantum theory by observing the experiment you have altered the outcome. So if nobody watched the crash it might have gone exactly as planned?


If nobody saw it. but only if the means of seeing it would affect the observation.

Merely looking doesnt change it. The method by which you look, Does!

If you need to shine a light on a dark object in the dark, it no longer is dark. It's changed by the light you shine on it.

At a quantum level, this is srs bsns !!!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
But where is the data i want to see it!!!


and no need to be patronising, i could learn how to read it. The internet is a great thing you know!


im sorry if im the only one that was mislead by the hype nasa gave to this mission and what we was about to witness. LIVE!!!! LIIIIVVVVEEEEE!!! yea great we didnt see # as usual! thats my argument. And the camera on the front of the rocket was #! im not arguing with you phage but im allowed to have my own opinion! and i beleive that it was fishy how the whole thing was staged with poor quality film out into space. Although it always is with Nasa!

[edit on 9/10/2009 by theflashor]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...of course, budget problems at NASA may mean we will not be putting bases on the Moon anytime soon, but when this LCROSS mission was launched, that was the general plan.



NASA = Never A Straight Answer


Time Table...

LCROSS launch June 17, 2009

LCROSS Mission Changes Impact Crater September 28, 2009

NASA may abandon plans for moon base 18:33 29 April 2009

TWO MONTHS before launch



No way is NASA building any moon bases PERIOD



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by theflashor
and no need to be patronising...


No one is being patronizing to you. They're just treating you with the level that your intellect deserves.

Oh by the way:


BBC Article
With an energy equivalent to one-and-a-half tonnes of TNT, the collision will carve out another crater some 20m (66ft) wide and about 4m (13ft) deep.



Why is it always morons who come out and accuse others of not having done their research???

[edit on 9-10-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by theflashor
 

Sorry. I didn't mean to sound patronizing but unless you are really good at signal processing and spectrographic analysis, there isn't going to be much to see.

The key is not in photographs but in squiggly lines that show those complicated light waves, Colaprete said. Once they are analyzed -- a task that may take weeks -- the light waves will show whether water was present at the crash site.

"It wasn't a dud. We got a gold mine of data," said Kaku, a professor at the City College of New York and host of "Sci Q Sundays" on the Science Channel. If those squiggly lines show there is ice just under the surface of the moon, it would make the lack of pictures worth it, he said.

www.boston.com...

That's Michio Kaku, BTW. I find it a little ironic that he, of all people, says this in the article. I find him to be no slouch when it comes to slinging his own form of hyperbole.

But Kaku and other experts also faulted NASA for overhyping the mission, not being honest with the public about the images being a longshot. "They should have put Steven Spielberg in charge," Kaku said.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


My english is not great, but when it comes to science and maths i have a fair understanding so why the insult? thats totally uncalled for, this is why i dont visit ATS often nowadays, moron!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I said "general plan". There was still some long-duration exploration of the Moon as part of NASA's general plan to eventually go to Mars when this mission was launched (and I know you know that.
)



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by theflashor
reply to post by mckyle
 


My english is not great, but when it comes to science and maths i have a fair understanding so why the insult? thats totally uncalled for, this is why i dont visit ATS often nowadays, moron!


Erm. That's the pot calling the kettle black old boy!
Have a look at your recent post where you erroneously accuse me of not having done my research!.

You don't even have the integrity (or is that cojones) to apologise for being completely wrong about my comment.




top topics



 
71
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join