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.
You do realize this is about your 12th post in a row playing with words. Nobody cares. If you set out to do something and you dont do it that is failure. If you fail at something and then play with words to make it look like you didnt fail that is an excuse. See you learned something today. At this point nobody knows if it was a failure or huge success. You seem to just be disagreeable. Your opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses, we dont need you to keep re writing your opinion over and over. If everyone did that every thread would be 700 pages long and filled with everyone's avatar over and over and over and over... Kinda like yours is filling up the pages now all the while saying the same thing over... and over.. and over... and over... and over... and over... and over.... and over.....
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
It has nothing to do with what I want. The experiment was to kick up dust and analyze the dust. If the dust didn't get kicked up then it failed.
And even if it didn't excavate any soil, we still need to learn why. Therefore, it is not a failure because something is learned, added to our knowledge and extrapolated to later experiments and discoveries.
But before the data has even been analyzed, you have declared it a failure because the explosion wasn't as big as you wanted. You are declaring it a failure because you didn't get the sole result you wanted.
[edit on 9-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
And look even if the mission is a total failure as some are claiming, NASA can still win the Nobel Prize in physics. They may not have accomplished anything but they had the potential too.
Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
6 mile plume
The NASA mission summary states 60 kilometers. That's 37 miles, not 6.
That NASA mission summary also states that BOTH IMPACTS (you did realize there were supposed to be two, right?) would be visible from earth based assets, and in particular they state that it would be visible with "10-12 inch telescopes."
And yet, even with images taken on 200 inch telescopes, the alleged event is, as others in this thread have phrased it "only a couple pixels." And personally, I had to play back the IR video a couple times and the "couple pixels" that I saw don't look like an event to me. They look like a video artifact.
Also, I notice that the image posted in the second post of this thread (having difficulty linking, check page two), posted by easynow, shows what is implied to be the crater after impact. However, if you watch the pre impact video, you'll see that the crater in the center of the screen of that picture already exists before the impact.
Originally posted by searching4truth
Now, first if these events happen "multiple times per month" why do we need spend the money and recreate something that is occurring continually? Can't we simply position the satellites we have up there to give us 360 coverage of the surface and wait a month (or less) for it to occur and collect the data?
Originally posted by randyvs
Am I the only one who gets sick to there stomach from the same ole lies
everytime the same ole games?
Originally posted by randyvs
I don't even Know what's worse. The people who eat this crap up time after time with no end insight or those that spoon feed it to them.
Originally posted by searching4truth
Do you happen to know the second question?
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
The idea is to find water on the moon. Using meteors for this would not be ideal because the meteors may have traces of water; any resulting explosion would be a mixture of lunar soil and fragments of the meteors. It would be near impossible to tell any whether any resulting discovery of water belonged to the moon or the meteor.
Originally posted by Jim Scott
NASA is apparently trying this cost saving measure in order to find water, however the unexpected results (no results) shows that a manned mission or surface robotics are likely the best idea.
Before the results are in you are declaring them liars.