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.

 

Moon crash produces much data, little drama

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
No more than you would if you visited Earth and stuck a flag in the middle of the Mojave Desert. What am i missing here? Lets THINK.



Okay... I'm thinking they may have missed.



PIONEER 4 was a Moon probe which missed the Moon and became the first U.S. spacecraft to orbit the Sun in 1959.

RANGER 3, launched on January 26, 1962, was intended to land an instrument capsule on the surface of the Moon, but problems during the launch caused the probe to miss the Moon and head into solar orbit.

RANGER 3 did try to take some images of the Moon as it flew by, but the camera was unfortunately aimed at deep space during the attempt.

RANGER 4, launched April 23, 1962, had the same purpose as RANGER 3, but suffered technical problems enroute and crashed on the lunar farside, the first U.S. probe to reach the Moon, albeit without returning data.



www.faqs.org...


And dont forget NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter:



The spacecraft reached Mars and executed a 16 minute 23 second orbit insertion main engine burn on September 23, 1999 at 09:01 UT (5:01 a.m. EDT) Earth received time (ERT, signal travel time from Mars was 10 minutes 55 seconds). The spacecraft passed behind Mars at 09:06 UT ERT and was to re-emerge and establish radio contact with Earth at 09:27 UT ERT, 10 minutes after the burn was completed. However, contact was never re-established and no further signal was ever received from the spacecraft. Findings of the failure review board indicate that a navigation error resulted from some spacecraft data being reported in Imperial units instead of metric. This caused the spacecraft to miss its intended 140–150 km altitude above Mars during orbit insertion


en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 9-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Definately sets a precedent now doesn't it?

I guess they could have missed this one, but those all seem to be from the 60's, surely we have come far enough to hit the damn Moon by now?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
What i was getting at was when man landed on the moon i dont think they were looking for water. They were probably just hoping to make it to the rock itself and stuck the flag where they were. So the poster who asked well wouldnt they have found water when they stuck the flag in? Not necessarily. No more than you would on earh if you were in a desert.

IF there is any water on the moon its likely to be in certain spots and is certainly not everywhere.....




Originally posted by RoofMonkey

Originally posted by princeofpeace
No more than you would if you visited Earth and stuck a flag in the middle of the Mojave Desert. What am i missing here? Lets THINK.



Okay... I'm thinking they may have missed.



PIONEER 4 was a Moon probe which missed the Moon and became the first U.S. spacecraft to orbit the Sun in 1959.

RANGER 3, launched on January 26, 1962, was intended to land an instrument capsule on the surface of the Moon, but problems during the launch caused the probe to miss the Moon and head into solar orbit.

RANGER 3 did try to take some images of the Moon as it flew by, but the camera was unfortunately aimed at deep space during the attempt.

RANGER 4, launched April 23, 1962, had the same purpose as RANGER 3, but suffered technical problems enroute and crashed on the lunar farside, the first U.S. probe to reach the Moon, albeit without returning data.



www.faqs.org...


And dont forget NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter:



The spacecraft reached Mars and executed a 16 minute 23 second orbit insertion main engine burn on September 23, 1999 at 09:01 UT (5:01 a.m. EDT) Earth received time (ERT, signal travel time from Mars was 10 minutes 55 seconds). The spacecraft passed behind Mars at 09:06 UT ERT and was to re-emerge and establish radio contact with Earth at 09:27 UT ERT, 10 minutes after the burn was completed. However, contact was never re-established and no further signal was ever received from the spacecraft. Findings of the failure review board indicate that a navigation error resulted from some spacecraft data being reported in Imperial units instead of metric. This caused the spacecraft to miss its intended 140–150 km altitude above Mars during orbit insertion


en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 9-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 


Mars Climate Orbiter was in the 1998 time frame. (metric / US measurement error)


We've fried seven astronauts since then.






[edit on 9-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
haha i went out to an observatory this morning to see the moment, and it was more of a die hard enjoyment knowing about what is happening. the people running the telescope pointed out what they thought were "plumes" where the units hit but it still could be argued that it looked like the other craters' edges... i loved all the coverage nasa had.. they had a camera that showed lcross i believe its entire face-first journey into the moon

overall i hope we actually find something useful out of this whole event, but as for the flashiness yeah there really wasnt too much!!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
"explosives, bombs, plume, debris, etc... and not..."

So... did they find what they were looking for? What are they saying about the "mission objective"?


hmm?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
From what I understand, the site that was hit is in a crater which is covered by a shadow. Originally, they believed the debris from the impact would rise above the shady and become visible. Apparently, the debris did not make it that far off of the moons surface.

The reason for this whole event was to test the material below the moons surface for water. I am not scientist, so I don't know exactly what they are looking for in this data but I am happy that things worked out.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sator
 


From what I have read they have the data they were looking for. It is going to take a while to sort through it all and come to a conclusion.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Styki

From what I have read they have the data they were looking for...



Yup... Water on the moon - Confirmed



It’s a confirmed discovery now! Water on the Moon exists and it’s India who’s done the world proud. After nearly five decades of lunar explorations by Western nations, it was India’s Chandrayaan ( this Sanskrit word means Moon Craft) that got the scientific community of the world go gaga over the ISRO — Indian Space Research Organisation, feat.

www.thesundayleader.lk...




Originally posted by Styki

... It is going to take a while to sort through it all and come to a conclusion.



That's easy - NASA misses target again.




[edit on 10-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
So, they are quiet. Of course they found water! But India found it before them. But America landed before them. It is now all about whose water it is. Bottled Moon water for $200/liter waiting to be shipped soon. You can see now that it is all about money. Whose water is it anyway?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 


According to the thermal imager and according to what I saw, they DID hit the moon, it just probably hit harder material than expected.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ^anubis^

So what really happened up there anyone saw the live feed they had? was the "Bomb" they drop visible? I read a lot of threads on how it was suppose to make this huge crater and a bunch of dust would fly into the air and they would examine it to see if there was water. I don't know about you guys but im calling BS on NASA.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

 



Mod Edit - Headline: Please use the original story headline from your source.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by JacKatMtn]


I tell you what really happened.
Reality did.
The establishment thrives on not producing results. it thrives on a steady income. It thrives on controlling all options. It thrives on predictability.
They don't actually like surprises, that's why empirical progress concerning space exploration has remained a big fat zero for over than half a century and it will keep being very predictable and very slow just how they like it
Actual progress, surprises, breakthroughs, leaps ahead are a a risk to everyone who is accustomed to a predictable and relevantly safe future.
Actual progress, surprises, breakthroughs are about unexpected outcomes that only committed people practicing exploration for the sake of exploration itself can appreciate and boldly embrace and help us go forward.
Real breakthroughs are about unbalancing the scales, creating uncertainty, pushing the limits.
How long until we finally get it?
When a day comes and "we get it" then there will be real progress.
For now there will be only paychecks for people sitting behind desks, spending public money, producing absolutely nothing beneficial for the rest of humanity because their predictable uninteresting lives have to come first and their oath to science and to the world has to come second.

At the same time the establishment has no problem forcing uncertainty and unpredictability on your/our lives while sending you/us on the front line for a war. You will live or die but this does not concern them because it helps them keep their status quo.
If its about them then everything matters. If its about you then nothing really matters.
Exploration and progress is for you. Is to make your life better.
They actually despise that idea because they don't actually need their lives to become better, since they already have what they need.

Name any space agency, they are all part of the establishment, by the PTB.
People need to wake up and see what is really happening around them and how they are not going to achieve any progress the way things are.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

According to the thermal imager and according to what I saw, they DID hit the moon, it just probably hit harder material than expected.


And pray tell...how accurate is that. Was a "live feed" sent to you from a NASA related organization?

How do you know what you saw?

The statements from NASA were a plume SIX KILOMETERS / MILES (depending on the source) high.

I don't recall seeing that. Just some excuses about the regolith not being what they expected... and they have been there numerous times, gotten samples of the surface, imaged the southern regions, done radar analysis, spectrograph analysis, etc. Then they make a prediction that comes up short. (as normal)

'But don't worry, we can fix that with our new budget. Just give us some more money and we will do more "work" to resolve the problem.'

Yeah, in a pig's arse.





[edit on 10-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoofMonkey
And pray tell...how accurate is that. Was a "live feed" sent to you from a NASA related organization?

How do you know what you saw?

This is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that what I saw was inaccurate; you started with false assumptions before knowing anything about what I saw. Therefore, my question to you is, how do you know what I saw was inaccurate? Are you going to challenge my personal honesty and integrity? I was watching the event unfold through my own telescope equipment when I saw a flash, it was not a "feed" from a NASA related organization.


The statements from NASA were a plume SIX KILOMETERS / MILES (depending on the source) high.

That number was based on an assumption of the material that the centaur would hit. If it hit either hard packed thick ice or bedrock, more of the energy would go into breaking that material up than was previously assumed. If the actual height attained by the plume was a little less than half the height assumed then it would never reach sunlight and never be seen.


I don't recall seeing that. Just some excuses about the regolith not being what they expected... and they have been there numerous times, gotten samples of the surface, imaged the southern regions, done radar analysis, spectrograph analysis, etc.

Tell me, which of those experiments would have definitively determined the surface integrity within Cabeus crater? The answer of course, is none of them since they've never directly sampled a polar crater before. We now stand to learn far more about the surface of those craters than we ever knew before.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Sorry, but NASA has lost all credibilty with me.

Their like a giant sponge, sucking on the American economy.

They've got missions to Mars, probes to Phoebes, etc.

How bout focusing on getting people into space, and once you get
that down, then send the people to the moon on mining exploration

When's the last time we sent a human to another planet. 30-40 yrs ago?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by exposethosesecrets

When's the last time we sent a human to another planet. 30-40 yrs ago?



well actually mankind has never ( ok this is for zorgon and others
) "officially" set foot on another planet.

As for the moon, well that's a whole other debate
.




[edit on 11-10-2009 by yellowbeard]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
NASA mission very expensive.

"High five Bob.

What can we get the taxpayers for next?"



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by exposethosesecrets
 


Let's just stop going to space, will that make you happy? This was dirt cheap for a NASA mission, you do realize that right? If we're not going to accept any level of dissapointment in space exploration, we may as well not even try because sooner or later a mission is going to lead to some level of failure and disappointment. This one was even described as "faster, cheaper, good enough," a parody of the old strategy of "faster, cheaper, better" which ended up in more complete failures. They knew the risk was higher for this mission but it was deemed acceptable since it was just an add-on to a bigger mission (LRO) and was very cheap compared to others. Either they hitched this ride or millions of dollars of payload space would be wasted (roughly 25 million) since LRO left some extra room. Which do you prefer?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter


This is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that what I saw was inaccurate; you started with false assumptions before knowing anything about what I saw. Therefore, my question to you is, how do you know what I saw was inaccurate? Are you going to challenge my personal honesty and integrity? I was watching the event unfold through my own telescope equipment when I saw a flash, it was not a "feed" from a NASA related organization.


Umm... Nope. I don't need to prove anything. Human nature is to note how cool a picture / view/ stadium seats / etc are when there is an event of note. Even the higher tech amateur astronomers are puzzling over what they saw. "Was that the plume or just the crater rim behind it?"

So, no, if you had the cat-bird-seat it would have been readily apparent and you (along with everybody else) would be linking photos right and left.



The statements from NASA were a plume SIX KILOMETERS / MILES (depending on the source) high.



Originally posted by ngchunter
That number was based on an assumption of the material that the centaur would hit.



DING! DING! DING! DING!... Give that man a cigar. I think he gets it now!

An assumption. Always be careful when you ASS U ME anything. They have the gear to get it right.. and once again, they don't.



Originally posted by ngchunter

Tell me, which of those experiments would have definitively determined the surface integrity within Cabeus crater? The answer of course, is none of them since they've never directly sampled a polar crater before. We now stand to learn far more about the surface of those craters than we ever knew before.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by ngchunter]



That would be radar sounding equipment. It's not just bouncing the pulse anymore.

Terrain make up and composition determines the return echo that you get. Multiband operations will resolve ambiguities in the echo, and INSAR / ISAR technology will get the data details down to a gnats arse. BTW... done right, you can get a ground penetrating function out of the right radar choice. That's how the fossil rivers under the sands of the Sahara were discovered.


I am not the one that STATED that the plume would be that high. NASA was, or at least it was derived from NASA's normally optimistic projections that tend to leave out the possibility of FAILURE.


It's all about the money.




[edit on 11-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
NASA just posted some pictures of the plume.

Infrared:



The flash:



www.nasa.gov...

It is very small, but it looks pretty conclusive that they did not miss.

Of course some will claim that the images are chopped.


[edit on 10/11/2009 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join