NASA to bomb the moon!

[Big Cam]

I heard about this on the radio show I listen to so I googled it and I got tons of results.

It's happening tomorrow morning 10/09/09 9am Eastern time (ummm, U.S. eastern time)

Supposedly you can watch it online at some form of NASA's website, I'm at work so I have yet to find that.

Here is the link I have.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?N...p;in_page_id=34

It's the ultimate pre-emptive strike. Scientists hope to make a splash by 'bombing' the Moon with two spacecraft tomorrow.

The plan is to slam the projectiles into a dark crater at the lunar south pole, kicking up a six-mile high dust cloud that may contain water.

British researchers helped Nasa pick the spot for the drama, which will be broadcast live on the American space agency's website.

The Cabeus south polar region was identified by the University of Durham team as a site with high concentrations of hydrogen - a key component of water.

It is believed water ice could lie at the bottom of dark craters at the Moon's poles, where temperatures are lower than minus 170C.

The crashing spacecraft consist of an orbiter, LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite), which is now mapping the lunar surface, and its 2.2 tonne empty Centaur launch rocket.

Both are currently on collision course with the Moon and still attached together. In the early hours of tomorrow, British time, the probe and rocket will separate. Then at 12.31pm the larger rocket will smash into the crater at 5,600 mph, blasting out 350 tonnes of debris in a 6.2 mile high plume.

Following close behind, the LCROSS satellite beaming live pictures back to Earth will fly through the material and four minutes later plunge into the crater itself. LCROSS will trigger its own dust cloud a third of the size of the first one.

As the debris is propelled into sunlight, scientists on Earth will study its composition with ground-based telescopes.

Amateur astronomers in dark parts of the world will be able to view the spectacle through their own instruments. But daylight will make this impossible in the UK.

Dr Vincent Eke, from the Institute for Computational Cosmology at the University of Durham, said: "Water ice could be stable for billions of years on the Moon provided that it is cold enough.

"If ice is present in the permanently shaded lunar craters of the Moon then it could potentially provide a water source for the eventual establishment of a manned base on the Moon.

"Such a base could be used as a platform for exploration into the further reaches of our Solar System."

The energy generated by the rocket hitting the Moon will be equivalent to exploding about two tonnes of TNT, he said.

He added: "While this sounds dramatic, the impact of this will simply create one more dimple on the moonscape.

"The cratered surface of the Moon shows it has a history of violent collisions with asteroids and comets."

Dr Eke led a study of data from Nasa's 1998 Lunar Prospector mission which showed that hydrogen was concentrated in permanently shaded craters at the Moon's polar regions.

If the hydrogen really is a sign of ice, it implies that the craters could hold a total of 200,000 million litres of water.

Last month new findings from three spacecraft, including India's Chandrayaan-1 probe, showed that small amounts of water might be chemically bound up with the Moon's soil.

[Captain Green Hair]

Interesting subject.

They probably are still checking out if it is able to live on the moon.

The real question in my opinion is: is this useful, or is it simply wasting tax money?

[Eilif]

Interesting subject.

They probably are still checking out if it is able to live on the moon.

The real question in my opinion is: is this useful, or is it simply wasting tax money?

That's a question, but I think the "usefullness" of the issue is that if the moon holds alot of water, it could make it alot easier to establish a permanent Moon base, potentially a chance to develop technologies for exploring other planets.

[Big Cam]

I think its defenitaly beneficial, but with the state of our economy (U.S.) its not a wise move right now. (IMO)

[Dunjohn]

About time somebody bombed the moon. Stupid Martians.

I tend to be behind the space programme - any space programme - 100%. Imagine where we'd be if it hadn't slackened off after the moon landings. As a result, I'd never consider any genuine mission to be a waste of taxpayer money.

I'll be at work when the impact occurs, so I won't be able to watch it. I'm sure I'll be able to have a gawk afterwards.

[Big Cam]

About time somebody bombed the moon. Stupid Martians.

I tend to be behind the space programme - any space programme - 100%. Imagine where we'd be if it hadn't slackened off after the moon landings. As a result, I'd never consider any genuine mission to be a waste of taxpayer money.

I'll be at work when the impact occurs, so I won't be able to watch it. I'm sure I'll be able to have a gawk afterwards.

You also live in Ireland, where as the US is the one putting up all the money, that we clearly don't have. Our economy is in the shitter, our credit card rates are going up, it's harder get get loans, it's harder to do anything unless you already have the money saved, and the government is spending millions and probabyl billions on this endevour. Is it a good endevour, yes, I'm sure it is, but maybe right now isn't the right time.

[Captain Green Hair]

I think its defenitaly beneficial, but with the state of our economy (U.S.) its not a wise move right now. (IMO)

Indeed.

About time somebody bombed the moon. Stupid Martians.

I tend to be behind the space programme - any space programme - 100%. Imagine where we'd be if it hadn't slackened off after the moon landings. As a result, I'd never consider any genuine mission to be a waste of taxpayer money.

I'll be at work when the impact occurs, so I won't be able to watch it. I'm sure I'll be able to have a gawk afterwards.

I fail to see how it is beneficial, what have we exactly gained after that first moon landing? Apart from cool TV footage of course.

[Eilif]

I fail to see how it is beneficial, what have we exactly gained after that first moon landing? Apart from cool TV footage of course.

Of course it is not beneficial right now, but if humanity is going to colonize the moon one day, discerning whether or not water exists is of vital importance. Also NASA has a long history of developing technologies for space exploration that are public domain and end up being quite beneficial to the rest of humanity. Here's a partial list of products that NASA has brought us. Not all from the first landing, but you get the idea. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/f...asaspinoff.html

As to the first moon landing, as any student of history knows, it was as much about competition with the USSR as it was about exploration. At the time, Democracy and Communism were in a worldwide competition and both sides believed it was of the utmost importance to prove that their worldview could produce feats that would out-perform the other. It might not be a pressing concern today, but make no mistake, there was alot at stake at the first landing.

Most arguments about space exploration come down to the people who put an emphasis on exploring the unknown and testing the limits of human achievements vs those who would rather concentrate on solving present human concerns.

I am personally undecided about the value of space exploration, everyday I see the many ways in which even in a prosperous country like the US there are still important areas of immidate concern relating to people's well being, and these areas are all to often neglected in government budgets. On the other hand, I don't think that we will ever make the earth a utopia, and my desire to see "what can be done" rebels at the thought of ceasing our push to expand our reach beyond the earth.

[Wout]

It's maybe a stupid idea, but why can't they take lots of water to the moon (yes, it's more expensive and you need more fuel to got there, but technically...).

[Big Cam]

It's maybe a stupid idea, but why can't they take lots of water to the moon (yes, it's more expensive and you need more fuel to got there, but technically...).

The amount of trips that would be needed to get any quantity of water up there capable of sustaining life is mind boggling. It's not a practical answer.

[polarbomber]

what a great idea

for those of you who dont know

the moon is made of lego elements

so by crashing a rocket into it

vast quantities of rare lego bricks will be exploded into space

and thanks to doctor gravity will plunge to planet earth

im hoping for some tan 30165

hope they dont melt during re-entry

[Professor Flitwick]

Man kind is always trying to do something it shouldn't. Bombing the moon? Some times I wonder why the Lord made us go this far into sentient life.

Hopefully they could turn up some good news, it would be a grand day indeed when we have collonies on the moon. We may not be around when it happens, but you never know. You'd probably get a beautiful view of the Earth from up there...

[Big Cam]

what a great idea

for those of you who dont know

the moon is made of lego elements

so by crashing a rocket into it

vast quantities of rare lego bricks will be exploded into space

and thanks to doctor gravity will plunge to planet earth

im hoping for some tan 30165

hope they dont melt during re-entry

lol, there are so many thigns about your theory that physics don't agree with , like LEGO's being sucked to earth due to gravity. Earths gravity doesn't reach that far out, sorry.

It's a nice thought though, plus I was hoping for cheese.

[Batbrick]

Awww, only two tons of TnT!? Lame! How come NASA never does anything cool anymore, they haven't even landed on the moon in ages. If they blew up a large portion of the moon I'd be with them, even if it did have catastrophic effects, or better yet, carve their initials into it! Mwahahahaha! :skull:

Also Big Cam, are you serious? The guy was joking!

Batbrick Away!

[Luke McAwesome]

Okay, placing bets now.

Who wants to bet they'll blow it towards Earth? It's like our government to do such a thing...

I bet $200 that a large portion will be destroyed in a chain reaction.

Anyone else?

[Big Cam]

Awww, only two tons of TnT!? Lame! How come NASA never does anything cool anymore, they haven't even landed on the moon in ages. If they blew up a large portion of the moon I'd be with them, even if it did have catastrophic effects, or better yet, carve their initials into it! Mwahahahaha! :skull:

Also Big Cam, are you serious? The guy was joking!

Batbrick Away!

I know.

I was mearly pointing out why that could not happen.

Plus we all know if it did, complete sets still sealed would fall from the sky.

[filip skywalker]

Sounds very intresting, what time will this occur (GMT)?

[mikey]

...

Earths gravity doesn't reach that far out, sorry.

...

The gravity of the Earth does reach out, and keeps the Moon in orbit around our planet.

I am all for space exploration, and I understand that a permament human presence on the Moon could yield much for science, and future missions to Mars and beyond.

[The Who]

Okay, placing bets now.

Who wants to bet they'll blow it towards Earth? It's like our government to do such a thing...

I bet $200 that a large portion will be destroyed in a chain reaction.

Anyone else?

I bet they miss entirely, and the rockets come back and crash into Russia.

Or not...

Anyway, I'll be waiting to see some results for this.

[Big Cam]

The gravity of the Earth does reach out, and keeps the Moon in orbit around our planet.

I am all for space exploration, and I understand that a permament human presence on the Moon could yield much for science, and future missions to Mars and beyond.

It isn't sufficient enough to pull anything into the Earths atmosphere that is the size of a LEGO brick.

The moon is held in place by the inertia that it originally came with when it first encountered the earth, I'm not saying how because I obviously don't know. Eitherway, the momentum of the moon is so great that the gravitational pull of the earth, keeps trying to pull the moon in, but it's moving to fast, so fast that it is in a constant state of rotation around the earth.

Now take a LEGO brick and put it out in space and the earths gravitational pull won't affect it becasue it is too small and had no initial momentum, unless of course you let go of it from a space shuttle because then it would have already been in orbit around the earth, and now you couldn'y count that could you.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Big Cam

[prateek]

Hmm... interesting yes, reasonable, maybe. If they do find water, good for them. And what if the moon goes out of it's orbit from this explosion

Edited October 8, 2009 by prateek

[Big Cam]

Hmm... interesting yes, reasonable, maybe. If they do find water, good for them. And what if the moon goes out of it's orbit from this explosion

This was actually depicted in the movie "The Time Machine" The remake released in 2002.

Great movie in my opinion.

[posades]

It isn't sufficient enough to pull anything into the Earths atmosphere that is the size of a LEGO brick.

The moon is held in place by the inertia that it originally came with when it first encountered the earth, I'm not saying how because I obviously don't know. Eitherway, the momentum of the moon is so great that the gravitational pull of the earth, keeps trying to pull the moon in, but it's moving to fast, so fast that it is in a constant state of rotation around the earth.

Now take a LEGO brick and put it out in space and the earths gravitational pull won't affect it becasue it is too small and had no initial momentum, unless of course you let go of it from a space shuttle because then it would have already been in orbit around the earth, and now you couldn'y count that could you.

Now I don't know your background in orbital mechanics so I'll refrain from giving you too much flack, but the truth of the matter is you're throwing out terms left and right that don't exactly match up with the actual physics/mathematics behind celestial body motion.

But to the actual topic at hand, we'll see where this leads. I agree this probably isn't the best use of money our government is spending at the moment, but it might lead to a discovery (or at least debunk some theories). I'm sure the scientists and engineers at NASA have scrupulously done their homework about all possible outcomes of such a procedure......right?

[JimBee]

Sounds interesting enough, although I think we should concentrate on our problems here first, rather than expanding them to other worlds. I wonder why I haven't heard about this before?

Plus, I wonder where all that money is coming from? [/sarcasm]

[Siegfried]

The money that is put into space research is a drop in the ocean compared to other expenses such as silly wars. If it wasn't for space directed research we'd be still using slide rules and abacuses at schools and EB would be a physical newsletter. GPS wouldn't exist, nor would most live TV... Follow the link Eilif posted for more details. Even if we did put all the space research money to solve Earths problems it would achieve nothing. It's simply not enough and besides, Earths problems cannot be solved by money alone. 

Also, the faster humans get off this pretty rock and spread the better. It's all too easy for all of us to die out with one stray asteroid and I for one want us to have a better chance of surviving and spreading LEGO to the rest of the universe. To do this we need to practice colonisation and the moon is perfect for that purpose.

They're not bombing the moon anyway. It's a crash landing of a probe and its booster. No explosives required.

(Predictable reply from the Sci-Fi forum leader. )

I wonder why I haven't heard about this before?

To be blunt, because you don't care enough. I've been keeping track of this mission for months. The information is all on the web...