NASA "Moon Bombing" mission -- DISAPPEARS

reply to post by Phage


I will not reject it, but I will also not automatically accept it right off.

I am one of those who are intrigued by the alien on the moon aspect.
It is an exciting thing imo. If it's true or not, I just can't say. But I have choose to believe this because It seems more fun.

HOWEVER...

I do doubt that something like that might have happen here.
It may have landed..sorry, crashed and data have been gathered.

But I am more curious of the questions I wrote in the previous post of mine.

Strange movement on the descending craft, not aligned IR images and that thing with the man in the end.
I still am not convinced that it was the actual crashing we saw. The IR might have been real though, in that I have more confidence. But the color pics of the moon....nope, not yet sure about that.

The whole approach look like a model work.

And i don't understand.... Still images.... WHY?!?!?!?
We live in a world where we have streaming media on internet.
If Nasa really want to do serious analyses visually by cameras...why not bring some better ones. That annoys me alot...

Originally posted by kapodistrias
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

If 2 FRIENDS(NASA and the Kitt Peak Observatory) come to you and say the aliens are true because we have some green blood would you believe them?

Yes it is a good example to show you not to believe anyone and anything.

Don't you think the fact that the other 2 Observatories didn't see anything

Are there observatories who are NOT friends with NASA whose data you can trust?

It seems that no matter where the data comes from, some people will find a reason to dismiss it. Therefore those people who have a pre-conceived notion that the impact never occurred can never be convinced to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Malcram

 

Impact of this size? It was a small impact. Please provide any statement by anyone (any scientist that is) that a brilliant flash was expected.

Er, no, THIS is a 'small impact':

science.nasa.gov...

A ten inch meteoroid slower than LCROSS yet the flash plainly visible from earth with a backyard telescope. The article here also says "The Moon is different. Having no atmosphere, it is totally exposed to meteoroids. Even small ones can cause spectacular explosions, spraying debris far and wide". Hmm.

Do you reject the image of the hot spot left in the crater after the impact?

Dude, it's a pixel. There were multiple pixel flashes all over the place well before any impact. Was it raining LCROSSes?

Will you reject all the data as it undergoes analysis and becomes available?

It depends who it's from and if it's an after the fact interpretation game, playing around with single pixels (who could possibly fake a whole pixel? ) when the miles high plainly visible evidence that was supposed to prove this event occurred is missing.




[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Malcram

 

Impact of this size? It was a small impact. Please provide any statement by anyone (any scientist that is) that a brilliant flash was expected.

Do you reject the image of the hot spot left in the crater after the impact?


www.diviner.ucla.edu...

Earthbound observatories have reported capturing both impacts. But before crashing into the lunar surface itself, the LCROSS spacecraft's instrumentation successfully recorded close-up the details of the rocket stage impact, the resulting crater, and debris cloud. In the coming weeks, data from the challenging mission will be used to search for signs of water in the lunar material blasted from the surface.

apod.nasa.gov...
planetary.org...

Will you reject all the data as it undergoes analysis and becomes available?

[edit on 10/10/2009 by Phage]

As I said I need proof in order to accept something.

So the above links show some proof.I do not reject them.

BUT I cannot fully accept these images because I saw the LOST OF SIGNAL the PRECIOUS time of impact.Is that coincidence?Maybe.

Until now no one has given a logical explanation to these changes of image on the live video.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


Are there observatories who are NOT friends with NASA whose data you can trust?

Doesn't really matter does it, seeing as apparently no one else saw anything?

It seems that no matter where the data comes from, some people will find a reason to dismiss it. Therefore those people who have a pre-conceived notion that the impact never occurred can never be convinced to believe otherwise.

Just as those who have a pre-conceived notion that whatever NASA and related 'authorities' say is true.

I don't have a belief either way. I'm just not prepared to make the leap of faith you make. I don't know what happened. I do know that there is a lot that smells fishy about this whole event and it doesn't help that it involves the Grand Fish Mongers themselves, NASA.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Malcram]

It is amazing to me how so many see conspiracy in the normal random. When one idea is not enough, you group them to make it more tangible.

Listen guys. I KNOW there are UFOs and Aliens, likely on the moon and in the deep oceans and high mountains, deep deserts of Earth. I have seen several of my own.

I also believe the NASA/NSA/DoD/??? is doing other secret stuff too. Lots.

But the premise that this mission was somehow an attack on an alien base is ludicrous. No bomb, no sign of a base for a target, so whats your point?

Several other points everyone seems to be chewing on are tenuous at best in indicating any secret covert mission, that is not secret if they ask thousands of people to watch.

All the glitches are normal screw ups, and if there was any cover up, it was for the incompetence of the mission people who have scant budgets and manpower yet have to keep up the appearance of a national science agency that has been feeding us their data as best they can for several decades.

I worked at NASA as a contractor in the 90's and have seen and worked with many normal idiots just like you and me. They have no agenda other than doing their science and keeping their budgets for the most part.

What is amazing is how you do not see anything in the more interesting real conspiracy of Apollo 17, 18, 19, 20.

I can find plausible explanations for each of the points made. Grouping these if you are a critical thinker does not make it a conspiracy.

Wait for the data. I explained in an earlier post the reasons for the mission and no one seems to see straight.

You do more harm to the serious investigation of NASA's facade by ranting on these tidbits of random glitches. I find more conspiracy in your ideas of conspiracy then in the points you make.

The only thing they seem to not be exact in telling us is the precise spectra and number of elements they are looking for.

I still think they are also looking for helium3 and other components for lunar resources for manufacturing and sustainable habitats. I did work directly with the scientists at NASA Ames Advanced Live Support Div. for a year, and have pretty good knowledge of their shopping list of needs, and this mission is looking for those items. Likely for other stuff too, like I said. Ask me and I can tell you about what I know.

But sorry, I see no real evidence of conspiracy yet. And, I look for that.

Wait for the data and in the mean time, look at the Apollo 18, 19, 20 missions more closely. There is a conspiracy there that needs your attention. They have worked hard to cover that up with fake videos to take scent off the real ones.

ZG

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by kapodistrias
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

If 2 FRIENDS(NASA and the Kitt Peak Observatory) come to you and say the aliens are true because we have some green blood would you believe them?

Yes it is a good example to show you not to believe anyone and anything.

Don't you think the fact that the other 2 Observatories didn't see anything

Are there observatories who are NOT friends with NASA whose data you can trust?

It seems that no matter where the data comes from, some people will find a reason to dismiss it. Therefore those people who have a pre-conceived notion that the impact never occurred can never be convinced to believe otherwise.

When I say a lie to my girlfriend then I will communicate with ALL my friends to say the same thing.

So they would not contradict each other.

Maybe they didn't see it.I do not know but I respect the contradiction.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

reply to post by Malcram

A ten inch meteoroid slower than LCROSS yet the flash plainly visible from earth with a backyard telescope

Slower than the centaur? It was going 15 times faster.

"It was a space rock about 10 inches (25 cm) wide traveling 85,000 mph (38 km/s)," he says.

science.nasa.gov...
Centaur impacted at 2.5 km/s.

"On May 2, 2006, a meteoroid hit the Moon's Sea of Clouds (Mare Nubium) with 17 billion joules of kinetic energy—that's about the same as 4 tons of TNT,"

The centaur impact produced less than half that much energy.

The energy associated with the LCROSS impact is about 6 billion Joules (1 Watt = 1 Joule per sec, so the energy of LCROSS is what you’d get from 100 million 60 Watt light bulbs in a second).

lcross.arc.nasa.gov...

I don't think the infrared "flashes" were flashes at all, but artifacts of the uncalibrated images. Since the infrared images from the LRO are all in different wavelengths and showing the heat signature in the same location, it indicates that it is a true reading.





[edit on 10/10/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 10/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by tristar

 

a) The moon has exterme gravity variations. Anything orbiting it will sooner or later crash into it. Landing would be the only other option, but landing has of course a higher delta v than crashing or orbiting (you need to decelerate) higher delta V = more propellant required = less payload or bigger craft = costs more money.

b) They crashed a Centaur rocket into it. The rocket that put LCROSS there in the first place. It was already there. It would have crashed anyway. NASA chose to crash it somewhere interesting, and watch while doing that, trying to squeeze a little extra bit of science out of it (Like any other space agency so far did that had something in moon orbit)

So: from a money perspective it was the smart thing to do.

If i am not mistaken wasn't the buzz about trying to find water on the moon ?

Or have the priority's changed in a matter of minutes again.

further information can be obtained by reading my signature.

I must also state that such sloppy experiments by NASA are clumsy and not in the right actions of Human intelligence. Such as it is.

For me the Moon is sacred ground and just like a pristine forest on Earth, to blow it up (or even part of it) is the most stupid and wasteful uncreative way of doing science.

Our current science is completely ignorant of the nature of the cosmos but acts like imperialist righteous asses.

We need to lighten our footprint and lengthen our stride.

Stupid agency humans.

ZG

reply to post by kapodistrias

The pipeline for data transmission from LCROSS was 1megabit/sec. All of the instruments on board the spacecraft had to send their data through that pipeline. Decisions were being made about how to best utilize the available bandwidth in order to get the most of the most important data (that's what all that chatter was about, changing sampling rates, etc.). We only were watching one channel of that datastream. The datastream ended on impact (obviously).

sorry you caught me...

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

reply to post by tristar

The experiment was about confirming the presence of water in the perpetually shadowed craters of the polar regions and determining the quantity of it. The results of the M3 instrument on Chandrayaan-1 did not provide that information, it only showed a distribution of water and/or hydroxl molecules in the very thin upper surface of the the Moon.


[edit on 10/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kapodistrias

 

The datastream ended on impact (obviously).

The images which we were watching from which of the 2 crafts were coming from?

If it came from the second one then it should not have ended with the impact of the first one.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

reply to post by kapodistrias

The images we saw were from LCROSS, the second vehicle. Why should it have ended with the first impact?

reply to post by Phage


Sorry I corrected it.It shouldn't.Ok we agree.

But what were the blank images?That time the second impact occured...(?)



[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

reply to post by Phage


Phage -- I think kapoditrias was saying it should not have ended with the first impact -- and, as you indicated, the transmission did NOT end after the first impact.

The transmission DID end however with the impact of the second craft (about 2-1/2 minutes after the Centaur impacted.)

EDIT: Never mind -- I see you guys worked it out.

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

reply to post by kapodistrias

I think that they decided that the visible light imagery was less important than other data and cut that data channel from the transmission so they could increase the sampling rate on other instruments.

Just my guess.

OK so we figured it out...

Now let's go to another thread to figure out things altogether.

That is not irony!

I am just glad we solved it.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

[edit on 10-10-2009 by kapodistrias]

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by searching4truth

 

since these events do regularly occur, have
photographs been taken of natural impacts?

Here's an impact video of a 10-inch meteor hitting the moon from May, 2006. Note that they specify that the video was recorded using a 10-inch telescope.

-=Math people=-:

That event is reported as a 10-inch meteoriod colliding at 85,000 mph. The first LCROSS impact was supposed to be 4400 pounds at 5600mph. Can we get a comparitive estimate of impact energy? I realize we don't know the density of the 10-inch meteroid, but the article claims that its speed and dimensions were estimated from the brightness of the event. What I'd like to know is...if 10-inch object at 85,000mph is brightly and clearly visible from a 10-inch earthbound telescope, how unrealistic does it seem that a 4400 pound object impacting at 5600mph would not be visible from a 200-inch telescope.

Thank you.

Sorry for the quotes within quotes this time but it seemed necessary so people know why I'm giving the following...


Well LordBucket, that’s a good question you asked and as I’d been wondering the same thing I worked it out.

Mass (m) of EDUS: 2000 kg.

Impact velocity (v): approx 2500 m/sec (2.5 km/sec) = about 5592 mph, 8202 ft/sec.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 (mv2)

KE = 1/2 (2200kg (2500 m/s)2 )

6.875 × 10*9 kg·m2/s2 or 6.875 x 10*9 J (By 10*9 I mean ten to the ninth power. I can't get the fonts to set up in this message window.)

1 GJ = 10*9 J, so the KE of the EDUS was 6.875 GJ (Around 6.9 GJ, rounded up a tad.)

Now let’s compare it to that “space rock’. The mass of that “space rock” has to be estimated, as we don’t know what type of rock it is, or even if it is only “rock” and not comprised mainly of (for example) iron. But if we accept that the most common meteorites to strike earth are of the stony variety, then a mass of around 3.4 g/cc is not unreasonable for our calculations. (Refer to the table of meteorite densities here.)

So okay, if we have the rock's volume and density we can compute its mass. In the case of the aforementioned space rock of about 10 inches (25 cm) diameter that impacted the moon, we can work out its volume if we assume a certain shape. I’ve settled for a sphere as I have to use something. Granted, it probably wasn’t a perfect sphere but we have to use some way to work out a rough value for its KE.

The volume of a sphere is 4/3*Pi*radius*3 (That's radius Cubed. )

With a radius of 12.5 cm, the result is 8181.23 cc. (That’s a little over 2 US gallons if you’re not so familiar with cubic centimeters.) So we’ll round it up 8200 cc to save too much messing around.

By the way, if you want to work out volumes of various shapes, you can use a neat little webpage here.

To get its mass in grams, we just multiply the volume by 3.4. So, 8200*3.4 = 27880 g, or 27.88 kg. (That’s around 61.46 lbs avoir.) I’ll round that up to 28 kg seeing as we can only guess anyway. It’s close enough for the purpose of this exercise. That’s a pretty heavy rock but not as heavy as it would be if it were pure iron, for example.

So now we have a rough estimate of this space rock’s mass, we only need to convert its velocity from mph to metres per second. You can do it the hard way or go to this conversion page and do it the easy way.

So here we go. Velocity of space rock:

85 mph = 37.9984 m/sec, so 85,000 mph = 37998.4 m/sec

I’ll round that up to 38000 m/sec. Easier to do and 1.6 m/sec makes very little difference in the big picture.

Now the formula to find the KE of the space rock:

Mass (m) of rock = 28 kg
Velocity (v) of rock = 38000 m/sec

So KE = 1/2 (28kg (38000 m/s)2 )

= 2.0216 x 10*10 kg·m2/s2 or 2.0216 × 10*10 J

1 GJ = 10*9 J (10,000,000,000 Joules)

Therefore the KE of the “space rock” was 20.216 GJ. Let’s call it 20 GJ to unscientifically round it down a little after just as unscientifically rounding it up a little. As a ball park figure it’ll be close enough.

This means that small “space rock” impacted the moon’s surface with (roughly) three times the KE of the EDUS, with around 20 GJ versus around 6.9 GJ.

This is because its velocity was so much greater than that of the EDUS. Surprising, really, but unless I’ve made a major boo-boo (always possible ) then that’s the answer.

Of course, the flash that space rock’s impact was captured with smallish telescopes from Earth, so even though the EDUS hit with less KE, you’d think its flash would still be visible from dedicated cameras only hundreds of km (or less) right above it.

Well, I would’ve thought so anyway.

Best regards,

Mike