Moon crash produces much data, little drama

Originally posted by ngchunter

You really don't get the difference between a flare and a plume do you?

Let me guess, you are trying to imply idiocy by the specialized definition of technical terms that deviate from the publicly accepted common use ones eh?

Here, play with these: YIG oscillator ("yttrium iron garnet"), hysteresis loops, surface ducting, forward scatter. (no specific relation to the thread, but since you are going down that road I thought you could use the entertainment)

Of course that theory is inconsistent with what I saw,

Then plainly state what you saw and get the chip off of your shoulder. how many responses did it take before you stated that? What? Three?

... Meanwhile we have optical confirmation from amateurs that the probe was on course where it was supposed to be, so how could it have missed?

It's NASA.

What part of "19 times the force previously used" did you not understand (or are you just unwilling to admit)?

Again... it's NASA. What the [expletive deleted] do you expect?

EDIT Add:

You mentioned: "Meanwhile we have optical confirmation from amateurs that the probe was on course where it was supposed to be..."

Which begs the question: How did they loose track? They had the target, they were tracking the target (the probe) yet they all lost it.

Sort of makes ya go "eh?"





[edit on 12-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by RoofMonkey

Originally posted by ngchunter

You really don't get the difference between a flare and a plume do you?

Let me guess, you are trying to imply idiocy by the specialized definition of technical terms that deviate from the publicly accepted common use ones eh?

Here, play with these: YIG oscillator ("yttrium iron garnet"), hysteresis loops, surface ducting, forward scatter. (no specific relation to the thread, but since you are going down that road I thought you could use the entertainment)

I was going to ask wth any of that has to do with the thread, but since you admitted it's unrelated I'll kindly ignore that thread derailment. If you don't understance the difference between a flash or flare and a plume in the context of this event then you're not qualified to call me delusional.

Then plainly state what you saw and get the chip off of your shoulder. how many responses did it take before you stated that? What? Three?

See above. I witnessed a flash in my telescope. It was dim, it was brief (faster than I can blink brief), it was located in the crater Cabeus, it coincided with the moment of Centaur impact, it's really that simple.

It's NASA.

That didn't answer the question.

Again... it's NASA. What the [expletive deleted] do you expect?

Again, that doesn't address the question. 19 times the force previously used means the experiment is on an entirely different level and the same outcome should not be assumed REGARDLESS of what the eventual final outcome is. You assume it anyway and handwave stating "it's NASA." That doesn't magically make the difference between 2000kN and 267kN trivial.

EDIT Add:

You mentioned: "Meanwhile we have optical confirmation from amateurs that the probe was on course where it was supposed to be..."

Which begs the question: How did they loose track? They had the target, they were tracking the target (the probe) yet they all lost it.

What the heck are you talking about? How did who lose track? What do you mean they all lost track? Are you saying you expect a video showing a properly exposed lunar surface to show a faint probe entering a crater when the same exposure won't even show any stars?!

[edit on 12-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

you're not qualified to call me delusional.

An you have just demonstrated your superiority complex. Thank you for supporting my point.

See above. I witnessed a flash in my telescope. It was dim, it was brief (faster than I can blink brief), it was located in the crater Cabeus, it coincided with the moment of Centaur impact, it's really that simple.

So that leaves us with relying upon your word of it. No evidence, nothing finite... just some dude lurking in the bushes with a telescope.

It's NASA

That didn't answer the question.

Actually.. it does.

Again, that doesn't address the question. 19 times the force previously used means the experiment is on an entirely different level and the same outcome should not be assumed REGARDLESS of what the eventual final outcome is. You assume it anyway and handwave stating "it's NASA." That doesn't magically make the difference between 2000kN and 267kN trivial.

Actually, that is quite trivial. At "about one mile per second" you have roughly 1.6 km/s. Ramp it up to the typical 17 km/s (asteroids) or 51 km/s (comets) then you may have something to yammer about. Lacking that it's a trivial difference.

You mentioned: "Meanwhile we have optical confirmation from amateurs that the probe was on course where it was supposed to be..."

Which begs the question: How did they loose track? They had the target, they were tracking the target (the probe) yet they all lost it.

What the heck are you talking about? How did who lose track?

Ummm... okay, I'll repeat it... s l o w l y.

we have optical confirmation from amateurs that the probe was on course where it was supposed to be

And if they did not loose track.. then show me the imagery that they shot. Okay.. "I" don't have to see it... just show it to somebody... anybody for that matter.

Like I said earlier... NASA would love to get their hands on something like that... as would a few newspapers. Talk about a scoop.



It would be really nice to have non NASA cooberating evidence... but your statements are begining to sound more and more like a typical UFO sighting... sans pictures.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by RoofMonkey

Originally posted by ngchunter

you're not qualified to call me delusional.

An you have just demonstrated your superiority complex. Thank you for supporting my point.

It's got nothing to do with superiority, this isn't a judgment of you as a person, it's simply a matter of expertise and experience. If you had both in the area of observational astronomy you'd know there's a difference between a flash associated with an impact and a plume. You did not demonstrate that knowledge and yet you were quite confident to throw ad hominems at me based on your own misunderstanding. You are not qualified to pass such judgments.

So that leaves us with relying upon your word of it. No evidence, nothing finite... just some dude lurking in the bushes with a telescope.

Where did I say I had anything other than my word to offer? In fact on another thread here on ATS the very first words out of my mouth were that all I had was my word to offer. If you think I'm lying or insane, you go right ahead.

Actually.. it does.

No, it doesn't. NASA can't magically cause an impactor with no fuel left to miss a target when it was detected as being on-course for collision one day prior to the predicted collision.

Actually, that is quite trivial. At "about one mile per second" you have roughly 1.6 km/s. Ramp it up to the typical 17 km/s (asteroids) or 51 km/s (comets) then you may have something to yammer about. Lacking that it's a trivial difference.

False comparison, the only comparison that is relevant is the one between what was done before and what was done now; Lunar Prospector had only 1/19th the force of LCROSS's impactor. That is not a trivial difference. Saying it is does not make it so. If you had any intellectual honesty you'd admit it. Whether you will admit it or not at least the real numbers are now out there for anyone viewing this thread to see, and that's ultimately all that matters to me.

Ummm... okay, I'll repeat it... s l o w l y.

we have optical confirmation from amateurs that the probe was on course where it was supposed to be

And if they did not loose track.. then show me the imagery that they shot.

So you just ASSUMED we lost track? That's a weaker claim than I previously thought. Again, you're not going to see it entering the crater in any camera known to man, no device possessing the necessary dynamic range exists. If you attempt to image such a dim object approaching the surface of the moon you'll just overexpose the moon and ruin the entire shot. Failure to realize this is a further demonstration of your lack of experience in this subject, not a personal condemnation, so stop taking it personally.

Okay.. "I" don't have to see it... just show it to somebody... anybody for that matter.

Like I said earlier... NASA would love to get their hands on something like that... as would a few newspapers. Talk about a scoop.

I optically detected LCROSS a little over 24 hrs prior to impact with my camera, right on course and on time for where it should be. Tracking LCROSS is not a scoop, because unlike you, most mainstream media outlets do not contest that LCROSS remained on course for collision. I made sure no one could claim that amateurs "lost the tracking" prior to a point of inevitable collision, just in case someone ever decided to make the claim that LCROSS missed.

It would be really nice to have non NASA cooberating evidence... but your statements are begining to sound more and more like a typical UFO sighting... sans pictures.

I posted a very fine animation taken by an amateur showing LCROSS on course on this thread earlier, do I need to relink it again? I gave you the corroborating evidence, you ignored it. I have my own optical detecting which I recorded as a pair of digital images as well, but mine are not nearly as appealing photographically speaking (reason being that I was attempting to image it at lunar distances and near the moon in the sky, the least ideal condition possible). That didn't matter to me as the purpose was to obtain a detection, even a weak one, just prior to impact.

Originally posted by ngchunter

I posted a very fine animation taken by an amateur showing LCROSS on course on this thread earlier,

An animation is just that... an animation.

do I need to relink it again? I gave you the corroborating evidence, you ignored it.

What? More Animations?

I have my own optical detecting which I recorded as a pair of digital images as well, but mine are not nearly as appealing photographically speaking (reason being that I was attempting to image it at lunar distances and near the moon in the sky, the least ideal condition possible). That didn't matter to me as the purpose was to obtain a detection, even a weak one, just prior to impact.

Bravo Zulu, then let's see your imagery.

One thing you are failing to do, or are choosing not to do, is to realize that my beef is with NASA. If you have this quantity of 3rd party evidence that is NOT sourced from NASA, then toss it or a sample of it out here.

Too many times NASA has made grandiose projections / plans / claims and produced nothing. Just excuses. Let alone info or data that is not sourced from them.

BTW... I noticed earlier that the phrase "from amateurs" is bolded and possibly subject to misinterpretation. I have no beef with amateurs, in fact some of the best corroborating evidence comes from them. My distrust.. as I have stated.. is with the bureaucracy (and marketing department / PR branch) of NASA.

This is also why I was very disappointed that Palomar, closely affiliated with Caltech, failed to catch any specular reflection (glint) off of either vehicle during the ~ 2 minute transit of their 12 minute publicly released imagery.

Show me a link or reference that is NOT SOURCED FROM NASA, that indicates an impact and I will be a believer just like you. I don't even care if it's just a spectrogram or grainy IR shot... as long as it's not from NASA.

They... to sum it up, can not be trusted. At least not anymore.


Edit Add: As for there not being enough fuel to adjust for a miss... (which would be really stupid on anybody's part) I dont know why, anything could have caused a miss. you state that it was tracking true, so that would rule out.. or tend to rule out, gravitational anomalies.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by RoofMonkey

Originally posted by ngchunter

I posted a very fine animation taken by an amateur showing LCROSS on course on this thread earlier,

An animation is just that... an animation.

do I need to relink it again? I gave you the corroborating evidence, you ignored it.

What? More Animations?

I guess you don't get what that animation was; a successful detection of LCROSS in its stated orbit on a collision course with the moon.

Bravo Zulu, then let's see your imagery.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a5bf99260e4.gif[/atsimg]
The bright star with the nice black background is a positive control frame showing where LCROSS would appear if the timing of my shot and pointing accuracy of the scope were perfectly accurate. The second frame is the higher position of the yellow circled LCROSS detection; it's within about one radius of the positive control star, which is excellent corroboration and within the error limit of the telescope's pointing capabilities. The third frame shows that this signal, despite being weak, vanishes from its previous location and moves as expected down and to the left as predicted by the track it was following.

One thing you are failing to do, or are choosing not to do, is to realize that my beef is with NASA.

So because you have a beef with NASA your argument has more weight?

If you have this quantity of 3rd party evidence that is NOT sourced from NASA, then toss it or a sample of it out here.

Normally you need to prove that NASA is lying before you disregard them, personal bias need not apply. That's all irrelevant though since we do have 3rd party confirmation.

BTW... I noticed earlier that the phrase "from amateurs" is bolded and possibly subject to misinterpretation. I have no beef with amateurs, in fact some of the best corroborating evidence comes from them.

I'm an amateur, but you seem to ignore all corroborating evidence that goes against your bias, regardless of source.

This is also why I was very disappointed that Palomar, closely affiliated with Caltech, failed to catch any specular reflection (glint) off of either vehicle during the ~ 2 minute transit of their 12 minute publicly released imagery.

You shouldn't expect to see such a dim source of light in a shot where the lunar surface is properly exposed, regardless of the size or resolving power of the telescope. No telescope on earth could come close to resolving the craft individually as more than a point light source, and shy of doing just that in the split second it entered the crater with the dark backdrop behind it, there'd be no way to see the actual impactor at the moment of impact.

Show me a link or reference that is NOT SOURCED FROM NASA, that indicates an impact and I will be a believer just like you.

You seem to think I'm here to convince you, or that I gauge my success by what you choose to believe. You're mistaken. I took issue with your assertion, but I'm only trying to present what I personally witnessed and the evidence I have that drew me to my conclusion that LCROSS was not hoaxed and did not miss, I don't really care whether you personally chose to accept it or not.

Edit Add: As for there not being enough fuel to adjust for a miss...

Actually, once they lost most of their fuel there wouldn't have been enough left to cause a miss once they were within a day of the moon; that's just too close to make enough of an adjustment to avert impact.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by ngchunter]

spaceweather.com...

This site has connections with NASA and others, watch the video and read the article before it's off the main page or is taken off. The 200 in telescope doesn't show NOTHING. If something hit and didn't pierce through then the debris should at least top the rim of the crater slightly.


If you want to go directly to the movie, but I suggest reading the article aswell.

www.astro.caltech.edu...

[edit on 12-10-2009 by EarthFallingApart]

reply to post by ngchunter


You... get a star. (forum type star) If I could tag more of 'em I would.

Thank You.

Originally posted by ngchunter

So because you have a beef with NASA your argument has more weight?

No, I just have a beef with NASA, they were and are the focus of my animosity.

Originally posted by ngchunter[/i
You shouldn't expect to see such a dim source of light in a shot where the lunar surface is properly exposed, regardless of the size or resolving power of the telescope. No telescope on earth could come close to resolving the craft individually as more than a point light source, and shy of doing just that in the split second it entered the crater with the dark backdrop behind it, there'd be no way to see the actual impactor at the moment of impact.

Which is nothing more than I was seeking. In the roughly two minutes of transit time in the Palomar image, I would have expected at least that from specular reflections.

I pushed those images until I was practically blind trying to find something.


Now... this leads to a question. The 1998 probe yielded no plume. LCROSS yielded no plume.

Why? Is the surface more loosely congealed in that area effectively making it have the consitency of clingy packing foam? Is it a pit of mud?


For comparison, this is a video of bullets hitting stuff. It is shot at an insanely high frame rate and slowed down. It has targets of varying relative hardness and density when compared to the bullets... some generate the rough equivilant of a plume, some pass right through.

Note: Turn your volume down.. it is set to music. (lest you like the track)




My guess is that what it hit had the consistency of a crusted over loose conglomerate. That would explain the lack of a plume and absorb most of the energy as it was dissipated... the crusting would block much of the debris "splash".




[edit on 13-10-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by RoofMonkey
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You... get a star. (forum type star) If I could tag more of 'em I would.

Thank You.

Thank you. To be honest I misjudged you; I didn't expect you to accept grainy images, but it's the best I can muster at those kinds of distances with an object that size and a bright moon nearby. I'm pleasantly surprised that we can come to an agreement on that.

Which is nothing more than I was seeking. In the roughly two minutes of transit time in the Palomar image, I would have expected at least that from specular reflections.

To do that you'd almost certainly need a bigger telescope than any on earth. You're talking about trying to detect something that by my estimation based on my images is about magnitude 18 or higher (higher = dimmer in astronomy) in a fraction of a second exposure. I've never seen that done in exposures that fast. For comparison, mine were 90 seconds long and barely detected anything.

I pushed those images until I was practically blind trying to find something.

Well if you really want to get "down in the grass" of an image and pull out the faintest things you need to get the 16 or 32 bit original image files, not the 8 bit video frames. I suppose you could write to Palomar requesting that data.

Now... this leads to a question. The 1998 probe yielded no plume. LCROSS yielded no plume.

Why? Is the surface more loosely congealed in that area effectively making it have the consitency of clingy packing foam? Is it a pit of mud?

Well here's a thought, what if there's a bit of liquid oxygen present there trapped in the regolith, just enough to make it muddy, especially just below the surface? We now know the temperatures in some of those craters are some of the coldest places in the solar system. Perhaps just beneath the outer layer of regolith is a slush of water ice and more volatile liquid compounds mixed together to make mud?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Thank you. To be honest I misjudged you; I didn't expect you to accept grainy images, but it's the best I can muster at those kinds of distances with an object that size and a bright moon nearby. I'm pleasantly surprised that we can come to an agreement on that.

The noise floor is the noise floor. I've spent hours trying to dig signals out of it in the past. (RF)

Why I so readily accept your imagery is that you are not NASA and you have quantitative evidence that what has been claimed by them actually happened.

Well here's a thought, what if there's a bit of liquid oxygen present there trapped in the regolith, just enough to make it muddy, especially just below the surface? We now know the temperatures in some of those craters are some of the coldest places in the solar system. Perhaps just beneath the outer layer of regolith is a slush of water ice and more volatile liquid compounds mixed together to make mud?

Your're right. I read about that about a month ago.. "coldest known spot in the solar system"... about one degree colder than Pluto. And... a slurry would do the trick.