laserpig said:

This allows them to plan a much simpler flightpath and avoid the significant expense of recovering a satellite when they don't need to.

---

niteowl said:

djmako7 said:

80 million and that isnt including the private funds they received.

I know this rocket which BTW is as strong as 2 plutonium armed warheads.

---

You have no idea WTF you are talking about

---

laserpig said:

No, "the govenment" cannot "launch a missile" at the moon. NASA is not "the government," they're a scientific agency which pretty much follows its own agenda

---

niteowl said:

The second satellite is collecting the data from the explosion to see what the water content is.
It will send the information back to earth before it too crashes into the moon

---

djmako7 said:

Ok I can tell you are google happy and not full of significant information. Luckily I have conversed with nasa associates. Nasa has a satellite recovery program, google it and you wont find it. They recover satellites all the time the people administering the program, well they recover satellites.

---

x 2

The satellite recovery system is for satellites in earth orbit

Quote:

Have you seen the flightpath? That shit took off in june and went around the earth a dozen times in the weirdest way. Go watch the launch animation on nasas website.

---

Quote:

I also know the power of a single plutonium tipped warhead from my days in the service.

---

laserpig said:

Satellite recovery works for satellites in earth orbit, not satellites on a collision course with the moon. We have NO REASON to recover this satellite -- you're already complaining about a meager 600 mil, why do you want them spending more?

"That's not what they are doing?" Seriously?
I can't believe how clever you are, you've cracked NASA's secret plan to ... what? Blow up the moon? Right, dude.

---

djmako7 said:

niteowl said:

The second satellite is collecting the data from the explosion to see what the water content is.
It will send the information back to earth before it too crashes into the moon

---

So do you know how long it takes a transmission to reach the earth from where the satellite will be?

Do you know what time the satellite will crash into the surface after the rocket?

You do the math.

4 minutes 26 seconds.

The subliming H20 will not reach past the blast until 10 minutes after the rocket hits.

---

x 3

The second satellite will send its information as it passes through the debris cloud and will continue transmitting until it crashes into the moon too.

We will receive all the information it sends

Have you graduated from HS yet

djmako7 said:

No but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they are testing armed satellites from space. They are testing weapon capabilities.

---

x 4

Quit pulling shit outta your ass and show me some evidence of NASA putting weapons in space.

niteowl said:

The LCROSS spacecraft itself, weighing in at 1,500-pounds (700-kilograms), will follow the Centaur by about four minutes and fly through the regolith plume thrown up by the collision, just before it too slams into the lunar surface, kicking up its own smaller plume of debris, all the while using its sensors to look for telltale signs of water, beaming the information back to Earth.

link

---

niteowl said:

djmako7 said:

No but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they are testing armed satellites from space. They are testing weapon capabilities.

---

x 4

Quit pulling shit outta your ass and show me some evidence of NASA putting weapons in space.

---

djmako7 said:

Show me some evidence that they are not.

---

laserpig said:

Alright, this has gotten too combative. That's partially my fault, and I apologize.
Just so I'm sure I understand you correctly:

It is your suspicion that NASA either does not have a use for this moon surface water-content data and/or they have no actual intention of collecting such data with LCROSS.
Following from that suspicion, you think it seems likely that all of this is an elaborate cover for some unprecedented kind of weapons test.

Is that correct?

If so ...  I have got to admit that I have no means of proving you wrong, and therefore I acknowledge that there is some possibility you are correct.
However, I personally think you're grasping at nothing for psychological reasons of your own.

This is tinfoil-hat-type-shit, and I am going to treat it the way I treat all similar theories: crackpot until proven otherwise.

---

c0sm0nautt said:

Duh there is water on the moon. India's first spacecraft found the water already. What are they trying to prove?

---