The water on the Moon isn't just any old water. It is Elvis' swimming pool and we should respect his privacy. How dare we crash a probe onto the Moon and disturb his daily dip? How dare we?

Especially when he's got Michael Jackson visiting, that's just plain rude. Oh, and Bin Laden might pop round later, he's made a nice chocolate cake and wants to tell his friends about his holiday and his new home in the mountains.

Quote: Original post by kseh
I thought they already detected water on the moon. (link) What's the point of going ahead with this?

The rocket was already well on it's way to the moon when that news was announced. The point of continuing this experiment might be to confirm those results.

Quote:
...
Partially, but don't assume that means I've bought into their whole program.

OK, just checking :)

The problem I have with that article and ones like it is not that I disagree with its politics (I do, but thats just opinion) but rather the style of writing. Its full of hyperbole, and unverified claims, and it assumes to know exactly what "They" are thinking. The military implications of space exploration have never been a secret, but there is little similarity between an ICBM and the purely kinetic device being used here, other than both being strapped to a rocket motor.

The response from some of the lesser intellects on the internet (who never cease to amaze me by blowing things totally out of proportion) has made me chuckle. I spent 2 minutes reading the uninformed mass histeria and was nearly on the floor laughing.

[edit]
BTW, wouldnt it be awsome if we could get this image onto CNN or fox news somehow? Seeing it appear in mass hysteria would be hilarious.

Quote: Original post by speciesUnknown
The problem I have with that article and ones like it is not that I disagree with its politics (I do, but thats just opinion) but rather the style of writing. Its full of hyperbole, and unverified claims, and it assumes to know exactly what "They" are thinking. The military implications of space exploration have never been a secret, but there is little similarity between an ICBM and the purely kinetic device being used here, other than both being strapped to a rocket motor.

The hyperbole etc is why I didn't link to it in the OP and why I linked to it after others described similar responses on the www. For example, describing the price tag of LCROSS as "anywhere up to $600 million" without mentioning the $75 million stated in other articles and from there segueing to human needs here on Earth.

You're right that there is little internal similarity between a nuclear bomb and a kinetic bomb, but both are bombs and that's primary to the parallels being drawn in that polemic. Here's a newspaper article from 2000 regarding Project A119, US planned one big nuclear blast for mankind, that touches on some of the issues raised in that polemic: geopolitical muscle flexing, militarization of space, absence of public discussion, scientific pretexts.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by speciesUnknown
The problem I have with that article and ones like it is not that I disagree with its politics (I do, but thats just opinion) but rather the style of writing. Its full of hyperbole, and unverified claims, and it assumes to know exactly what "They" are thinking. The military implications of space exploration have never been a secret, but there is little similarity between an ICBM and the purely kinetic device being used here, other than both being strapped to a rocket motor.

The hyperbole etc is why I didn't link to it in the OP and why I linked to it after others described similar responses on the www. For example, describing the price tag of LCROSS as "anywhere up to $600 million" without mentioning the $75 million stated in other articles and from there segueing to human needs here on Earth.

You're right that there is little internal similarity between a nuclear bomb and a kinetic bomb, but both are bombs and that's primary to the parallels being drawn in that polemic. Here's a newspaper article from 2000 regarding Project A119, US planned one big nuclear blast for mankind, that touches on some of the issues raised in that polemic: geopolitical muscle flexing, militarization of space, absence of public discussion, scientific pretexts.

well, having read that article, it becomes clear to me that discussing that in the context of the current endeavor is a classic example of "They" thinking. never mind that "They" were in 1958; "They" were mostly totally different people to now; and "They" were a fringe group within the larger context of "They".

So its a different time, a different political context, entirely different people, it was never ratified by their peers, and yet people still say that "They" (in this case, nasa) wanted to nuke the moon.

Yes, I have a chip on my shoulder...

I'll be watching this closely, but not for the discovery of water. I'm hoping that we discover something unintentionally.

edit: (aliens)

I was expecting a much larger explosion. Something like the Death Star explosion. That was a little visually disappointing.

Quote: Original post by speciesUnknown
The military implications of space exploration have never been a secret

Could someone bring me up to speed on this?

Also, what are the current laws on land-ownership, etc on other celestial bodies?

Blip! Flash and it's gone. White spot on the darkness, nifty spectroscopy. Wait for the Hubble images.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I was expecting a much larger explosion. Something like the Death Star explosion. That was a little visually disappointing.

That seems to be a common opinion.

Well, it's not as if it had a nuke on it or anything. NASA even said that you would need a 10inch (or 10cm, forgotten which) telescope to see it. Really, it would have just looked like another meteor impact. Why would you expect a Death Star explosion?