Slashdot Mirror


Front Row Seats To NASA's Lunar Impact

itwbennett writes "Tomorrow morning at 7:30 EDT, NASA is going to crash a probe into the moon as part of its LCROSS (Lunar CRater Observing and Sensing Satellite) mission, the main purpose of which is to discover if there's any water on the moon. 'If you happen to have a 10-12" telescope (or larger) then you might be able to see the plume from your backyard,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'For the rest of us, the impact will be streamed live over the web in a few places. NASA will have a feed, beginning at 6:15 EDT. The NASA feed includes live footage from the spacecraft itself as well as expert commentary and other goodies. Astronomy service SLOOH is offering a double-shot of earth-bound feeds, with one feed from New Hampshire and the other from Arizona. The SLOOH feeds start at 6:30 am EDT.'" Update: Matt_dk adds a link to a viewing guide to the impact, writing that "Amateur astronomers need a 10-inch or bigger telescope to make observations."

132 comments

  1. LCROSS Observation page by aembleton · · Score: 5, Informative

    NASA have set up a webpage for the LCROSS Observation Campaign: http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

    By the way, it is at 11.30 UTC for those who don't know how far their timezone is from EDT.

    1. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Shag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll be at the Mauna Kea Visitor Information Station, either looking through their scopes (14-16") or trying to get some pictures with my cameras. Unfortunately, my shift up on the summit ended Wednesday morning, so I have no excuse (or desire, really) to go up top. I might wander up to the LCROSS comms center at Hale Pohaku at some point, though.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    2. Re:LCROSS Observation page by jdev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's also a separate NASA mission site with some easier to understand info.

      http://www.nasa.gov/lcross

    3. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume there are some people who will read your comment that are not smart enought to figure out how far their time zone is from EDT, what makes you think these same people even know what UTC is?

      Not trolling, just asking.

    4. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must every /. story about Nasa/space/moon result in pointless posts about the moon landing hoax? Seriously? It's wouldn't be so bad if there were at least funny...

    5. Re:LCROSS Observation page by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      And that was a good way to demonstrate that you're an ignorant troll.

    6. Re:LCROSS Observation page by jklein · · Score: 1

      And that was a good way to demonstrate you have no sense of humor.

    7. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because us, the europeans, don't really care about what your time zones and time offsets are, but at least we know what the standard hour is.

      Remember kids:

      USA =/= World

    8. Re:LCROSS Observation page by tyldis · · Score: 1

      Kudos. /. shouls always use UTC. Always.

    9. Re:LCROSS Observation page by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      No. TCB.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    10. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Lordy2001 · · Score: 1

      Maybe us kids in the US don't give a damn what time it is in Grenwich England and only like to deal with our own timezones.

    11. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome! That's fucking great! I never thought of that.

    12. Re:LCROSS Observation page by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And that was a good way to demonstrate that your sense of humor isn't funny.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:LCROSS Observation page by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0

      You're confused. But that's to be expected... you're a jock, right?

      First, the nerds send a monkey. Then they send a jock. Then they send the nerds after the safety checks have been passed.

      They don't send the jock first because he's so highly esteemed. They send the jock for the same reason they send the monkey.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    14. Re:LCROSS Observation page by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      Just in case, English is 'Because we', not 'Because us'.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    15. Re:LCROSS Observation page by bonizzem · · Score: 1

      here is also a countdown:
      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/index.html

    16. Re:LCROSS Observation page by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Your own timezones? You mean those defined by the "time distance" to Greenwich time?

      Look, it's a very simple concept - don't use local variables that are usefull only to you when communicating.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  2. Lunarian race ... by Tanks*Guns · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a pretty safe bet that the impact of the Centaur module will awaken some ancient lunarian race which will immediately begin waging a campaign to subjugate Earth once and for all, so it would behoove you to watch one of these feeds in order to be prepared for the inevitable.

    Flash!!! ... GORDON .....

    1. Re:Lunarian race ... by alexj33 · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> Flash!!!! AA-aaaaah......

      There, fixed that for you.

    2. Re:Lunarian race ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if...that's no moon?

    3. Re:Lunarian race ... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our ancient moon dwelling aristocratic overlords.

    4. Re:Lunarian race ... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      some ancient lunarian race

      Cecil's on his way to take care of this, right?

    5. Re:Lunarian race ... by Foochee · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our Lunar Overlord, Al Gore - First Emperor of the Moon, Rider of the Great Moon Worm. He shall give me a bag of sapphires after warning the Empire of this preemptive strike

    6. Re:Lunarian race ... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Gordon's Alive?!

  3. Think of the Mooninites! by Chickan · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Think of the Mooninites! by Bazman · · Score: 0

      Never mind them. There's plenty of people who think this is a secret NASA project to turn the moon into an interplanetary bombing range. And various new-agey types urging us not to bomb the moon, and to respect luna, and who will be praying for the moon tomorrow. O Rly? Ya rly. Just google for 'bombing the moon'.

      If the probe misses I would bet these types would think it was the doing of their prayers....

      How often does a meteor this big hit the moon?

    2. Re:Think of the Mooninites! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Furthermore, NASA is aiming directly at their frozen water reserves!

    3. Re:Think of the Mooninites! by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the probe misses

      Prayers would be the least of their worries, it would mean that NASA can't hit the broad side of a planet from 20 paces!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Think of the Mooninites! by zapakh · · Score: 1

      If the probe misses

      If the probe fails in its mission and instead makes a soft landing on the lunar surface, then I'll attribute it to the power of prayer.

      I mean, wow, can you imagine?

  4. Does anyone else have this wish? by NoYob · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wish that the "Mythbusters" guys would fly the probe into the Moon with one of them screaming, "I wanna see something blow up!"

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Does anyone else have this wish? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Preferably with them and their three oh-so-political-correctly-mixed underlings inside the probe.

      It's amazing how boring, dragged-out and pseudo-sciency these guys can make a simple yes or no answer. And no, the way they get to that answer does _not_ interest me if it's presented in such a way.

  5. Lets hope by OverlordQ · · Score: 0

    that the aliens wont get too upset at us.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  6. Robots by Viper23 · · Score: 1

    Is it really so hard to set up an excavation robot on the moon that we have to keep dropping things on it?!?

    Also...

    Trying to get rid of mental image of Man on the Moon wearing a blindfold while smoking a cigarette.

    1. Re:Robots by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe it is because of the extremely low temperature at the moon's poles and that any robotic being would not survive. I also understand that any water ice exposed to the sun on the moon would almost instantly sublimate, so I guess that an impact lifting tons of moon regolith is the most logical step in seeing water ice for a short moment, right before it sublimates because of the sun's energy it will be exposed to.

    2. Re:Robots by Viper23 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason it's so cold is that it's in a crater that doesn't let the sun in. As for freezing your robot, there is no atmosphere to leach heat off of your robot, so at the most you'd need to make up for heat lost through your highly insulated tires.

      The main advantage of using a robot (other than "you've got a robot on the moon") is that you can study the structure / layout of the minerals in place rather than just their composition...

    3. Re:Robots by Ragzouken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The main problem is probably powering a robot on the moon without solar power.

    4. Re:Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Take some science class. Things lose heat in vacuum by emitting radiation (typically infrared at our temperature). You might also learn that crashing is easier than landing (less delta-V), kinetic energy is a bitch at that kind of speed and will create an explosion, and people here on Earth actually use explosions to excavate material, not robotic spoons.

    5. Re:Robots by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      This probe impact is going to kick up vastly more material than a practical robot could ever dig. If your goal is an existence proof of water, and you don't know how common it is, then you want to go through as much material as possible. Phoenix barely scratched the surface of Mars. If signs of water had been more than a few inches deep, it wouldn't have found them before it died.

      Maybe once we've confirmed there's water in those craters, it'll be worth sending a robot of some kind to take a closer look.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Robots by TTURabble · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that we need to bomb Mars?

    7. Re:Robots by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Is it really so hard to set up an excavation robot on the moon that we have
      > to keep dropping things on it?!?

      Yes, it is. It is particularly hard to soft land things on the moon, especially in awkward places such as polar craters that we cannot see into.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Robots by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that if we blow up the moon, we can really see what it's made of!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Robots by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that we need to bomb Mars?

      What did Pennsylvania ever do to you?!

      It would be horrible. Carnage, death, destruction. Martian law might even be declared!

    10. Re:Robots by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Take some science class. Things lose heat in vacuum by emitting radiation (typically infrared at our temperature). You might also learn that crashing is easier than landing (less delta-V), kinetic energy is a bitch at that kind of speed and will create an explosion, and people here on Earth actually use explosions to excavate material, not robotic spoons.

      Heat, by definition is Radiation. We won't get into the specifics of convection and conduction.

    11. Re:Robots by sznupi · · Score: 1

      This is at most a green wackos problem, not technical one. We've been using RTGs when there's not enough solar power for a long time.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    12. Re:Robots by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Crashing the more-or-less useless remains of existing missions into a planet is free. Sending an excavation robot is not. Also note that they had the booster hit first and the actual payload hit later so it could still measure & report while flying through the plume of debris.

  7. Bad Weather by hardburn · · Score: 0

    That'll teach the Lunar People who owns this solar system!

    More seriously, I was looking forward to watching this in my telescope, but it looks like it's going to rain for the next 24 hours straight.

    --
    Not a typewriter
    1. Re:Bad Weather by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is not a bombardment, but a "police action"

  8. Forced innoculation of the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the impactor does contain trace amounts of mercury and other heavy metals.

  9. More NasaTV feeds by agentgonzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    NasaTV Feeds at different resolutions:
    100k/s, 320/240
    200k/s, 320/240
    500k/s, 480x360 (I think)
    100k/s, 640/480
    All Windows Media format

    Real media format
    Quicktime
    For those of you who need to watch it in absolute realtime, I've found that all the yahoo feeds (windows media) whilst being the best video quality are generally about 1-2 minutes behind realtime. Realmedia is normally about 5-10 seconds behind realtime.

    1. Re:More NasaTV feeds by agentgonzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Balls. I thought that I'd got it all correct. The 4th Yahoo feed should be 1200k/s, not 100k/s. Sorry about that.

    2. Re:More NasaTV feeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The real feed is at

      137W 4060 V tp 18 SR 26665 FEC 3/4

      119W 12355 L tp 10 SR 20000 FEC 5/6

    3. Re:More NasaTV feeds by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1

      It will never be in "real time". It takes 2 seconds for the image to beam back to earth.

    4. Re:More NasaTV feeds by agentgonzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it only takes 1.2 seconds (or very slightly over) to get back to Earth. The two seconds you're thinking about was the communication delay for Apollo, representing the roundtrip there and back. This is only one way.

    5. Re:More NasaTV feeds by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      So by your standards I guess nothing is real time.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:More NasaTV feeds by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Some of my friends and I are planning to drive down to the set in Arizona where they'll be filming it.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    7. Re:More NasaTV feeds by sznupi · · Score: 1

      As another poster wrote, everything is affected by this delay. If there would be "0 seconds" delay, the feed would arrive in the past.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  10. When I was a boy, blowing up the moon was just... by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 0
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  11. Get pictures while you can! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When that probe hits deep within the crater, it will finally puncture the Moon's skin and we all know what happens to a water balloon!

    Say good-bye to the moon base et. al.

    1. Re:Get pictures while you can! by rwade · · Score: 2, Funny

      When that probe hits deep within the crater, it will finally puncture the Moon's skin and we all know what happens to a water balloon!

      Come on now, we all know that the moon is filled with cheese.

  12. 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. Cue the loonies by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I just saw this video on CNN

    There are also a bunch of videos on you tube

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:3 .. 2 .. 1 .. Cue the loonies by Follier · · Score: 1

      Better hurry up and bomb the moon before the chimp starts asking why.

      (How has this story gone this long without a Mr. Show reference, anyway???)

    2. Re:3 .. 2 .. 1 .. Cue the loonies by Follier · · Score: 1

      oops, someone did beat me to it after all... >_

  13. NASA, king of acronyms! by SuperNumberOne · · Score: 1

    But they really missed an opportunity with this one: LCROSS was sent to find RUGBYs (Remote Underground BaYous of course)

    --
    Super Number One, a podcast about all things geek
  14. Utu-class planetoid by Monkk · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should think twice before launching an attack against an Utu-class planetoid?

    Mutineer's Moon
    http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671720856/0671720856.htm

    --
    TomB

    "You can't take the sky from me..."
    1. Re:Utu-class planetoid by findrails · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should think twice before launching an attack against an Utu-class planetoid? Mutineer's Moon http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671720856/0671720856.htm

      Dahak didn't mind so much being attacked - it kidnapped the person attacking it, gave them a complete body upgrade, and they ended up ruling. Not seeing any negatives :)

  15. It is a conspiracy, by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny
    It is a deliberate underhanded attempt by NASA to deny the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who survive by peddling the NASA moon landing conspiracy theories. NASA tries to prove beyond doubt, and create thousands of eye witnesses of NASA's ability to actually send a rocket all the way to the moon. This must be stopped. Wait. I am getting a late feed from Conspiracy Central.

    ...

    Looks like NASA has launched a large white glass plate and placed it in near earth orbit. It is sitting exactly in the line of sight from Earth to moon. People normally see through this the real Moon. But at the appointed time, NASA will project an image using lasers and create an illusion of a spacecraft crashing into moon, and then turn off the projection. Ha, haa, NASA, we got you. We got you all figured it out. Your jig is up. We will not be denied our meal ticket no matter what you do.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It is a conspiracy, by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Looks like NASA has launched a large white glass plate and placed it in near
      > earth orbit. It is sitting exactly in the line of sight from Earth to moon.

      "Earth orbit"? No, no. That's all a fake too. Nothing has ever been more than a few miles above the surface of the Earth.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:It is a conspiracy, by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      What a load. Of course we can get a rocket to the moon now. It is landing men on the moon and getting them back that is impossible. I mean if it was possible would we have stopped doing it for all these years? I mean if we could really land men on the moon forty years ago then we should still be doing it now.

      Yes I am kidding but when I actually think about it is start to cry.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:It is a conspiracy, by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Ah my friend, you jest but I heard a conspiracy theory today on the radio. It was pretty creative. So here's the scoop. The theory is that NASA is not really probing the moon to check for water. After all, didn't we already do that when we landed (and can't we already do that remotely with Mars?) . NASA has stated that the impact will create a 6 mile high cloud of smoke, in which another rocket will intercept the debris for analysis. They also stated the probe has a warhead at the tip to create the impact. Well, to the radio host, this translated into the government testing a new nuclear warhead that didn't have the consequences of nuclear fallout (hence the second probe to check for radiation). The purpose of this is to get large explosions in pinpointed regions (like the middle east) without hurting areas around it (Israel and other allies) . The radio host suggested that this was in response to Iran and that without solving the fallout issue, we cannot fully implement MAD. I'm not saying I agree with his analysis, but just wanted to point out that the conspiracy theories have already started on this one...I thought this one was creative and did seem to raise a concern over this flaw with MAD response.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    4. Re:It is a conspiracy, by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      Wait, wouldn't it be more plausible that there are men on the moon (Moonmen or Moonians), and our government is at war with them to hide the fact that there are aliens? I think I heard something sourced from the Coast to Coast AM with George Noory that aliens will be shown to us by the end of the year. It might have been David Wilcock's prophecy. Or it could be Richard Hoagland's premise of a secret base. Either way, we are at war with the Moon!

    5. Re:It is a conspiracy, by zonker · · Score: 0

      Sadly some people will believe this. Rush Limbaugh (who I am forced to listen to at work) spent much of the day talking about how this is really just a testbed for a weapon we can use against Iran. I can only imagine the kind of fantasies the oxycontin addled minds that listen to his program are having tonight.

  16. Re:Are the people at NASA stupid or just bored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get out of your Mum's basement and get a job. Only then can your angry shouting about wasting time and money bare any credence.

  17. WHO is protesting this??? by Xaedalus · · Score: 0

    Where are these people and what is it exactly they are saying?

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:WHO is protesting this??? by Bazman · · Score: 0

      According to The Register, it's "Treehugging, possibly lycanthropic web-2.0 campaigners" - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/07/stop_nasa_bombing_the_moon/

    2. Re:WHO is protesting this??? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      According to The Register, it's "Treehugging, possibly lycanthropic web-2.0 campaigners" - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/07/stop_nasa_bombing_the_moon/

      "lycanthropic web-2.0"? Who gave the furries their own Internet? I won several Internets on a forum, I want an Internet!

    3. Re:WHO is protesting this??? by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      oh ye gods that just made my friday. Treehugging trolling werewolves.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  18. NBC Airing on Today by randomnote1 · · Score: 1

    NBC Announced this morning that they will be airing the coverage of the impact live on the Today Show.

  19. Go Long! by smilnrt · · Score: 1

    So NASA found some lunar aliens on the moon in a crater to play catch with? Awesome!

  20. Re:Are the people at NASA stupid or just bored? by fprintf · · Score: 1

    Don't feed the trolls, but how about moderating them?

    This particular program, like most NASA programs, was funded and largely paid for a long time ago. To put a stop to this project simply because of a problem in our economy today would erase the benefits of these sunk costs, and instead only eliminiate a small portion of costs that remain - the launch and analysis. That'd be like building a car, and then driving it into a lake simply because you couldn't afford the gas. Sure, it makes sense on the surface that you can't drive it, but why throw it away?

    BTW, I know that with the car analogy you could leave the car in the driveway. Apparently NASA projects aren't exactly like that, and have huge startup and shutdown costs, plus the issue of getting the timing just right.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  21. If the water is that difficult to get to... by rwade · · Score: 0

    If water on the moon is so difficult to get to that one has to throw a satellite at the surface at 5600 mph, how likely is it that man will be able to inhabit the moon?

    Never mind the issues of building vacuum-sealed living quarters and getting mining equipment to the moon and the current low-power density of the solar energy generation mechanism most likely to be used on the moon, how would you get water up there if you have to send a satellite the mass of a full-sized SUV to dig a hole as deep as the length of a football field?

    It raises the question of why we're spending any time at all on the moon. It can't be lived on, it's unlikely to harbor life, its geology has already been explored. Someone tell me what the point is...

    1. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these excellent questions, and rather than get actual answers, you suggest that it's not worth finding out. Troll? Luddite? What?

    2. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by rwade · · Score: 1

      you suggest that it's not worth finding out.

      Frankly, you're oversimplifying my point. To reiterate, what I'm suggesting is that it's not clear to me what the point is. We know right now that it would be difficult as hell to get water. We know right now that it would be difficult as hell to get equipment up there. What we know right now is that it's going to be expensive.

      If it's expensive and its worth it, fine. But I wonder: what is the point? I don't see the point. Tell me.

      Give me a a cohesive, comprehensive vision for space exploration and then we can fund it or not instead of framing the argument on a "Gee whiz" footing.

    3. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It raises the question of why we're spending any time at all on the moon. It can't be lived on, it's unlikely to harbor life, its geology has already been explored. Someone tell me what the point is...

      Its surface geology has been explored, but not what's beneath. As for why to explore it, it's the closest heavenly body to the earth, so it's a good place to start. It's cheap and easy to get to, and a good stepping stone to future missions. Do you think the Viking or Mariner missions would have been successful if not for the Surveyor moon missions? If we ignore moon science, we make all future space missions more difficult and expensive.

      If you don't think astronomy isn't important, then you must hate science. If you think the moon isn't important, you're just not thinking practically.

      Of course, the reason for using a satellite impact is because it's cheaper and easier to determine if there is any water at all (which scientists aren't sure of). If there isn't, we saved ourselves a bunch of money by not sending up an expensive excavator robot. If there is, then we can determine how best to determine the geological significance, and what that means for the history of our solar system and potential future moon missions.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    4. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Mankind is something of an odd creature. Our inquisitive nature allows it explored areas that are too hostile even for us to survive. We do this exploration and observe what happens in order to satisfy our other primary curiosity, knowledge. From this knowledge and experience, we gain valuable insight that helps make out lives a bit easier, safer, and perhaps more challenging at the same time. It's in our nature to push the limits of about anything in order to achieve a goal or satisfy a challenge. This is one thing that distinguishes us from most other life forms we know of.

      That being said, we do it because we can and be we can means that we will be able to do other things later which may or may not benefit society. So far, crashing a probe and analyzing the debris is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to satisfy the question of Ice on the moon. If it's there, the next challenge would be to make it accessible and usable to man for whatever out needs are. Now this tech could be really interesting because it could help irrigate deserts or provide emergency water in catastrophe situations. It could also help us in determining much more about the moon and develope technology to make missions possible to other planets which may or may not yield more information or technology that makes human life easier/better.

      In short, the point is to simply expand our knowledge. The point is to satisfy some of the very basic human traits.

    5. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by volcanopele · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall a large world nearby with plentiful water supplies that could be shipped in... It isn't as if lunar settlers would completely cut off from supplies from Earth, the Moon isn't THAT far away. Add that with even a half-decent water recycling system, and water shouldn't be a problem.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    6. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by Draek · · Score: 1

      Because its cheaper to take stuff from the moon into outer space than it is from Earth, by virtue of its much lower gravity and nearly non-existant atmosphere.

      Perhaps actually living on the Moon's surface won't ever be feasible, but there's no reason why you couldn't just, dunno, grab a chunk of it then process it in your theoretical spaceship.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    7. Re:If the water is that difficult to get to... by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't water, it's energy. It takes a lot of energy to lift anything out of Earth's gravity well. Getting water to the moon in large volume is energetically too expensive to make it worth the trouble. Finding water on the moon makes a moon base a lot cheaper.

      This brings me to the next step. Water on the Moon isn't valuable because it's water. Water on the Moon represents energy. Using solar power, it can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burned back into water vapor (or just used as separate gases; oxygen can obviously be used for life support and hydrogen can be used as a thrust medium, since you're venting it into an essential vacuum so there's no risk of ignition). The value behind this is that hydrogen/oxygen is cheaper to move around, which makes it a lot more useful for fueling machines than batteries driven directly from solar power. Therefore, we'd be able to start constructing much better vehicles and engines on a moon base than if it was all electrical. The presence of water locally is what makes a moon base economically more feasible, so it's important to know if it's there.

      Virg

  22. uh huh huh...you said probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those amazon women are going to be pissed that we penetrated their nether regions with our manly probes!

  23. The Time Machine by Xanavi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    whatcouldpossiblygowrong? This reminds me of the scene in the 2008 whatever version of the Time Machine where the moon was blasted on to make condos or someshit and it went horribly wrong.

  24. Protest Terrorism on the Moon! Oh Noes! by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    Seriously guys, is it our right to bomb the moon? and permanently scar her chi forever? Rather than being passive observer's of this horrible Astrological act of Terrorism by the evil U.S. Government we should all be contemplating the beauty of the moon, and focusing compassion towards her to help her through what will surely be a difficult and painful time for her. Join countless others on this date in a movement of group meditation to help mend the scars that our less compassionate brethren will bequeath upon the heavens!

    /sarcasm

    In all seriousness, I am really excited about this. Hopefully if we do discover large concentrations of water it will be an ass kick in the space industry to get our act together and get onto building a colony =)

  25. Re:Are the people at NASA stupid or just bored? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that if you're laying off everyone working on the project you're increasing unemployment and decreasing the amount those people are spending -- while I don't usually take that as a good argument for maintaining federal programs, maintaining useful programs that happen to maintain peoples employment seems like a decent idea, particularly for an administration that takes a fairly Keynesian view.

    Of course, I'm a spacecraft engineer and not an economist so my view may be a little skewed.

  26. Countdown! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?day=9&month=10&year=2009&hour=11&min=31&sec=30&p0=0

  27. Queen of Corrections by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    He'll save every one of us!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  28. Stereo Vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be cool if the two feeds from either side of the country could be combined into one of those MagicEye images so we could watch in 3D? Heck yeah...3D r0x0rs!

  29. Moon's Orbit? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I know this impact will be very small compared to the total momentum of the Moon in its orbit with the Earth. But it will have some effect. How much more quickly (or slowly) will the Moon and Earth escape each other's pull and travel apart, ahead of (or behind) the original schedule?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  30. Why bother by cld71 · · Score: 0

    Why does NASA continue to do BS work?

    I am ashamed that after over 40 years after landing on the moon that the BEST thing we can do is shoot multi million dollar satellites at it, and waste tax payers money.

    If it was me, I would shutdown NASA completely, and make a more business oriented space program.

  31. Nasa, They are good at crashing things. by Sardonic1 · · Score: 1

    Now, let us see if someone made a math error, and they miss the moon entirely.

  32. why must we always blow stuff up, seems foolhardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better hope it doesn't put a wobble in the moons orbit and screw things up here on Earth. The moon may be covered with impact craters but I think most of that happened long before people and we don't know if there was any effect on Earth as a result of large impacts on the moon.

  33. Moon men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're sailors on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales so tell this tale and sing our whaling tune!"

  34. I can't believe it... by Ryzzen · · Score: 1

    We're actually gonna nuke the moon!

    http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

  35. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we need to do this? Seems like a waste of funds to me? So what if we find water on the moon? Cant we use this money for books for school kids or something.

  36. Live Viewing at Moffett Field by tomcode · · Score: 1

    ...and other places. Viewing parties across the country in fact.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/impact/event_index.html

    --
    f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
  37. It would really suck... by Degrees · · Score: 1

    It would really suck if the lunar substrate turned out to be far more rigid (what with the cold of space) than we thought, and this impact set up a resonant frequency that shook all the surface lunar dust OFF, and the Earth's gravity drew it all in, causing the Ultimate Lunar Winter. It's The End Of The World As We Know It.

    Holy crap! I think I just invented the next Michael Bay movie!

    I do hereby claim 25% of the movie revenue. If only to make it too unprofitable (to stop the madness).

    --
    "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
  38. Linux users only have the telescope option by maclizard · · Score: 2, Informative

    The site linked to in this story doesn't appear to support OS's other than windows and mac for streaming video.
    Maybe (hopefully) I'm not looking hard enough but at first glance their is no linux support.
    Good thing I have a telescope.

    1. Re:Linux users only have the telescope option by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      If you have cable the NASA channel will also have a live feed.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Linux users only have the telescope option by maclizard · · Score: 1

      If you have cable the NASA channel will also have a live feed.

      cable? thats still a thing? ;)
      Hurray for the NASA channel.

    3. Re:Linux users only have the telescope option by internewt · · Score: 3, Informative

      The site linked to in this story doesn't appear to support OS's other than windows and mac for streaming video.
      Maybe (hopefully) I'm not looking hard enough but at first glance their is no linux support.
      Good thing I have a telescope.

      If you mean the link to the NASA TV page doesn't support Linux, viewing the source shows URLs for the video streams.

      All the video streams worked for me after saving the file provided by the URL, and opening it with VLC.

      Channels

      *Public Channel
      Live Events, Mission Coverage
      http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx
      http://www.nasa.gov/ram/35037main_portal.ram
      http://www.nasa.gov/qtl/151335main_NASA_TV_QT.qtl

      *Media Channel
      Video file, other resources
      http://www.nasa.gov/145590main_Digital_Media.asx

      *Education Channel
      For students and teachers
      http://www.nasa.gov/145588main_Digital_Edu.asx
      http://www.nasa.gov/ram/145589main_Digital_Edu.ram

      *Live Space Station Video
      Earth Views and More (Details)
      http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx

      *Mission Audio
      (may be silent at times)
      http://www.nasa.gov/178952main_Mission_Audio_UP.asx

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    4. Re:Linux users only have the telescope option by ElderKorean · · Score: 2, Informative

      Linux option:
      You can use the yahoo links listed above and paste them directly into VLC under the File / Open Network Stream option - works wherever VLC is supported I suppose.

      Allows for higher resolution then I could find on the site.

  39. Re:why must we always blow stuff up, seems foolhar by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "we don't know if there was any effect on Earth as a result of large impacts on the moon."

    Large impacts? What do you mean, large impacts? The probe is the size of a car, man!

  40. World Times by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    here.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  41. Notice by rnturn · · Score: 1

    As is the norm for 99% of all astronomical events like comets, meteor showers, space station flyovers, etc. this one, too, will be obscured by dense cloud cover for anyone living in the Chicago area. (Argh!)

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  42. I have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a 14 inch one and yes IT'S EVEN TELESCOPIC !

    1. Re:I have... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yours is 14 inches in diameter?! Wow, that's... something, I guess. I would say "sorry for your inability to have sex, ever", but I doubt that your girth is the primary obstacle.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  43. I object by cmdotter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Call me kooky, call me a greenie. I can't see how this can even be regarded as a 'scientific' experiment. I'd put it under the same banner as: "Lets fire a bullet at someone's head to see if there's a brain in there".
    Surely a little lunar robot with drilling capabilities is less drastic than "Let's blow this fucker up and see what we can see"?

    I invoke the chewbacca defence: It just doesn't make sense...

    1. Re:I object by cmdotter · · Score: 1

      Apparently I can't be called kooky or a greenie, but just a troll looking to start a flame war.

      Obviously, this means that I am alone in thinking that smashing shit into our moon is a good idea.

    2. Re:I object by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, this is the redneck center for NASA - it's par for the course down there.

      The reason it doesn't make sense is that it's not the way we(they) usually do things. However, this is a cheap way of doing it. Instead of comping up with a bunch of mechanisms, they're going just doing it on a macro scale. I suspect - but have no proof - that someone made the conjecture if we could observe a small asteroid hitting the moon, we could observe the debris and get data from a good depth below the surface. Somebody else suggested not waiting for an asteroid, since we're already pretty good at high velocity impacts. The up side is that it's cheap, the down side is that you only get one shot.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  44. Re: mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the web feed is going to choke

  45. Seen it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, they are 10 years late!

  46. screwed in South America by cenc · · Score: 1

    I think I am going to be screwed in South America where i live. The days are getting longer, so it will still be day light out even though I am in that EDT time zone.

  47. Here, let me show you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a 13-inch -- oh, telescope? Damn.

    1. Re:Here, let me show you... by bronney · · Score: 1

      :( my Japanese telescope only 3 inches :(

  48. The moon is coming crashed into us!! by phoenixzorn · · Score: 1

    I am reminded of endoftheworld.flv with this story. I know this rocket we're sending to the moon isn't all that powerful, but imagine... the shockwave from the blast being strong enough to change the orbit of the moon around earth by even 1/10th of a degree could possibly mess up the oceans so badly that we have just killed ourselves... and then it wouldn't matter if the kangaroos survive the nukes...

    Shit guys!! We r fuct...

  49. TOTD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not flamebait, but +5 Troll.

    JockTroll is a slashdot treasure.

    Not sarcasm. Posts like these demonstrate how valuable amazing trolls are to a community.

  50. What's wrong with you guys and gals? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Nearly 90% of the US films end up in an explosion, either it is a building, or a ship, car, mountain, some people, but something always to be exploded.

    I was in the USA and I noticed there other strange things. It is considered to be shameful to walk. The sidewalks are narrow, the green light for pedestrians light up just for about 10 seconds, so that one has nearly to run to cross a street. Automobile roads look like the rivers of steel, like a new geographical phenomena.

    If one does not spoil nature, does not pollute badly, does not explode something big time, he/she is a sissy.

    I am not trying to bash the good old USA, but this feature of the US culture comes to the front line of human civilization, as the US becomes the only world "super power". We will see more and more "magnificent" explosions. Now even on the moon! Didn't you hear about drilling?

    If billions of people on our planet start to reproduce this way of life, as what seems to be happening already to some degree, not only our planet will not bear it, but the whole planetary system will collapse.

    1. Re:What's wrong with you guys and gals? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      after considering your post I believe we need a "blow this post up" button next to the "reply" and "parent"

  51. Hahaha, what a anticlimatic letdown!!!!! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    The boffin-hyped"plume" wasn't visible with ten inch nor twenty inch amateur telescopes. It wasn't even visible with 200 inches telescope that Palomar Observatory has! PR nightmare, bwahaha.

    1. Re:Hahaha, what a anticlimatic letdown!!!!! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well, Marshall is kind of the redneck branch of the NASA family. Imagine you suspect that lighting a fart will blow the door off the out house, and all you get is a barely visible blue flame. It's still cool, just not as dramatic as you thought it might be.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  52. In war, the high ground is a key strategic asset. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon, and space beyond that, is the ultimate high ground (unless we find a practical way to travel beyond the solar system, or into other dimensions.)

    Look at history - the history of mankind is the history of war. Thus, if we want to achieve and maintain military superiority, and bolster the ability to defend ourselves, we must continue to strive for the high ground.

    Can't get much more cohesive, comprehensive, and practical than that.