Why in the hell are they

[Barry]

Barry... when did NASA shoot a comet? What did they shoot a comet with? Did they bomb the comet? What was the same reason? They were looking for water?

Question 1) A few years back. It was the Deep Impact mission referred to in the article you linked. Here's a link http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepi ... index.html
Question 2) A projectile, i/e a high velocity mass.
Question 3) No. There was no explosive charge. Kinetic forces were sufficient.
Question 4) To find out what the cometary constituents were.
Question 5) Yes, amoungst other things.

I feel like everybody chooses their own issues and if people find this moon bombing to be wrong, well it's good that they speak out about it!

Let me state this clearly...There is to be no bombing of the moon. It may be accurate to say the moon will be "shot," but it will amount to about the same impact as a gnat flying into your arm. Yes, it's good for people tomake their own choices about what to speak out about, but it's also imperative to choose wisely, so as not to be led by single-minded media forces, amoungst others.

I'd like to think NASA knows what it's doing and that they're doing this for a valid reason, trying to find water for a reason which will help humanity in the long run.

I think if this can't be said about any other government organization, it can be said implicitly of NASA.

I'm not outraged, myself

Me neither.

I'm a moon worshiper

Me, too.

and a moonchild (astrologically)

Don't know about this, myself. The only chart I ever had done was 12 hours off. (PM instead of AM) I had sun and moon both in Libra, my birth sign, with Capricorn ascendant. What's that make me?

And I hate bombs.

Me, too, too.

So I can understand the reactions questioning why the heck they're doing this.

The reactions come from not understanding. Making a knee-jerk reaction, in other words. Those are never good.

I think someone quoted the cost. It's very expensive. Our tax dollars. What's the purpose of it? What will they do if they find water?

Question 1) The advancement of science.
Question 2) Advance science, which I would rather spend my tax dollars and yours on than defense (building more bombs.)

It's not an issue I intend to get angry about but I think it's fine if other people chose this issue to be angry about. I can understand that reaction.

I don't think it's fine. Anger is the problem. That's an issue I choose to speak out about. And while I understand the reaction rooted in being ill-informed, I don't share it. Do I not have the right to speak out about an issue I choose to speak out about?

Peace,
Barry
PS: I did not call anyone ridiculous. I said it's ridiculous to speak out in a knee-jerk fashion on an issue you are ill-informed about.

[Doreen Peri]

According to these articles, they're going to bomb the moon.

NASA to Bomb the Moon Friday
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/NAT ... 98462.html

NASA's mission to bomb the Moon - Scientific American magazine
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... on-2009-06

Why NASA Should Bomb the Moon to Find Water: Analysis - Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 17333.html

Is Scientific American ill-informed?

Do a google search for "bomb the moon" .. there are many other articles from reputable sources using that term. I'm assuming that because there are so many reputable sources calling it a bombing, it's going to be a bombing.

Am I wrong about this? if so, Barry, please tell me why.

[SadLuckDame]

Dearest Barry,

My utmost, I blush, sincerest apologies for reactions towards something I'd only newly heard of. For irrationally tasting buds of an unnecessary misery, of such an undeserved element/figure not deserving such outright passions. Outburst, logically speaking of course, from mine heart.

It is but a minor chore, a bite of swollen poison in a tiniest measure, you say. For where o where had my sanities wandered? I knowst not, I knowst not. Though, it paned me just the same.

I can't help my childish ills.
I bore them as I always do, love them, squeeze them, call them mine own.

Forgive me, but I'll stubbornly still shed a tear for the beautiful moon. For her soon to be slight boo boo. Her, in her virginity, but Friday she'll taste of humanity.

[Barry]

The facts of the mission are available here, if anyone's interested in facts.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROS ... index.html
The really pertinant part is this

The Centaur will act as a heavy impactor to create a debris plume that will rise above the lunar surface.

I say again, there is to be no bombing of the moon, regardless of how Scientific American chooses to word their report.
Here's a link to a definition of bomb http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bomb
Again, this is the pertinant part

a projectile, formerly usually spherical, filled with a bursting charge and exploded by means of a fuze, by impact, or otherwise,

There is no explosive charge on the Centaur rocket. It is a kinetic impact (velocity and mass).

Once again I've pissed people off by speaking out, because they thought I was speaking out against them. It's okay; I'm used to it by now. It is nice to know, though, that

it's good that speak out about it!

Thanks, Doreen, for the moral support.

Peace,
Barry

[Doreen Peri]

Barry, you didn't piss me off.

Obviously you didn't piss the Dame off, either. She came back and spoke most eloquently to thou.

(hehe.. loved your reply, Ms. Dame... you're a funny gal)

.......

How are we supposed to know so much? I mean, the articles from renowned publications are calling it "bombing." Certainly I didn't know the difference!

Thanks for the education. I'll check out your links, too.

If it's not bombing, it shouldn't be called bombing, that's for sure!

I think we all need to write a letter to the editor of Scientific American, for one.

And yes, Barry, of course I support you in speaking out! Always! I support everyone in speaking out.

Peace,

Do-reen

[SadLuckDame]

Hello Barry,

Naw, I'm just a dame, at times I've a touch of satirical play. Forgive a girl like this one. Although I know what I do, my intentions were not to have you think I'm at all pissed at you. Smiles.

[Barry]

How are we supposed to know so much?

This simple answer, Do-reen, is this...READ the Media; don't be led by them. Glean from them what truth there is to be found in all the bullshit they put forth for their own purposes, to meet their own agenda, whatever media you choose to peruse.

I'd like to quote Tom Hanks now, but I can't remember exactly what he said, and I can't quickly find a link through google, but he and Jean Reno held a press conference when The DaVinci Code came out in which Tom said something like, "I like to read the Bible with my mind as much as my eyes."

Treat the Media the same as the Bible, or any other doctrinaire text: read with your mind as much as your eyes.

Peace,
Barry

[hester_prynne]

Whoa!
I can't believe what I'm reading here!
Read the media like you read the Bible????
No thanks. It doesn't work that way for me.
I'm a big fan of the moon. I always have been since I was young.
I feel very passionate about them shooting a missile at the moon in order to see if there is water there somewhere. Passionately against it. You see, I think the moon has alot to do with things, tides, cycles, our well being. I read moonlore and love the feminine attributes given to her there and I deeply believe in it. She is not a rock to shoot at to me.
And I will read from my own source thank you. Anymore, I trust my own sources more than others.
Barry, you kind of come off here like you think you are the source. You might want to tone that down a bit...
"Peace"
H

[Doreen Peri]

Barry,

So, with every news story you think people should be skeptical and dig more into other sources to find out more information? I figured doing a google search and finding multiple articles published by reliable sources and reading them would be doing just that. Digging thoroughly into multiple sources.

The story headline was "bombing the moon"... the major publications which carried the story used the term "bombing." Why should we even suspect that this term was inaccurate?

What would have been the red flags to suggest that the term was not correct and that I should google some other term to get the REAL information? AND, what terms SHOULD be have googled in order to find out the real, accurate, correct information?

I DO read the media! I don't feel like I'm led by them. I read a variety of different sources on whatever stories I'm interested in.

I don't read the Bible. Not currently anyway, but that's another story, and not even pertinent to this conversation, except for the fact that you brought it up. When I did read it, I didn't take it literally. It clearly contains myth, literary devices, and imagery. So I don't see the comparison being valid.

I read EVERYTHING with my mind open as much as my eyes.

As hest says, your words do tend to read like you're an authority on the topic.


........

Hest,

The craters are caused by impact from asteroids and comets and the moon is hit quite often. But human impact is a different thing. I understand your concern. The moon is important to me too.

[Barry]

I'm not a source, Doreen. I went to the source: http://www.nasa.gov/

Neither you, nor hest, nor SLD bothered to go to the source, did you? You all just read what was put out there for you to read and become outraged. The editors of SciAm knew "bombing" was an innaccurate term. They chose it because it's inflammatory. And much of American society, like you three ladies, has become inflamed. Exactly what the SciAm editors wanted. Bet they sold a lot of mags and got a lot of hits on their website, though.

Herd mentality is herd mentality no matter which herd you're in.
If my refusing to be in a herd makes me an "authority" in someone's eyes, an "authority" to be "toned down a bit," in their opinion, so be it.

Peace,
Barry...not a sheep; not a sheepherder; just a man.

[Doreen Peri]

Barry,

I didn't become outraged. Nor did I become inflamed.
Where the heck did you get that idea?

I also didn't say you were the source.

And I asked you questions you didn't answer. Why didn't you answer my questions?

I'm also not a member of a "herd" and I'm not a "sheep."

I find this to be a bit condescending, don't you?

[Barry]

Which question, Doreen? Gosh, you've asked so many in this thread, I don't know which you refer to now, in your latest post. Maybe this one?

How are we supposed to know so much? I mean, the articles from renowned publications are calling it "bombing." Certainly I didn't know the difference!

You're supposed to not accept on faith whatever you read in a publictaion, whether it is a "renowned" one or not. In short, one should think for oneself, rather than let others, even "renowned" publications, do it for them.

Read the media like you read the Bible????

Yes, hester. Like the Bible or any other doctrinaire text (the part you chose to leave off my statement)...with your BRAIN as much or more than your eyes. In short, think for yourself. Don't let others do it for you, though many will be glad to do so.

So, with every news story you think people should be skeptical and dig more into other sources to find out more information?

Yes, Doreen. Either that or, if it's too much work, just think about it a little bit, rather than accept it at face value. Consider the purpose behind the words. That's all I'm saying.

Why should we even suspect that this term was inaccurate?

Because they have an agenda. Mainly, selling adspace. They do this by riling people up. Which the stories, and the choice to use the innaccurate word "bombing" certanly did. Google "NASA bombs moon." We ain't the only ones talking about this right now. It's happening all over the internet. Guess those Media folks knew what they were doing, huh?

What would have been the red flags to suggest that the term was not correct and that I should google some other term to get the REAL information? AND, what terms SHOULD be have googled in order to find out the real, accurate, correct information?

You could have gone to the NASA site and checked out this moon mission. I did it in less than three minutes. Or you could have checked into the Deep Impact mission mentioned in the article you linked. I did that in under three minutes, too.

I don't read the Bible. Not currently anyway, but that's another story, and not even pertinent to this conversation, except for the fact that you brought it up.

I brought up the Bible in the context of the Tom Hanks statement I quoted (inaccuartely, most likely) from memory. He said it in response to some Christian fundamentalist types getting on his case about the movie The DaVinci Code. I think it was very pertinant to this discussion.

I find this to be a bit condescending, don't you?

No, I don't. Authoritative maybe. Maybe. But not condescending. Condescending is thinking you're bettr than someone else. I don't think that now and never have. Authoritative is doing your own thinking and doing the research necessary to do your own thinking. In short, doing your own thinking is work. Letting others think for you is easier.

Which question did you mean, Doreen?:)

Peace,
Barry

[Doreen Peri]

The questions you finally answered in this post.

"So, with every news story you think people should be skeptical and dig more into other sources to find out more information?"

"Why should we even suspect that this term was inaccurate?"

and

"What would have been the red flags to suggest that the term was not correct and that I should google some other term to get the REAL information? AND, what terms SHOULD be have googled in order to find out the real, accurate, correct information?"

.......

Thanks for answering them.

I disagree that I shouldn't consider Scientific American to be an accurate source or information and that I would feel the need to check at the NASA site for "real" information. I LIKE Scientific American. It's a great magazine and sure, it's business relies on funding by selling ad space, but that just funds the enterprise and the purpose of the enterprise is to relay ACCURATE scientific information to the public.


..........

I do believe that calling me a "sheep" and part of the "herd" was a condescending statement and uncalled for. It implies that I'm stupid and can't think for myself. I don't appreciate it, honestly.

You're wrong. I'm NOT stupid. And I DO think for myself. AND I read various sources about stories I find interesting. I'm not a "sheep," I'm not part of a "herd," and I don't follow anybody blindly.

Including people who have an "authoritarian" attitude, if that's what you think you're doing

You're not my authority. LOL....

Have a great day!

[Nazz]

I'm not too thrilled about this, though perhaps I don't feel such a strong cosmic moon-connection as some others do. Logically, I suppose it's only a relatively minor "impact" on a notable heavenly body. But is it setting a troubling precedent? Also, what do we ultimately intend to do with or to the moon? Build colonies to provide home to the earth's overflowing human population to a significant degree? Is that realistic on such a desolate orb? Or do we intend to poke, prod, blast and stripmine it for any useful resources we might find? I hope not.

[mtmynd]

Barry.

Instead of initially posting this comment:

"I don't even know what to say to this."

then following up with :

I once saw a comic doing a bit about the "Save the Earth" campaign.
It was hilarious.
His point was, it's probably the greatest human conceit to think we could actually destroy the Earth.
He said we better hope the Earth doesn't go on a "Lose the Humans" campaign.

We all disappear and everything returns to normal in a couple hundred years at most. Everything about our "civilization" requires constant maintenance.
Yeah, let's hope the Earth does not go on that campaign.

Maybe it's already happened?
Global Warming?
Oh, that's right. We caused that.

So we say.

[10.07.09]

...which did absolutely nothing to clarify your own position on this topic (but did invite some differing opinions on GW, for what reason I'm not quite sure).

then you add fuel to the fire by this reply -

This is ridiculous, this outrage at the moon being "shot." It's ridiculous, like being outraged at a child being bitten by a mosquito in Panama. Are we all so knee-jerk we just clamor for things to be outraged about?

Who got upset when NASA "shot" that comet for the same reason they are about to "shoot" the moon?

Not one of you. And for good reason.

From where I sit and read this thread, all three of your comments were totally unreasonable and useless for the thread.

But you again persisted in inciting some folks by posting but yet another long and drawn out reply to Doreen which went on and on, unnecessarily, IMHO.

If you had given the first line of your forth reply -

The facts of the mission are available here, if anyone's interested in facts.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROS ... index.html

... just think how much of this unsettling thread would have been alleviated in the first place.

Knowing as you did, I sure, the NASA mission and their link, it seems to me you may have gone way out of your way to drag this subject on and on creating an atmosphere not unlike an explosion on the moon. For what reason I find puzzling.