Talk:LCROSS

Template:WPSpace

Geology Unassessed

Talk:LCROSS is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Astronomy Unassessed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving LCROSS was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on .

How big will the crater be?

Please don't blank the criticism section, it has appropriate references. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it isn't there. For what it's worth, I think the criticism out there is a load of old tosh, but it is relevant *to the article* Violentbob (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, are you really intending for your edit to stay in the page? Here is what you added:

Criticism

As of September 2009 the mission has become the subject of criticism by sections of the internet community , such as various Facebook groups. Typical criticism includes{{cite web | url = http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=228700285252 | title = NWO and NASA need to stop attacking our moon! | accessdate=2009-09-21 | publisher = Facebook }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=156630950405 | title = SAVE the MOON!!!!! | accessdate=2009-09-21 | publisher = Facebook }}

• vandalism of the Moon
• some unknown ulterior motive
• will have an unknown effect on the Earth
• will hurt the Moon goddess

Nasa-verve (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone else realized that the spacecraft is going to be traveling at OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.240.33 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, kilometers per hour, and we get it. Ruodyssey (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will either of the impact craters be named? Or will they not be named because they are already part of a larger crater or whatever? If they are likely to be named is there some standard convention and if not has there been any public discussion of what they will be named or how a name will be chosen? Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact occurred at the lunar South Pole on October 9, 2009, at approximately 9:35PM GMT.

This hasn't actually happened yet, it's only 1PM GMT, October 9th 2009 as I type this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halinator9000 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The time really is confusing, 11:30 UTC it shows now.

NASA says 4:30 PDT thats -8, so +8 is 12:30 UTC. (or 13:30 for us brits in current BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.240.254 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, PDT is UTC-7 (UTC-8 with a Daylight saving time +1 in effect at present during Northern Hemisphere Summer). Please see UTC-7#Pacific_Daylight_Time for details. Brits who use UTC in Winter and BST in Summer would be correct in thinking of this as (our local time -8) or (8 hours West of us) for the vast majority of the year.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LCROSS has now impacted. I've been watching the news and they show the moon getting closer but no impact cloud. Has anyone seen anything or did it fail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.139.177 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press conference shows images of impact flash and the crater as well. Should be online soon. Planetary (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't see it? The feed I was watching showed a tiny spaceship emerging from the crater, hotly pursued by a giant worm-like creature. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happened, but considering that the moon is 379,000 kilometres (235,000 mi) from earth (the plume was about 20 kilometres (12 mi) high) and moon rock is gray (space is black), we didn't get a very good look. Hopefully we don't start bottling the moon's water, though; then, when we find out that the Moon is a living creature, we will be powerless as it begins to drink us instead. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images and spectra of plume and crater released. Someone post them please. Planetary (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the controversy part should be in the article, as we don't have verifiable references from reliable sources that have called it controversial yet, just one editor appearing to do original research. I am waffling on the inclusion of the High-Five Incident, and would appreciate a discussion to form consensus about its inclusion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing but NN, leave it out. Cheers ^Khukri 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. The alleged CNN reference http://www.cnn.com/news/story/0,12223,45.html is "PAGE NOT FOUND". I am quoting the (admittedly funny but not currently notable) original addition here for ease of reference:

Shortly after the LCROSS spacecraft impacted the lunar surface mission control surveillance footage showed a NASA scientist getting totally dissed after extending his hand to another scientist in order to initiate a [[high five]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP64qqd88UI</ref> Preliminary reports suggest that the dissed scientist was "totally left hanging" and that the other party to the incident is "a douchebag".<ref>http://www.cnn.com/news/story/0,12223,45.html</ref>

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, but lacking reliable sourcing, leave it out. cmadler (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, please decide if you will refer to the spacecraft as Shepherding or LCROSS. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, couldn't this test be considered a violation of the Outer Space Treaty? Specifically the parts that read:

• States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
• the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; JACOPLANE • 2009-10-9 17:30

LCROSS had no explosives, leftover propelent, warhead or other bomb payload. It was literally a hollow rocket stage and an impactor, both with sensors and at least one with cameras. It was purely a scientific mission, with no claim of ownership made (territoriality, turf) by impacting there and no threat to other nation's spacecraft or space relics (past or present) in orbit or on the moon. - Ageekgal (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that if the payload had been dropped to Earth it would have entirely disintegrated during its approach. - Murphly (talk) 9 October 2009

Several commentators indicated disappointment that the impact did not result in the complete destruction of the moon, as they were under the impression that this was the whole point of the exercise.

Really? Without a citation, I am removing this; if someone actually has evidence for this, feel free to put it back. — crism (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it. Never mind. — crism (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't be surprised if that was true, I agree with removal. If it ain't sourced, remove it. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im going to upload the nasa video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.42 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]