LCROSS - The Moon is a Target

[MID]

I have already sourced an article that reports all of the known rocks that have slammed into the Moon and it is only about a hundred.

You know, this thread is blatantly ridiculous. The LCROSS mission has been completely explained in other threads.

I guess it's getting close to impact time, so we have to rehash it all again.

But the above statement is absolutely incredible.

About 100?

Then what was it that caused the over 30,000 impact craters that are visible from Earth based telescopes, and the millions that have been observed from orbital photographic missions and from lunar surface observations???

...you know we've had eyes up there...looking at the surface, and 100 craters can be observed in a 100 square foot area!

100?

Look, LCROSS is an attempt at ultra precision astronautics and has a decided scientific purpose. It repeats something we've done countless times before, many of those with greater mass impacting the surface (like the numerous Apollo Saturn 4B stages impacted on the surface of the Moon, at ~ 30,000 pounds of mass...which of course were inconspicuous and utterly ineffectual things).

There is no possible effect this LCROSS impact will have on the Moon, or anything else, save...potentially, our scientific knowledge regarding lunar resources.

I'm sure that Friday next, many of you will be watching carefully when the impact occurs, thinking armageddon will result. And you'll all feel pretty dumb when the Sun rises the next day, and the Moon the next night is exactly same as it was the night before.

Kinda like all that nonsense about the year 2000...

I guess some people just need an excuse to worry about nonsense.

[MID]

Yes but a tiny little prick of the right object under the right conditions can pop even the largest balloon. Size may matter but it is not the end all on this issue. There are always other factors.

The Moon is not a balloon. Millions upon millions of impacts, over 30,000 of them by large boulders that produced craters in excess of a kilometer in diameter, have slammed every surface of that world--including the South Pole (We're going to target one of them with LCROSS...it'll be impacting where something millions of times it's mass impacted previously!) So...

It may be that we find a sweet spot by targeting a deep crater impact in the coldest spot in all of the Solar System. It is a possibility that it can cause pain for Life on Earth and make enough of an effect to the Earth-Moon system for us to regret it.

...how's that, when a huge boulder slammed into the very spot we intend to make our pin prick in...and it didn't find a "sweet spot"???

...We're going to make a tiny crater inside one that is 60 miles in diameter...and we're going to cause a problem by doing that???

Honestly...this Moon nonsense is really going overboard.

Edited October 1, 2009 by MID

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

You know, this thread is blatantly ridiculous. The LCROSS mission has been completely explained in other threads.

I guess it's getting close to impact time, so we have to rehash it all again.

But the above statement is absolutely incredible.

About 100?

Then what was it that caused the over 30,000 impact craters that are visible from Earth based telescopes, and the millions that have been observed from orbital photographic missions and from lunar surface observations???

...you know we've had eyes up there...looking at the surface, and 100 craters can be observed in a 100 square foot area!

100?

Look, LCROSS is an attempt at ultra precision astronautics and has a decided scientific purpose. It repeats something we've done countless times before, many of those with greater mass impacting the surface (like the numerous Apollo Saturn 4B stages impacted on the surface of the Moon, at ~ 30,000 pounds of mass...which of course were inconspicuous and utterly ineffectual things).

There is no possible effect this LCROSS impact will have on the Moon, or anything else, save...potentially, our scientific knowledge regarding lunar resources.

I'm sure that Friday next, many of you will be watching carefully when the impact occurs, thinking armageddon will result. And you'll all feel pretty dumb when the Sun rises the next day, and the Moon the next night is exactly same as it was the night before.

Kinda like all that nonsense about the year 2000...

I guess some people just need an excuse to worry about nonsense.

Call it nonsense if you want but you are not posting anything at all convincing that it is.

We have not impacted the Moon countless times as you claim. Less then 20 even. And all of the results were not that promising as well.

And if you believe that the Moon has been slammed around like a ragdoll or something in the past then good for you but there is no witnessed impact that we can prove what the effects were in the past to the Earth-Moon system for impacts we never witnessed. In the distant past there may have been impacts on the Moon that have caused great death and catastrophe to Life on Earth.

So your point about there being craters that look like impact craters on the Moon from the past is mute. For all you know these impacts killed off much of Life on the Earth.

Claim all you want that the science is settled but it is not. There is a risk we are taking with the LCROSS mission.

Edited October 1, 2009 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The Moon is not a balloon. Millions upon millions of impacts, over 30,000 of them by large boulders that produced craters in excess of a kilometer in diameter, have slammed every surface of that world--including the South Pole (We're going to target one of them with LCROSS...it'll be impacting where something millions of times it's mass impacted previously!) So...

...how's that, when a huge boulder slammed into the very spot we intend to make our pin prick in...and it didn't find a "sweet spot"???

...We're going to make a tiny crater inside one that is 60 miles in diameter...and we're going to cause a problem by doing that???

Honestly...this Moon nonsense is really going overboard.

If you believe that a huge boulder already slammed into this very same spot on the Moon that the LCROSS is targeting then why dont you post me a source that tells me all about it and how it effected the Earth-Moon system and Life on Earth at the time.

What was the year of this impact that you are claiming even?

I wont hold my breath though for you to provide a source that proves your claim. Because there is no proof of your claims.

Edited October 1, 2009 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

There is a new article breaking tonight that supports my hypothesis about possible danger that could be caused by the LCROSS mission.

Quakes can weaken seismic faults across the Earth

More news about how fluid (water) can effect seismic activity across the entire surface and body of a planet even as large as the Earth. So ofcourse picking a target specifically for it's water or fluid content can do the same on the Moon.

The deeper (and more watery) the area of seismic acitivity the more it may effect the planetary body as a whole.

From the article:

The monitors found that areas of fluid-filled fractures lie within this section of the fault.

Driven by seismic pressure, the fluid migrates along the fault like spidery veins in marble, acting as a lubricant that enables shocks to pry open the rock, they believe.

Proof of this suspicion came with the finding that repetitive background quakes became smaller and smaller during periods of fluid shift -- in other words, as the fault slowly weakened, less energy was needed to shake it.

This scientific paper indicates that less of an impact is needed to create seismic activity the more there is fluid (water ice) that is present in the fault line or point of impact (seismic activity) to effect the entire planetary body.

[Torgo]

If you believe that a huge boulder already slammed into this very same spot on the Moon that the LCROSS is targeting then why dont you post me a source that tells me all about it and how it effected the Earth-Moon system and Life on Earth at the time.

What was the year of this impact that you are claiming even?

I wont hold my breath though for you to provide a source that proves your claim. Because there is no proof of your claims.

The CRATER ITSELF is proof of an impact. It happened long long ago, likely billions of years ago, but there is no other way for that crater to form.

The moon is covered in tens of thousands of mapped craters visible through a moderate telescope from earth. Most of these (the big ones anyway) are billions of years old. But the moon is COVERED in craters, continuous in size from micrometers in diameter up through the largest basins filled with cooled lava, one on top of the other, overlapping, from its continuous pelting over the eons. You have no evidence to assert that such a small impact, one that statistically happens on the moon at least once every century or so given the population of objects in space, would have a different effect this time. And there are mountains of evidence against it - what we know about its structure, the fact that it has sat there almost unchanged except for the accumulation of craters with no major cataclysms for billions of years etc.

If impacts this small could cause planetary cataclysms no planet would last more than a few thousand years.

As others have said, the moon IS NOT A BALLOON. It s a stable geological unit. You seem to think the seismic data indicates it is fragile in some way. You are mistaken.

Also, I apologize for the tone of the end of my last post. I was having a bad day and did not wish to insinuate any sort of psychosis.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Torgo

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The CRATER ITSELF is proof of an impact. It happened long long ago, likely billions of years ago, but there is no other way for that crater to form.

The moon is covered in tens of thousands of mapped craters visible through a moderate telescope from earth. Most of these are billions of years old. But the moon is COVERED in craters, continuous in size from micrometers in diameter up through the largest basins filled with cooled lava, one on top of the other, overlapping, from its continuous pelting over the eons. You have no evidence to assert that such a small impact, one that statistically happens on the moon at least once every century or so given the population of objects in space, would have a different effect this time. And there are mountains of evidence against it - what we know about its structure, the fact that it has sat there almost unchanged except for the accumulation of craters with no major cataclysms for billions of years etc.

If impacts this small could cause planetary cataclysms no planet would last more than a few thousand years.

As others have said, the moon IS NOT A BALLOON. It s a stable geological unit. You seem to think the seismic data indicates it is fragile in some way. You are mistaken.

Also, I apologize for the tone of the end of my last post. I was having a bad day and did not wish to insinuate any sort of psychosis.

You can claim that the Moon appears to be covered with impact craters but you can not tell me a single detail about how these impacts effected the Earth-Moon system or Life on Earth.

I never claimed that the Moon was a balloon. I simply used an anology to show that within the realms of physics a very small object could cause a great effect on a much larger object if the conditions are right.

Also I enjoyed your post before so there is no need to apoligise. I very much appreciate your input into this thread. Sometimes it could be difficult to judge the disposition of a person on these type of forums.

I will probaly head off for the night so all the best to all.

It is you who are mistaken and no me.

[Czero 101]

There is a new article breaking tonight that supports my hypothesis about possible danger that could be caused by the LCROSS mission.

Quakes can weaken seismic faults across the Earth

More news about how fluid (water) can effect seismic activity across the entire surface and body of a planet even as large as the Earth. So ofcourse picking a target specifically for it's water or fluid content can do the same on the Moon.

The deeper (and more watery) the area of seismic acitivity the more it may effect the planetary body as a whole.

You DO realize that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for the presence of LIQUID WATER on the Moon, right? In fact, given the temperatures and near vacuum on the Moon, liquid water is a physical impossibility.

You DO know that the "Sea of Tranquility" and the "Sea of Storms" etc. are not ACTUAL bodies of water on the Moon, don't you?

Also, the article you referenced specifically refers to large magnitude quakes causing a tsunami, fluid-filled fractures in some faults and does NOT mention ICE (which, btw, is NOT a fluid as you have incorrectly asserted in your post above) at all.

From the aritcle

Their study coincided with a major 8.0-magnitude quake in the Pacific, unleashing a tsunami that killed scores of people in the Samoan islands and Tonga.

The monitors found that areas of fluid-filled fractures lie within this section of the fault.

Driven by seismic pressure, the fluid migrates along the fault like spidery veins in marble, acting as a lubricant that enables shocks to pry open the rock, they believe.

But the most remarkable finding was unexpected impacts from two big, distant quakes -- a 7.3-magnitude shake near the Californian town of Landers in 1992 and the 2004 Sumatra behemoth that unleashed the Indian Ocean tsunami.

Earthquakes are caused when a fault fails, either because of the buildup of stress or because of a weakening of the fault," said Taira in a press release.

Trying to compare the insignificant LCROSS impact to a large, high magnitude quake such as those referenced in the article is at best reaching, and at worst, deliberate fear-mongering and outright deception.

This scientific paper indicates that less of an impact is needed to create seismic activity the more there is fluid (water ice) that is present in the fault line or point of impact (seismic activity) to effect the entire planetary body.

The article does not mention ice whatsoever. There's also the fact that "water ice" is NOT a fluid and that at the temperatures present on the Moon, any ice would be as solid as rock.

Cz

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

You DO realize that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for the presence of LIQUID WATER on the Moon, right? In fact, given the temperatures and near vacuum on the Moon, liquid water is a physical impossibility.

You DO know that the "Sea of Tranquility" and the "Sea of Storms" etc. are not ACTUAL bodies of water on the Moon, don't you?

Also, the article you referenced specifically refers to large magnitude quakes causing a tsunami, fluid-filled fractures in some faults and does NOT mention ICE (which, btw, is NOT a fluid as you have incorrectly asserted in your post above) at all.

From the aritcle

Trying to compare the insignificant LCROSS impact to a large, high magnitude quake such as those referenced in the article is at best reaching, and at worst, deliberate fear-mongering and outright deception.

The article does not mention ice whatsoever. There's also the fact that "water ice" is NOT a fluid and that at the temperatures present on the Moon, any ice would be as solid as rock.

Cz

You do realize that nothing at all in your post refutes my hypothesis at all and that even though the article I posted proves nothing it still does lend more support to my hypothesis about the role of water in regards to planetary seismic and piezoelectric activity and the danger LCROSS may pose.

Of course you do know that NASA recently released information that was contrary to everything we ever believed in the past about "Water On The Moon'

Kind of remind me of a song......

[Czero 101]

You do realize that nothing at all in your post refutes my hypothesis at all and that even though the article I posted proves nothing it still does lend more support to my hypothesis about the role of water in regards to planetary seismic and piezoelectric activity and the danger LCROSS may pose.

The article says NOTHING about "piezoelectric activity".

The article says NOTHING about "ice".

The article refers to geologic forces that are COMPLETELY ABSENT on the Moon.

So, yes, the article in no way proves anything in regards to your "hypothesis" and as such, was a complete waste of time and a lame attempt at a distraction from the fact that your "hypothesis" is based on nonsense and a total lack of understanding of the Moon, geology and earthquakes, apparently.

The Moon is geologically inert and has no plate tectonic activity whatsoever. In case you weren't aware, plate tectonics is what causes Earthquakes. The only relevant geological activity on the Moon - Moonquakes - are caused by gravitational tidal forces exerted on the Moon by the Earth. Much if not all of the Moon's current geology was formed by meteoric impacts, ancient volcanism and gravitational tidal forces.

Before you start claiming things about the geology of the Moon, you'd better actually LEARN something of the geology of the Moon.

Of course you do know that NASA recently released information that was contrary to everything we ever believed in the past about "Water On The Moon'

Please provide any NASA release or article that unequivocally states that there is or could be liquid water on the Moon.

Cz

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Reminds me of a song or two...

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The article says NOTHING about "piezoelectric activity".

The article says NOTHING about "ice".

The article refers to geologic forces that are COMPLETELY ABSENT on the Moon.

So, yes, the article in no way proves anything in regards to your "hypothesis" and as such, was a complete waste of time and a lame attempt at a distraction from the fact that your "hypothesis" is based on nonsense and a total lack of understanding of the Moon, geology and earthquakes, apparently.

The Moon is geologically inert and has no plate tectonic activity whatsoever. In case you weren't aware, plate tectonics is what causes Earthquakes. The only relevant geological activity on the Moon - Moonquakes - are caused by gravitational tidal forces exerted on the Moon by the Earth. Much if not all of the Moon's current geology was formed by meteoric impacts, ancient volcanism and gravitational tidal forces.

Before you start claiming things about the geology of the Moon, you'd better actually LEARN something of the geology of the Moon.

Please provide any NASA release or article that unequivocally states that there is or could be liquid water on the Moon.

Cz

Your post is a joke. It is you who know nothing on this issue. You claim that there are Moon quakes but then claim that you can prove that they have nothing to do with the same sources (water) that the article I posted asserted were a major force in regards to seismic activity on Earth.

Where is your proof that there is no chance of seismic activity on the Moon? You have none. At least I posted very recent news that supported my claim tonight. You have nothing.

[Czero 101]

Your post is a joke. It is you who know nothing on this issue. You claim that there are Moon quakes but then claim that you can prove that they have nothing to do with the same sources (water) that the article I posted asserted were a major force in regards to seismic activity on Earth.

Where is your proof that there is no chance of seismic activity on the Moon? You have none. At least I posted very recent news that supported my claim tonight. You have nothing.

Moon Society: Geologic Processes on the Moon

In the end, we find that the Moon's surface was formed through a diverse set of processes. While these are not as complex as the geologic forces on Earth (the Moon lacks plate tectonics, hydrological and aeolian forces, or a significant geochemical cycle), it is still a fascinating world. And precisely because it lacks this extra complexity, it allows us to study these simpler processes in isolation. While it might seem that we understand everything about the Moon, let me remind the reader that there are still many mysteries about the Moon that are unsolved, and that the simplified scheme presented here is bound to be exactly that--too simple! May we one day return to the Moon and learn more about our daughter world.

Artemis Project: Lunar Seismic Activity

Seismic activity on the Moon is very low, basically insignificant. Due to the lack of plate tectonics, Lunar seismic activity is about a 100 millionth of Earth's, or ~2 x 10¹⁰ J/yr (excluding impacts). In eight years of monitoring, a large-but-rare moonquake has not been recorded, but it is possible to have up to 1 x 10¹⁴ J/yr if such events were recorded. The largest recorded seismic activities are approximately equivalent to a 4 on the richter scale, with 1-2 being typical.

The lunar seismic activity is usually caused from tidal forces and secondary effects from impacts. Secondary effects includes fresh crater ejecta cracking due to thermal stresses and disruption of slopes with high angles of repose. Other, non-seismic activity includes astronaut activity and impacts (both meteorite and artificial).

The Moon has very low elastic wave propagation losses, and seismic activity is thus clearly registered over long distances. This low attenuation also results in a long half-lives of seismic energy, in the tens of minutes, and the phrase "rang like a bell" after an Saturn upper stage lunar impact. Incidently, this long seismic signature suggests itself as a possible communication device, albeit with bandwidth issues.

There are secondary effects from lunar seismic activity that can create hazards to a presence on the Moon. Because of the excellent wave propagation, seismic activity can create widespread secondary activity, such as crater wall slumping and landslides. Apollo 17 astronauts visited a landslide which probably resulted from the impact that created the Tycho crater, 100 million years ago, and 2000 kilometers away.

Although the effect of lunar seismic activity is widespread, a lunar astronaut would hardly notice a moonquake happening, and precautions for moonquakes are probably unnecessatry. There is a small probability of a major event, large ones almost certainly being impact-related, but even then precautions, if used, will possibly be unnecessary. A site selection criteria may be to areas of potential secondary activity, such as those near high angles of repose (although this may be a given).

You could also read the following:

Geological History of the Moon

To A Rocky Moon: A Geologist's History of Lunar Exploration

Origin of the Moon

Cz

[digitalartist]

Here is a link to a post by czero 101 in another thread detailing other impacts purposefully made on the moon with objects several times heavier than the planned lcross mission.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=156651&view=findpost&p=2951127

[MID]

If you believe that a huge boulder already slammed into this very same spot on the Moon that the LCROSS is targeting then why dont you post me a source that tells me all about it and how it effected the Earth-Moon system and Life on Earth at the time.

What was the year of this impact that you are claiming even?

I wont hold my breath though for you to provide a source that proves your claim. Because there is no proof of your claims.

Honestly...

You truly must be kidding, right?

[protostar]

I was thinking that, if the Earths crust can withstand numerous underground nuclear explosions (tests), then I'm sure LCROSS will be like an itch to the moon!

I believe the moon has a crust about twice the depth of the Earths.

[MID]

Call it nonsense if you want but you are not posting anything at all convincing that it is.

i think I can see where you're coming from here...

We have not impacted the Moon countless times as you claim. Less then 20 even. And all of the results were not that promising as well.

I won't ask you to explain what the results of the numerous impacts we've executed on the Moon were supposed to be.

And if you believe that the Moon has been slammed around like a ragdoll or something in the past then good for you but there is no witnessed impact that we can prove what the effects were in the past to the Earth-Moon system for impacts we never witnessed. In the distant past there may have been impacts on the Moon that have caused great death and catastrophe to Life on Earth.

The Marshall Space Flight Center has observed over 100 impacts on the lunar surface in the past 4 years.

Astronomers frequently observe meteor impacts on the Moon.

Have you never bothered to investigate the facts which deny your claims?

There are literally millions of impact craters on the Moon. Where did they come from?

So your point about there being craters that look like impact craters on the Moon from the past is mute. For all you know these impacts killed off much of Life on the Earth.

The word is "moot", not "mute".

For all you know, they had no effect at all upon life on Earth...and for all we know either!

Claim all you want that the science is settled but it is not. There is a risk we are taking with the LCROSS mission.

You may believe what you wish, of course. Your arguments are founded upon nothing, and your knowledge of the Moon is of course somewhat lacking.

You do realize of course that 8 days from now, this thread will be a slam TRUYOUTRUEME symposium?

What shall you say when LCROSS impacts the lunar surface, and nothing happens to the Earth?

Likely nothing I'm sure.

But be prepared for the comments that come your way.

[MID]

At least I posted very recent news that supported my claim tonight.

Next Saturday, let's see how supported your claim is...

[Czero 101]

What shall you say when LCROSS impacts the lunar surface, and nothing happens to the Earth?

Likely nothing I'm sure.

But be prepared for the comments that come your way.

Likely the claim will be that whatever alleged / imagined harmful effects to the Earth / Moon system will take time to be fully realized and noticed, and that by the time they are noticed, it will be far too late for us to do anything about it...

Cz

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

As far as any comments coming my way in a week or so dont worry I can take it. I am not claiming that there will be damage done to the Moon and/or Earth-Moon system but am only posting it for discussion as a possibility. I certainly pray that there wll not be any damage done.

Size is not the only consideration. To the best of my knowledge LCROSS is unique simply by the fact that it will create more kinetic energy blsting "into" the surface then any of the past endeavors of crashing space craft into the Moon. There is a difference between letting a space craft crash into the Moon and in firing a rocket at the Moon. Not to mention that this will be a double blast as well deep in a crater intended to drive below the surface and create as big of a plume as possible.

Of course substantial Moonquakes were recorded (lasting hours) during some of the past crashes into the Moon. It is also known that the Moon experiences mysterious quakes (as strong as magnitude 5.5 on the Richter scale) that happen both near the surface and deep within the Moon as well. Of course in the past we also did not know about "Water on the Moon" which also very well may play into the seismic activity of the Moon.

As I said before I believe that the location is also an important factor as well. Deep within a crater in the coldest spot in the solar system where the most water may exist. Besides the fact that we do not know what other chemical agents may exist in this part of the Moon that can cause possible strong piezoelctric effects or possible explosive reactions.

There are in my opinions too many unknowns in regards to the safety of the LCROSS mission.

If the mission is carried out safely it still does not make me wrong overall. There are more and more missions being designed to blast the Moon and safety issues should start being debated and discussed more by the people and not just blindly trust the government scientists. Sorry if so many here disagree but I am just being honest.

[Czero 101]

As far as any comments coming my way in a week or so dont worry I can take it. I am not claiming that there will be damage done to the Moon and/or Earth-Moon system but am only posting it for discussion as a possibility. I certainly pray that there wll not be any damage done.

Starting the backpedaling already...?

Size is not the only consideration. To the best of my knowledge LCROSS is unique simply by the fact that it will create more kinetic energy blsting "into" the surface then any of the past endeavors of crashing space craft into the Moon. There is a difference between letting a space craft crash into the Moon and in firing a rocket at the Moon. Not to mention that this will be a double blast as well deep in a crater intended to drive below the surface and create as big of a plume as possible.

Please provide a source for your claim (bolded above) that the LCROSS impact will create more kinetic energy than any previous impact.

Of course substantial Moonquakes were recorded (lasting hours) during some of the past crashes into the Moon. It is also known that the Moon experiences mysterious quakes (as strong as magnitude 5.5 on the Richter scale) that happen both near the surface and deep within the Moon as well. Of course in the past we also did not know about "Water on the Moon" which also very well may play into the seismic activity of the Moon.

Please provide a source for your claim of the strength of Moonquakes. Information I have seen in the links I provided earlier states that the largest moonquake recorded barely reached the equivalent of a magnitude 4 earthquake.

As I said before I believe that the location is also an important factor as well. Deep within a crater in the coldest spot in the solar system where the most water may exist. Besides the fact that we do not know what other chemical agents may exist in this part of the Moon that can cause possible strong piezoelctric effects or possible explosive reactions.

And the water that exists there will be in the form of rock-solid ice. The force of the impact will have the same effect on tht ice, if present, as it would have on solid rock.

If the mission is carried out safely it still does not make me wrong overall.

Interesting logic. If nothing at all happens that you have said could happen, how does that mean you were "not wrong overall"...?

There are more and more missions being designed to blast the Moon and safety issues should start being debated and discussed more by the people and not just blindly trust the government scientists. Sorry if so many here disagree but I am just being honest.

Fair enough... honesty is good. But honesty in these situation extend further than just presenting your honest opinion. It requires an intellectually honest approach in how you present your data. So far, you have seemingly only considered evidence that you feel confirms your theories, and when contradictory evidence is presented, you simply wave it off saying that we are wrong without further consideration.

How is that being intellectually honest...?

Cz

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Starting the backpedaling already...?

Please provide a source for your claim (bolded above) that the LCROSS impact will create more kinetic energy than any previous impact.

Please provide a source for your claim of the strength of Moonquakes. Information I have seen in the links I provided earlier states that the largest moonquake recorded barely reached the equivalent of a magnitude 4 earthquake.

And the water that exists there will be in the form of rock-solid ice. The force of the impact will have the same effect on tht ice, if present, as it would have on solid rock.

Interesting logic. If nothing at all happens that you have said could happen, how does that mean you were "not wrong overall"...?

Fair enough... honesty is good. But honesty in these situation extend further than just presenting your honest opinion. It requires an intellectually honest approach in how you present your data. So far, you have seemingly only considered evidence that you feel confirms your theories, and when contradictory evidence is presented, you simply wave it off saying that we are wrong without further consideration.

How is that being intellectually honest...?

Cz

I am not bckpedaling at all. Read the thread. I state in the very first post that I am not claiming to prove anything but that I am raising the possibility of there being damage done.

I wanted to post some information on the kinetic blast in comparison with past crashes of space craft but I was having a problem getting the link to come up. The source I was trying to use is a past special done by Selenology Today on the LCROSS whereas it measures three different factors of LCROSS in comparison with past crashed crafts.

Selenology Today

If you scroll down you will see the LCROSS special issue. I have read the entire issue but I can not get it to load so far tonight.

Here is a source referencing the 5.5 mag Moonquake:

Shallow moonquakes on the other hand were doozies. Between 1972 and 1977, the Apollo seismic network saw twenty-eight of them; a few "registered up to 5.5 on the Richter scale," says Neal. A magnitude 5 quake on Earth is energetic enough to move heavy furniture and crack plaster.

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

Moonquakes

I had also posted a source in my intial first five posts of a scientific paper that for ice being a piezoelectric factor in earth quakes as well.

Source

As well as for a link betwen piezoelectric and seismic activity.

Source

Of course what I am offering here is not proof of anything but is merely speculation. I am arguing for there being a possibility that the LCROSS mission is dangerous and should be called off. I am speculating that there could be a piezoelectric seismic catastrophe caused by the LCROSS mission.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Since so many here are concerned with size (mass) in regards to the LCROSS mission let me speculate here about size.

The Moon is roughly about 1/3 of the size of earth?

Here news has broke in regards to a study that earthquakes on one part of the Earth can weaken seismic faults anywhere across the Earth.

Quakes weaken faults across the Earth

Now let's take a planetary body 1/3 the size of the Earth being the Moon. It is cited that that "fluid filled fractures" help expediate this traveling effect of earth quakes. So what would happen on the Moon when this type of damage has even 1/3 less the distance to travel?

Of course the LCROSS will be a man-made seismic event on the Moon. I am suggesting that it may trigger greater seismic damage as well.

There certainly is more of a chance with only 1/3 of the mass of the Moon then here woud be here on Earth and yet this scientific study suggests that these seismic events could chain react even here on Earth.

So could there be chain seismic reactions on the Moon which is 1/3 the size caused by LCROSS?

[Torgo]

Since so many here are concerned with size (mass) in regards to the LCROSS mission let me speculate here about size.

The Moon is roughly about 1/3 of the size of earth?

Here news has broke in regards to a study that earthquakes on one part of the Earth can weaken seismic faults anywhere across the Earth.

Quakes weaken faults across the Earth

Now let's take a planetary body 1/3 the size of the Earth being the Moon. It is cited that that "fluid filled fractures" help expediate this traveling effect of earth quakes. So what would happen on the Moon when this type of damage has even 1/3 less the distance to travel?

Of course the LCROSS will be a man-made seismic event on the Moon. I am suggesting that it may trigger greater seismic damage as well.

There certainly is more of a chance with only 1/3 of the mass of the Moon then here woud be here on Earth and yet this scientific study suggests that these seismic events could chain react even here on Earth.

So could there be chain seismic reactions on the Moon which is 1/3 the size caused by LCROSS?

The thing about the moon is it does not have intrinsic seismic activity and stresses of the same kind the Earth has. The moonquakes that do occur are the result of tidal stresses which are cyclical - that is, they vary over the cycle of the moon's orbit. The stress that causes one will be gone half a cycle away, and back a cycle later. The Earth's seismic activity is primarily caused by the movement of crustal plates past each other, carried on conveyor belts of mantle material convecting below. When two plates on Earth get stuck against each other, they gain more and more strain over time. A quake elsewhere on the earth can change the balance of stresses and lead to a chain reaction of the release of this energy - my mother is a geologist and was telling me about research into this phenomenon a few years ago. But this does not happen on the moon. While the top few kilometers of its crust have been churned by impacts, below that it is essentially sold and below a certain depth (a few hundred km) the pressure physically welds rock back together if it ever does fracture. There are no plate tectonics, and there has not been volcanism for billions of years.

I must inquire as to one more thing. If the moon did have a significant quake, how would it affect us? Quakes (earth or moon) do not spew rocks at over lunar escape velocity (2.38 km/s) - they have vast energy but only because they involve gigatons or more of rock moving by milimeters or sometimes centimeters. They do not spew rocks at all. The moon's orbit is independant of its seismic - conservation of angular momentum takes care of that, and even if the moon's orbit changed by a huge amount (not possible without a huge impact of something many kilometers wide) it would just change the height of the tides by a small amount and the length of the lunar month by a small amount).

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The thing about the moon is it does not have intrinsic seismic activity and stresses of the same kind the Earth has. The moonquakes that do occur are the result of tidal stresses which are cyclical - that is, they vary over the cycle of the moon's orbit. The stress that causes one will be gone half a cycle away, and back a cycle later. The Earth's seismic activity is primarily caused by the movement of crustal plates past each other, carried on conveyor belts of mantle material convecting below. When two plates on Earth get stuck against each other, they gain more and more strain over time. A quake elsewhere on the earth can change the balance of stresses and lead to a chain reaction of the release of this energy - my mother is a geologist and was telling me about research into this phenomenon a few years ago. But this does not happen on the moon. While the top few kilometers of its crust have been churned by impacts, below that it is essentially sold and below a certain depth (a few hundred km) the pressure physically welds rock back together if it ever does fracture. There are no plate tectonics, and there has not been volcanism for billions of years.

I must inquire as to one more thing. If the moon did have a significant quake, how would it affect us? Quakes (earth or moon) do not spew rocks at over lunar escape velocity (2.38 km/s) - they have vast energy but only because they involve gigatons or more of rock moving by milimeters or sometimes centimeters. They do not spew rocks at all. The moon's orbit is independant of its seismic - conservation of angular momentum takes care of that, and even if the moon's orbit changed by a huge amount (not possible without a huge impact of something many kilometers wide) it would just change the height of the tides by a small amount and the length of the lunar month by a small amount).

Not all of the seismic activity on the Moon can be explained away by cyclical causes. It can not be said with certainty that the Moon has no intrinsic seismic activity either. Also the interior of the Moon is still not truely known but is still being investigated by science. One mystery is still the very deep seismic activity that has been detected from the Moon.

Not very long ago we all believed that the Moon was pretty much bone dry but now we are being told that there are elements of water over (and under) the entire surface at times during the lunar day. That the state of water on the Moon is in flux and changes in a cyclical fashion. Of course in areas like the South pole of the Moon it is believed that there is a more permenant presence of water elements.

As you pointed out most of the seismic actvity recorded from the Moon has been cyclical. We are also now being told that on most of the surface of the Moon the presence of water elements is also cyclical throughout the lunar day and orbit. Maybe there is a connection between the seismic activity of the Moon and the presence of elements of water? If they are both mostly cyclical then it could be possible. It is already being suggested that earth quakes hold a connection to water elements herre on Earth, so why not the Moon as well?

While most of the crashes of space craft in the past have been in drier areas higher on the surface of the Moon the LCROSS is unique in that it is targeting a deep crater area whereas it is believed possible to hold larger quanities of water elements thus possibly having a totally different effect then the planned impacts of the past.

Magnetically, electrically, chemically, geographically, etc... the Moon is very different across it's surface and interior based upon the information I have seen from most probes. To assume that the Moon is just in one state and not a complex entity of interacting states is a serious mistake, imo. Activity on the Moon may move slower then it does here on Earth but the Moon does still have activity taking place (seismic, electrical, chemical, etc...).

I'll leave this post there for now and get back to your question and comments about the possible damage that could be caused a little later. I have a couple new sources of information that I am still trying to read as well.