My problem is the intentional destruction of a celestial body of which we still know very little about. Sending a rocket into a crater on the south pole which has the MOST hydrogen sounds destructive to me.
What's being destroyed As I've stated before, this is nowhere near the scale of impacts that happen regularly on the moon. All that happens is that the surface soil is moved around a bit
Also, I looked into the masses and found that this is actually smaller than the Japanese probe that impacted in June
That's an argument for never having gone this route in the first place if you ask me. We don't need to hurl rockets at the moon. And things, as you've stated, can go wrong. Also if India was able to trump NASA and find water without blowing crap up then clearly we're blowing crap up just to blow crap up.
Nothing went wrong. The fact that other scientific organizations made progress is in no way a bad thing. Also, your flippant references to "blowing crap up" shows a great deal of ignorance. Spectral analysis of a high energy impact can yield a wealth of information with a degree of certainty that is very difficult to match.
Our media sucks. Still Obama should address the nation. If NASA truly wants all eyes on the sky on OCT 9 and if you can see it with an amateur telescope perhaps Obama ought to bring that up on one of his visits to late night tv. Or just drop it randomly in an interview like the time he let us know Kanye West is a jackass.
I seriously doubt that Obama has never talked about LCROSS at all. It is not a major mission, and I am completely unsurprised that it isn't a major talking point, but I'm sure he has discussed it whether or not it made CNN's front page. I don't see the need for him to address the nation at all - what would he say? As you've stated, the Indians have already announced the presence of water.
We signed a space treaty agreeing not to weaponize space
This is in no way a weapon
or modify a celestial body.
How is launching a rocket at the moon in compliance with that treaty?
When the Eagle landed was that "modifying a celestial body?" How about when any of the dozens of probes in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon"]this list[/ame] impacted? How
about when the Japanese probe impacted?
Previously you stated that the Japanese probe was okay but this mission is not. I looked into it, and the Japanese probe was in fact bigger than the Centaur ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCROSS"]2,300 kg[/ame] vs [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE"]2,900 kg[/ame]). Does this change your opinion at all?
stuff crash landing into the moon is not nearly on the same level as launching a rocket into a crater that has the highest hydrogen content. It's different the way a meteor shower is different from us purposefully launching a missile into Iraq.
Are you under the impression that there is an explosive warhead being launched into the moon? Your usage of the term rocket and the phrase "blowing crap up" seems to suggest that. All that's impacting the moon is the empty upper stage. In any other mission this piece of hardware would just be set adrift (to eventually impact a celestial body)
Again, crash landings are not the same as searching out the most visible hydrogen laden crater to launch a rocket into. It warrants discussion. It's a decision that should not have been made by a few with little to no discussion by humanity as a whole.
It was discussed heavily during the planning stages. Being a routine scientific mission, the rest of humanity had better things to worry about (namely, American Idol)
Out of all of that there are really two things I'd like an answer to. Are you under the impression that there is an explosive warhead being launched into the moon? Does the fact that the Japanese probe, which you previously stated you were okay with, was bigger than the LCROSS impactor change your opinion at all?