Keeping an eye on NASA's LCROSS

[Mr. Oragahn]

Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov

The mission: obtain lots of geological information, notably about the presence of water, along other findings about materials and suggestions for future landings.

Another interesting part of this mission is that the Centaur rocket will be launched and put on collision crash with the Moon's South Pole at a high ballistic speed. We're probably all hoping to get videos of this.

However, it may raise the question of if this a right thing to do. We absolutely want to prevent the spread of weapons in space, and yet some scientists decide, without much debate, to fire nearly the equivalent of a super bullet at the moon.
It may seem unimportant, but then what of possible use of explosives, perhaps nuclear, for the sake of science and discovery? The argument could quickly turn into:

You didn't complain about the falling rod, why complain about the nuke? Both would obviously have dramatic consequences if used against Earth!

[The Dude]

The "prevent weapons in space" is, well it's BS. If you can put a satellite into orbit then you already have a weapon available. You can crash them into the satellites of other nations.

That said, I have zero problem with this or even using nukes on the Moon for scientific applications, it's not like anyone lives there. And if we ever want to get off Earth then we have to stop half-arsing things.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, most satellites, if not all of them, wouldn't make great bullets, and wouldn't qualify as WDMs either.

[ILikeDeathNote]

It's apples and oranges. Do you really think the Russians, for example, will let people put up "God's Rods" into orbit because we smashed some into the Moon?

BTW this won't be the first time, every Apollo mission involved smashing junk into the moon at high speed for example.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Perhaps the Centaur Rocket would actually make a poor impactor. It would probably explode high up in the atmosphere.
We'll see if those improvised projectiles turn into real solid lumps of matter precisely meant to be used as bullets from go.

[PunkMaister]

Well, most satellites, if not all of them, wouldn't make great bullets, and wouldn't qualify as WDMs either.

Neither would the Mars or comet impactors just FYI...

[The Dude]

Well, most satellites, if not all of them, wouldn't make great bullets, and wouldn't qualify as WDMs either.

No they wouldn't but that wasn't the point. Satellites are fragile machines and one smashing into another is more then enough to render them useless, think how reliant we are one them. The US military for example would be hampered severely if the GPS constellation was downed.

Neither would the Mars or comet impactors just FYI...

I recall reading that the Rods from God (or whatever it's called) wasn't feasible with our current technology anyways.

[Mike DiCenso]

Well, most satellites, if not all of them, wouldn't make great bullets, and wouldn't qualify as WDMs either.

You've just defeated the whole point of your OT arguement here. No, trying to use such a tiny mass as an impactor weapon is pure silliness, and we've had the technology to make far more practical ones since the dawn of the Space Age about 50 years ago that don't require hurling a rocket stage on a millions kilometer journey, either. Not to mention, one simply also uses the rocket that got the spacecraft on it's way to the Moon or wherever as the delivery vehicle for a bunch of MIRV nukes that can economically do much more damage to an enemy. Besides which, either the LCROSS spacecraft or the Centaur stage it's towing are not designed with reentry in mind and would just break-up and turn into tiny bits of burnt scrap metal.
-Mike

[2046]

This thread is an exercise on why context matters. When you ignore the proper context of something, absurdities naturally follow.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, most satellites, if not all of them, wouldn't make great bullets, and wouldn't qualify as WDMs either.

You've just defeated the whole point of your OT arguement here. No, trying to use such a tiny mass as an impactor weapon is pure silliness, and we've had the technology to make far more practical ones since the dawn of the Space Age about 50 years ago that don't require hurling a rocket stage on a millions kilometer journey, either. Not to mention, one simply also uses the rocket that got the spacecraft on it's way to the Moon or wherever as the delivery vehicle for a bunch of MIRV nukes that can economically do much more damage to an enemy.

The question is not to design a weapon on purpose, but to turn a civil/scientific craft into a potential weapon when realizing that it's quite good enough as a weapon.
I initially thought that the project clearly involved a projectile precisely built to act as a good impactor in order to expel vast quantities of material, as well as to gauge its effects to obtain information about important cratering, not that it was to use the left over of the equivalent of a tincan for whatever use they could pull out of it, and cross fingers for it to make a hole.

Besides which, either the LCROSS spacecraft or the Centaur stage it's towing are not designed with reentry in mind and would just break-up and turn into tiny bits of burnt scrap metal.

Obviously, for now, but I didn't realize the project didn't involve a special design for that part of the scientific study of impact on the Moon. Not knowing what scientists have in mind, this could change in the future.
A question that seems silly now could soon become serious.
The question will be asked again when our technologies and materials will have improved a great deal, and if a project for the study of cratering will come up at some point, with the clear idea of using a properly designed massive bullet for scientific purposes.
And if anything, the Compton proves to raise some issues.
This will also come true when we will begin to use nuclear fuel for whatever reason, and the risk that a reentry of such a vehicle would fail to burn the reactant up in the atmosphere.
The treaty that would have weapons, especially nuclear, kept out of space is precisely based on the fear of a potential use of orbital positions to launch whatever type of attack on a given country, no matter the scale.
This goes well beyond the use of the rare weapon grade nuclear fuels. Even the left-overs of civilian nuclear use are extremely dangerous, and so would whatever would be left of a nuclear reactor used for a spacecraft.
Although the risks of such an event to happen are slim at the moment --we hope-- the question is still valid and will HAVE to be asked one day or another. It would be awkward not to pay attention to potential weapons merely for the fact that they were not designed as weapons in mind.
People will have to rethink space security entirely, and may this be tailored to render any protestation moot. Indeed, why complain about the presence of weapons, when humanity will have been exposed to a copious amount of potent could-be weapons in space?