On Dec 15, 8:13*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:25*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Me wrote:
On Dec 15, 4:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

it makes sense to do the crash......

its mission and extended mission are complete

no doubt they will have equiptement looking for water after the dual
crashes

You were doing so well. *Then you had to say the following...

it elminates the possiblity a later uncontrolled crash could hit and
damage apollo or other legacy sites

So they're avoiding a one in Lord knows how many quadrillion
possibility? *Really?

Really. *It is a legitimate reason

Really. *Look at the odds. *It's not.

And if that 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance happens and it DOES
hit one of them, where's the down side?

On Friday, thrusters on each satellite will fire to guide the
spacecraft toward the unnamed mountain. The maneuver will also ensure
the satellites avoid striking landing sites from the Apollo, Surveyor
and Soviet space programs. Engineers calculated there was a 1-
in-125,000 chance the satellites would hit one of the heritage landing
sites, according to David Lehman, GRAIL project manager at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory

I'm sorry, but that's an insane set of probabilities! *I don't believe
it.



someday in the future space archealogists may want to visit those
landing sites for research purposes.

Why? *We know more about them than could ever be discerned by visiting
them.



no matter what ebb and flow are going to crash into the moon. there
isnt fuel to prevent it.....

Well, you finally got something right.



at least this way they get some science out of it...

And that's a decent reason.



...and prevent possible damage to historic sites

And that makes no sense whatsoever.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Fred no doubt you would like indenpendence hall in philadephia to be
demolished for condos.......

you have no sense of history