It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nasa To Reveal New Scientific Findings About The Moon

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Eek. colour me jumping the gun and maybe a little paranoid. In actual fact I believe that you are correct that embargos are often an intrinsic part of the scientific debate. I should not have leaped to conclusions.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   


Data from Chandrayaan-1 also suggests that water is still being formed on the Moon. Scientists said the breakthrough — to be announced by Nasa at a press conference today — would change the face of lunar exploration.


BAM! There it is.

I'd suggest one of those survival water filters before chugging it down!

Becker

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluePillOrRedPill
"Science will lift its embargo at 2 p.m. EDT, Sept. 24." I know by embargo they probably meant that they are jut releasing the normal data when all the information is collected and won't drop a cool bombshell, but the way they worded it, i was smiling.


www.nasa.gov...

RedPill

What that means is that Science Journal cannot post the article until 2 p.m. tomorrow. NASA most likely gave them the article last week or something, but the site was not allowed to post it until a certain day and time. I am willing to bet it has to do with when the magazine hits the stands. Every magazine, newspaper, and journal gets stories, which sometimes needs to be held back for a specific time or date.

------ EDIT ADDED ------
It's Official: Water Found on the Moon
www.space.com...



Since man first touched the moon and brought pieces of it back to Earth, scientists have thought that the lunar surface was bone dry. But new observations from three different spacecraft have put this notion to rest with what has been called "unambiguous evidence" of water across the surface of the moon.

The new findings, detailed in the Sept. 25 issue of the journal Science, come in the wake of further evidence of lunar polar water ice by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and just weeks before the planned lunar impact of NASA's LCROSS satellite, which will hit one of the permanently shadowed craters at the moon's south pole in hope of churning up evidence of water ice deposits in the debris field.

The moon remains drier than any desert on Earth, but the water is said to exist on the moon in very small quantities. Finding water on the moon would be a boon to possible future lunar bases, acting as a potential source of drinking water and fuel.


I was right!


[edit on 23-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
So, it's not even just at the poles either! Water water everywhere!

So let's talk about the big elephant... Could there be life in that water?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Maybe this has something to do with it... India’s lunar mission finds evidence of water on the Moon

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6846639.ece]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
I'm interested. You have a link for that ? All I can find is :


That is because you need to look at military sites


U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript
Tuesday, December 3, 1996 - 1:45 p.m.
Subject: Discovery of Ice on the Moon


Q: That translates to what in volume?

A: We were very conservative in the press release, but if you take basically 100 square kilometers by roughly 50 feet, you get a volume of something like a quarter of a cubic mile, I think it's on that order. It's a considerable amount, but it's not a huge glacier or anything like that.

Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake.


Presenter: Dr. Dwight Duston, Assistant Deputy for Technology, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

www.defenselink.mil...



[edit on 24-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
I was right!



I was first
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks forr your link Zorgon. Now I can check by myself and see that indeed, this quoted sentence is out of context and that Exuberant and www.thelivingmoon.com... stating :


Exuberant : "The fellow could have said "a small lake's worth" - but he didn't..

...He said "It's a lake. A small lake. "

TheLivingMoon.com : "Okay, so we have a lake on the Moon that is a hundred sqaure kilometers in area and 50 feet deep... "


are somewhat exagerated (because I don't want to be more rude).

Here is the full excerpt :


What do you think this would look like if you could go right down and see it? Would you see a fairly large pond here, other ponds all over the place, some ice in crevices and rocks?

A: You would probably see... First of all you wouldn't see anything because you'd be in the dark. But if you had a flashlight and you illuminated the surface, you would see a surface that looked not unlike any place else on the moon, but if you were to dig down into that and pull it up, you would find that there would be ice crystals contained in the interstices between the dust grains. So it's not a sheet or a pond. It's not an ice rink on the moon. It's basically ice mixed into the dirt.

Q: What's the presumptive volume of it then, and how did you discern that?

A: As I mentioned, what we can tell from looking at the radar return is roughly the area that is covered by this. Assuming it reflects ice like ice on Mercury -- making that assumption. That's been well looked at. Then in order to see this back scatter effect, this roadside reflector effect; it's estimated that we have to see some number of wavelengths of our radar into the ice. In reviewing the paper, several of the reviewers posited we probably need to see somewhere between 50 and 100 wavelengths. So our wavelength is about six inches. So at the thickest case, it's roughly 50 feet.

Q: That translates to what in volume?

A: We were very conservative in the press release, but if you take basically 100 square kilometers by roughly 50 feet, you get a volume of something like a quarter of a cubic mile, I think it's on that order. It's a considerable amount, but it's not a huge glacier or anything like that.

Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake.

Q: But it's a dirt lake.

A: Right, mixed in. (Laughter) A dirty lake.



And let me add to that the concentration of water in that "dirty lake" near the pole :

0.24 - 40 liters of water per cubic meter or : 0.024 to 4%

www.asi.org...

Not as spectacular as "a lake on the moon". I'm ok to says Clementine found water crystals near the lunar pole. But stating Clementine found a lake on the moon is another thing.



I don't really like this method of selecting only bits of text that fit your belief and leaving the rest in the shadow.

Remember Zorgon : "deny ignorance". Wheter it be to expose Nasa lies, or to expose the conspiracy theorists lies.


Edited for spelling (and I guess I still left many typos)

[edit on 24-9-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Well apparently they are saying that water is everywher above and below 10 degrees of the equator and not just at the poles.

In light of this it seems a little silly to continue to argue about wether some article called the water a small lake or just a lake.

It's all over the place!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Well apparently they are saying that water is everywher above and below 10 degrees of the equator and not just at the poles.

In light of this it seems a little silly to continue to argue about wether some article called the water a small lake or just a lake.

It's all over the place!


You don't get it. I'm the first to say there is ice on the moon, and today's article confirms it (but only a very thin sheet of ice crystals). What I don't get is Exuberant and Zorgon saying "Old news. We already know there is a friggin lake on the moon. A real water lake. Check this quote of a guy saying it."

When in fact the guy says "So it's not a sheet or a pond. It's not an ice rink on the moon" ... and neither is it a lake. He admits it.

They just quoted on line completely out of context to make it look this guy says there is a lake on the moon.

I would like to believe it is an honnest mistake, but I'm pretty sure they do it on purpose to support their other claims about moon anomalies.


I'm not trying to argue about the existence of water on the moon. It is now proven. I'm trying to point at a deliberate disinformation by 2 respected ATS users.


[edit on 24-9-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Well I still think that in this particular case you are being overly critical.

This is from the post you made about three or four above this one.

"Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake. "


It says what they claimed it said



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Well I still think that in this particular case you are being overly critical.

This is from the post you made about three or four above this one.

"Q: Can you compare that with something you know?

A: It's a lake. A small lake. "


It says what they claimed it said


Aargh. The guys says the volume of regolite with less than 1% of water in it is the size of lake.

I quit.

You win.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BluePillOrRedPill
 


Most likely they gonna reveal that there is water on the Moon. I mean maybe not water per say but traces of it. Let see...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
This is awesome


As I said in the other thread I think there's way more water out there (in the universe), than we're told so.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Moraz
 



um the most common element in the universe is hydrogen. The 3rd most common element is oxygen. Put them together you get ? H2O- water

You must be listening to the wrong people.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



If the charged hydrogens, which are traveling at one-third the speed of light, hit the lunar surface with enough force, they break apart oxygen bonds in soil materials, Taylor, the M3 team member suspects. Where free oxygen and hydrogen exist, there is a high chance that trace amounts of water will form.

www.space.com...



Is this correct ? Speed of the solar wind is ( only ) 400-800 km/s.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
With the freezing temp on the moon, this water must be frozen.

But did they say if it (the water and the lake) was in a frozen on liquid status?

And now with water everywhere, as they have said... shouldn't there be .. life everywhere??? Just wondering



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 

I think they may be talking about solar energetic particles (cosmic rays) rather than the solar wind.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorbash
 


There is no lake. There is a small amount of water material (which may not even be water) widely spread over the surface. If it is water, it is most likely in the form of ice.

[edit on 9/24/2009 by Phage]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join