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]