Nasa To Reveal New Scientific Findings About The Moon

I heard this today on the radio (on a radio station owned by the Catholic Church).

It's always nice when we have confirmation of what was before just some hypothesis, that's what makes this world more interesting.

Actually you are wrong. I don't know where does it come all this attitude of yours for things you still don't know, but anyways, here it is:

Dreams of establishing a manned Moon base could become reality within two decades after India’s first lunar mission found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface.

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.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Telos]

reply to post by Telos

That post is supposed to be an answer to which post?

No Armap wasn't for your post. I guess we did respond at the same time. Was for this one:


reply to post by Phage

Or this one. Its better specified like that.

Originally posted by Phage
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]

reply to post by Telos

The amount of water in any one place is tiny. Clark estimated it at about a quart per ton of soil.

The moon "is almost as wet as a bone," Lucey said in an e-mail interview with The Times. "It is in the form of an imperceptible film on soil grains, perhaps several molecules thick."

www.latimes.com...

The press conference confirms this.

And the other one confirms this:

Dreams of establishing a manned Moon base could become reality within two decades after India’s first lunar mission found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

reply to post by Telos

The difference is that in the Times article, the statement is from the author of the article. In the LA Times article, the statement is from one of the scientists involved. Newspaper writers often get the facts wrong or exaggerate them.

Heard the same thing in NASA tv.

Maybe they we're quoting from the righter

reply to post by Telos

They said there is a lake? They said there is a large amount of water in a particular location? I must have missed that part of the press conference.

16 ounces of water in one ton of soil (that's the highest concentration) sounds like a small amount of water spread over a large area. That ton of soil is a very thin layer.

There is no lake. There is a small amount of water material (which may not even be water) widely spread over the surface.

Sounds familiar.


[edit on 9/24/2009 by Phage]

The instruments used to detect the water could only penatrate a thin layer of regolith so that is why they talk of it that way. There could be larger amounts of water further down. So to say it is only a thin layer as though it was a fact is just as much of a distortion as anything Phage could accuse Zorgon of.

They can't see deeper into the regolith than a thin layer so this is what they will talk about.

And before you say there is no evidence for more water underneath this thin layer I will add this... Higher concentrations of water were found in the craters. To me this suggest that there may indeed be more water found beneath this thin layer that the probe was not able to analize.

Nobody is talking about a lake. Since when a large amount of water means lake? Never mentioned lake in my post.

So, I guess I missed the press conference. Does anyone have a linky to the audio or video?

Thanks in advance

EDIT: I think I found it:











[edit on 24-9-2009 by Aggie Man]

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Telos

Yes, somebody was talking about a lake. The person I was replying to in the post of mine which you originally complained about.

Originally posted by Telos
No Armap wasn't for your post. I guess we did respond at the same time. Was for this one:


reply to post by Phage

 

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

[edit on 9/24/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
The instruments used to detect the water could only penatrate a thin layer of regolith so that is why they talk of it that way. There could be larger amounts of water further down. So to say it is only a thin layer as though it was a fact is just as much of a distortion as anything Phage could accuse Zorgon of.

They can't see deeper into the regolith than a thin layer so this is what they will talk about.

And before you say there is no evidence for more water underneath this thin layer I will add this... Higher concentrations of water were found in the craters. To me this suggest that there may indeed be more water found beneath this thin layer that the probe was not able to analize.

I totally agree. I like to see some faces when we'll more about this. Even though I don't really believe is gonna happen. I mean things like that never get fully revealed to the public.

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

Anything said about what might be found at depths deeper than what they were capable of detecting would be speculation. There is already enough speculation about that.

The higher concentrations at the polar regions was 16oz/1000 pounds. The concentrations at lower latitudes is much less.

The LCROSS impact will give us still more data (in particular about water in shadowed craters) and further reduce the amount of speculation.


[edit on 9/24/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Good, then you agree with me that saying there is only a thin layer is also speculation.

Fact is that we don't know that there is only a thin layer, and to suggest otherwise would only be misinformation.

They also said that the water may be seeping up from underground and that it being created daily is only a theorey and not a fact.

Who knows? I'm not saying I do, but I don't see any reason to harp on how small the amount of water is when we really don't know how small the quantities are. We have literally just barely scratched the surface.

Originally posted by Telos
Nobody is talking about a lake. Since when a large amount of water means lake? Never mentioned lake in my post.

Idid In the Department of Defense document I linked to THEY say a lake a small lake... 100sq kilometers 50 feet deep FROZEN with dirt in it

Does no one read anymore?

One more time because some people on here seem to have difficulty reading military press releases

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.

LAKE used FOUR TIME in that short piece LAKE L - A - K - E LAKE



www.defenselink.mil...

But I suppose you could always say the PENTAGON lied




LAKE



Of what use is it to expect people to produce official evidence when it's going to be ignored anyway

So what now the skeptics are trying to debunk official government press releases?

Ummm






[edit on 24-9-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

Idid In the Department of Defense document I linked to THEY say a lake a small lake... 100sq kilometers 50 feet deep FROZEN with dirt in it

Actually, you have it backwards. What was actually said was that it's dirt with some ice mixed into it.

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.

Pretty much what we heard about today. It's wouldn't be surprising if the concentrations in shadowed craters is greater but that's what LCROSS will tell us.

www.defenselink.mil...

[edit on 9/24/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Actually, you have it backwards. What was actually said was that it's dirt with some ice mixed into it.

So your saying I made that quote up?

Well in any case NASA will blast several tons of that into space and contaminate the reast when they bomb the moon in October...

Smart move as always

Why is it we always send the Military Mind out to do our exploration?

Byrd sent a fleet to Antarctica to 'explore'
The Cavalry invaded the West wiping out 'Injuns' in the name of 'opening' the west

Now NASA is dropping 'bombs', impactors and plutonium laden spacecraft all over anything they can hit

:shk:

Well I hope one day they get the cleanup bill