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.

 

India's lunar mission finds evidence of water on the Moon

page: 7
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
thats pretty crazy, although i suspected there would be water on the moon.

just goes to show, theres still sooooooooooooo much out there left to explore and discover and we really dont know that much about whats out there.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   


The full natural colors of the Moon, It is not a grey, desolate, uninhabited rock as you have been led to believe by NASA.


From earth, the moon is seen as a grey, blue, sometimes orange sphere in the sky, both at night and in broad daylight.

The earth’s atmosphere interferes with how we interpret the moon. Dust, cosmic rays, infra-red, ultraviolet rays and other atmospheric effects cause us to view the moon as a grey sphere. In the vacuum of space however, this becomes a totally different celestial body. The Clementine Mission took an astounding 1.8 million photographs of the Moon in 1994.


On the USGS web site, the various samplings of the mission were released, including the "Full Natural Color" photographs.

www.prleap.com...



Real natural colour taken by the chantra-1 moonprobe 2009,
there was no editing on this picture, comes in original format
directly from source.



[edit on 24/9/09 by BlackRosEmyth]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


Mars with water, now the Moon with water... What about Venus??
Does it have water too? John Lear also mentioned Venus with water, life and it being a living panet :


images.google.com...://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9805/venus1_gal_big.gif&imgrefurl=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990612.html&u sg=__Lxi2I-TrxSB2fwbqkkMbjkqKNlY=&h=720&w=563&sz=192&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=DGt2HD9u-yO_OM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvenus%26hl%3Den%26 rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1


[edit on 24-9-2009 by Cydonia2012]

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Cydonia2012]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 



Hi, i had to look it up, again, but the official term for it is "the far side of the moon". If you search darkside of the moon nothing but Pink Floyd pops up.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kode
 


yea man i noticed that! lol, but i like pink flloyd anyways, thanks for the info, i can now search easier.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Where is the big press release?

The embargo has been lifted. Where is the information.

I'm Dying to know what they say.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


marsanomalyresearch is a level of horsepucky beyond normal inventiveness.

You really wish to take something, from a dude on the Internet, who is just GUESSING???

Unless 'Skipper' has launched probes and collected valid data, or BEEN to Mars himself....his web junk holds as much validity as a Flat Earth site.
___________________________________________________________

Altho we're on about water ice on the Moon (no big surprise, H2O is quite abundant in the Universe) it would be good to also have a little truth about Mars, and water potential.

There is probably a great deal there, too...more than the Moon, I would think. AND...some photos have indicated recent events of BRIEF liquidity...possibly from underground aquifers that erupt on the surface...but the liquid water won't last for long, the atmosphereic pressure is too low. Most of the Mars H2O is likely permafrost, and mostly underground.


There are so many acclaimed scientists who actually see the data, NOT just NASA...but, people like "Skipper" would have you think that they've all been fooled by NASA?!??? Pretty cheeky, if you ask me.


Atmosphere

Atmosphere of Mars

Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago, so the solar wind interacts directly with the Martian ionosphere, keeping the atmosphere thinner than it would otherwise be by stripping away atoms from the outer layer.

Both Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Express have detected these ionised atmospheric particles trailing off into space behind Mars. The atmosphere of Mars is now relatively thin. Atmospheric pressure on the surface varies from around 30 Pa (0.03 kPa) on Olympus Mons to over 1,155 Pa (1.155 kPa) in the depths of Hellas Planitia, with a mean surface level pressure of 600 Pa (0.6 kPa).

Mars's mean surface pressure equals the pressure found 35 km above the Earth's surface. This is less than 1% of the surface pressure on Earth (101.3 kPa). The scale height of the atmosphere, about 11 km, is higher than Earth's (6 km) due to the lower gravity. Mars' gravity is only about 38% of the surface gravity on Earth.

The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and contains traces of oxygen and water. The atmosphere is quite dusty, containing particulates about 1.5 µm in diameter which give the Martian sky a tawny color when seen from the surface.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also interesting:


During perihelion Mars dips inside this region,


(They are referring to the "Habital Zone" of planetary orbits about our Sun)


...but the planet's thin (low-pressure) atmosphere prevents liquid water from existing over large regions for extended periods. The past flow of liquid water, however, demonstrates the planet's potential for habitability. Recent evidence has suggested that any water on the Martian surface would have been too salty and acidic to support terran life.



The Moon, of course, likely never had, even in its past, any suitability for potential thick atmosphere and liquid water. What is being found on the Moon is near the poles, and this makes sense. Just as on Earth's poles, where it stays cold and gets little Sun, so it is on the Moon. The water ice that is there doesn't get heated and evaporate (sublimate) away.



[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I am so annoyed. You mean to tell me that all the money that NASA have spent, they have not onced found this quantity of water.
There are plenty of posts presenting evidence that there are bases, pyramids and other delights located on the surface. Now India gets involve and gives us some sort of disclosure and now NASA gives us a snippet of what they know.
I am so tired of all the lies and secracy.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Ok, so water = a very good chance of life, yes? and iced water = a less chance of life, yes? so dos'nt iced water have to be just water before it turns to ice??? could anybody add to that please?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackRosEmyth



[edit on 24/9/09 by BlackRosEmyth]


wow in that picture the moon actually looks a little similar to earth

i really dont believe we ever landed on the moon, and these types of pictures further prove that.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackRosEmyth
 




I have no idea what this members t&c violation was but this was originally in reply to true_ats. BlackRosEmyth quoted the entire post of true_ats on page six of this thread. I thought it was interesting.


I thought along the same lines as all those with an once of sence. NASA, of course they do a great job but what a con. Its plain to see. Sickening really. They "thought it was possible" "it was suggested" "it may have been".

They were the first people on the moon for crying out loud! Stupid.

Its the same game with mars.

What im thinking is, really, if they told us how easily it would be to inhabit these places then there would be a drive like no other to get us there. Simply it would mean to much paper work for them. Or we are just not meant to be inhabiting these places because they are like some galactic nature reserve.

I dont know ATS from in here the world seems like bull.....



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by calihan_12
 


calihan....if you did some study into the filmmaker, Jose' Escamilla, you wouldn't be so impressed.

I call him a con-artist.

Let's also call "Star Wars" a documentary, and be done with it.....

(I hear, in polls, there are people who believe that. Well, guess they'll believe anything..)



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by calihan_12
 


calihan....if you did some study into the filmmaker, Jose' Escamilla, you wouldn't be so impressed.

I call him a con-artist.

Let's also call "Star Wars" a documentary, and be done with it.....

(I hear, in polls, there are people who believe that. Well, guess they'll believe anything..)



haha, well star wars is a documentary for dreamers and sci fi lovers.

i do agree.. images obviously can always be manipulated... colors put in where they werent before etc etc

but i think there is more to the moon that just a pile of rocks and dust.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I've said it before and I'll say it again... There have been plenty of times where I have looked at the Moon with my naked eyes and seen the colours. And yes I'm talking about the blue and green colours.

I'm no scientist but if I had to guess why this is more apparent on some occasions and not as visible on others I would guess it has something to do with some sort of prisim effect.

I have heard many times that the Moon is composed largely of sillicates and that is basically glass. So maybe it has something to do with the angle that the sunlight is hitting the surface.

Whatever the reason though it is real and if you occasionally take the time to look up at the Moon you will eventually see the blues, greens, pinks, and purples.


Either that or my eyeballs have the colour saturation turned up.


[edit on 24-9-2009 by fieryjaguarpaw]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by uplander
 





"..if someone has leaked this information before."

Boo, 1st place in the worst pun competition!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by calihan_12
 


Well...the maria. Basalt, mostly---lava type, solidified.

I remember, Apollo 17 I think - they found unusual specimens, with color...small quantities, various minerals in the rocks and regolith.

Of course there will be color, in spots, because of the chemical make up of certain minerals and elements that are certain to be part of the Moon.

After all, it IS a piece of the Earth, too...according to the most likely theory of its formation.

But, it's been there, mostly undisturbed for so long. And any really large regions of color? If we can't see it from here in a high-powered telescope, then it certainly doesn't look like some of the images people have made...

Sometimes, because of our atmosphere, it will have blue or orange tinges...

Still, the best way to view it would be with the Human eye, on site. The rest is just an interpretation.

Check out some of astronaut Alan Bean's paintings. he takes some artistic license, of course.....

www.alanbeangallery.com...

Like I said....artistic license.

Like Jose' Escamilla..............



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Which then begs the question, why are the Indians using the NASA developed, water locating instrumentation, and not the developers during one of their many Luna missions?

Do you have any other information regarding the development of this instrumentation? When was this developed...was it years ago, or specifically for the Indian mission?
If not, don't trouble yourself, i'm sure i can find the information myself.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by calihan_12
 



Sometimes, because of our atmosphere, it will have blue or orange tinges...



In my case I am not talking about colour that is created by our own atmosphere. That would result in the entire Moon looking orange or yellow or what not.

What I am talking about is mainly the darker portions of the moon. With the naked eye I can often see blue, green and purple in these areas.

I think most people don't really look at the Moon and when they do it is only for a fraction of a second. Because of this most people wouldn't notice the subtle colours of the moon, but they are there none the less.

Again this is not always the case and that is puzzleing to me, but like I said before it is probably some sort of prisim effect that is dependant on the angle in which the sun is reflecting off the darker regions.

and the lighter regions often have a pink or purple hue to them. Again the colours are there and not an effect of earths atmosophere and this is obvious because when it is the product of the earths atmosphere it makes the entire moon look a particular hue and not just certain areas.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sir, you add nothing to the topic. You slander those who have researched through scientific method and produced materials usefull for those who wish to explore them, free of charge. You offer nothing except to insult and demean those about you. You bring nothing to the table. In the process you have attacked your fellow ATS'ers seeking info. Shame on you.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 



...you add nothing to the topic.


On the contrary, in the very post you "replied" to, I offered some valid information...also free, BTW.

It is necessary to balance out against blatant misinformation.

The Internet is full if it...misinformation, I mean. Would not be helpful to those seeking to learn, if they just receive bad data.




top topics



 
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join