It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Does the freaking Moon have H2O or Not? I smell smoke....

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:23 AM
Okay, I have been away from ATS for a bit (for any length) and I come on today and I see this post about the Moon being full of water:

The Moon is full of water! Caltech scientists says

So, I had just been looking around the internet and I saw this story in

Moon Water Dreams Evaporate

The inside of the moon might not be all wet after all. A new study suggests that, contrary to recent work, the lunar interior is as bone-dry as scientists thought 40 years ago, when NASA astronauts lugged home the first moon rocks.

New analyses of chlorine in those rocks, published Aug. 5 in Science, indicate that the moon contains just one–ten-thousandth to one–hundred-thousandth the water that the Earth’s interior does.
Researchers have long argued over whether the moon contains water on its surface — frozen in shadowy craters, for instance. Such water would not be native to the moon, but instead delivered there over time by comet impacts. The new studies tackle a more fundamental question: How much water did the moon contain inside when it formed, 4.5 billion years ago?

So, what the heck? I put this in General Conspiracies as it seems to me that there is an active group trying to get a point across... I just don't know what is the True one. Now, my mind says: No way is there water on the Moon. But... I guess I want there to be water on the Moon.

So, what the heck is NASA, the MSM, Japan and India got going on. And Russia. They all (except NASA) want to get to the Moon. Why so badly? First timers? Know something is there that they was to get or see?

Why, with all the apparent knowledge we seem to possess about the outreaches of Space/Universe can we not know all what there is to know about the freaking Moon-right next to us?

Very flustrating for someone trying to learn about Space etc. Thoughts?

MODs: Sorry if put in wrong place but I have to say it sure looks like an organized attempt to distort the truth-on a large scale!

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:21 AM
I'm no scientist so all I can imagine is that the data is so ambiguous that people are interpreting it differently... maybe a few games of one-upmanship between the various parties involved too. Hopefully someone can give you a more accurate answer.


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:46 AM
Well for starters, how saturated were the earth samples? I'm no scientist, but if the earth sample was 100 percent saturated, wouldn't that mean that one thousanth of the earth sample WOULD be a thousand or so parts per million? Just a hunch, but maybe its just one sites optimism vs anothers pessimism... Hmmmm..... If not, seems to me like NASA could be trying to say otherwise...

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:12 AM
IMHO - the problem is the tiny sample size , and the limited locations from which samples are taken

they are simply not representative of the moon as a whole

with a limited number of samples - i could " prove " that the earth has almost no water

past lunar investigators have made asumptions based on the limited samples they had acess to - and jumped to the comclusion that the moon is waterless - by false extrapolation

current lunar investigators have made asumptions based on the limited samples they had acess to - and jumped to the comclusion that the moon is water rich - by false extrapolation

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:42 AM
They are talking about two different things.

Water on the Moon and water in the Moon. Water has been found on the surface of the Moon, it's there.

This is talking about something else. Water which was present when the Moon formed. It really has nothing to do with water on the surface of the Moon.

top topics

log in