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.

 

New data collected from sensors left on moon in 1971...

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by drphilxr
reply to post by loagun
 


the sensors only lasted till 1977.

the data was re interpreted by using new data processing algorithms.

nasa lunar seismicity project link


So with all the scientific tests useing many instruments over the decades, we are still unsure what is at the Earths core,
But One tiny 1960's style instrument on the Moon answered all our questions???
Sounds farfetched to me sorry..
edit on 7-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DAVID64
reply to post by loagun
 



The moon's core would not be molten because of sunshine. Do you think the earth's core is molten because of the heat from the sun? Seriously, you really think THAT much heat is absorbed to melt the interior of a planet?


No not at all, but I do think the ATMOSPHERE that blankets the earth and holds in heat(you know how that works right?) does keep the earth surrounded in optimal temperature so that it is able to actually function as the large living organism that it is. I thought that would be pretty self explanatory....

Maybe to make it easier for you I will give you an example. Let`s say it is -30 outside and your in a full body snow suite, wearing a toque and gloves, and a scarf. It is all weather appropriate, and is keeping you nice and warm in the -30. Now let`s take the snow suite off you, and inf act all your clothes and throw you in the snowbank. If you stayed out there until you froze to death a few hours later, so you think your insides would stay liquid, or freeze? There did you get that.....



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
Liquid core???

Finally... The whole "The Moon is a giant, hollow, space-station" theory can be thrown out. [again]


no, it's still a giant space station. It's just filled with beer.


Good lord I hope so..

But this is a great find, I never bought into the whole idea of the moon being man made to be honest
edit on 7-1-2011 by Sparta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I am not saying the 1977`s tiny sonic measurement technology would be accurate at all to make the determination of the solidity of the Moon`s core was. There is no way any machinery small enough to be brought with them, especially in 1977 when computer hard drives were still room sized, would have been able to get a reading all the way to the core.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by loagun
There is no gravity and I`m sure the moon`s magnetic poles are a lot weaker then the poles found here on earth.


Wrong loagun: the moon has gravity, about 1/6th that of earth.

Second line.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by loagun
reply to post by backinblack
 



I am not saying the 1977`s tiny sonic measurement technology would be accurate at all to make the determination of the solidity of the Moon`s core was. There is no way any machinery small enough to be brought with them, especially in 1977 when computer hard drives were still room sized, would have been able to get a reading all the way to the core.


I didn't say you did..

But it is odd that this information is coming out as it is..
Are they trying to change our beliefs as to the Moon's origin?
Many believe the Moon is part of the Earth..
This would blow that theory..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
that was my mistake, i didn`t mean to say it had no gravity, i meant to write it didn`t have the same pull as on earth which means the sonar readings would be grossly weaker then what they could measure on earth.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I just don`t see how they could know the Moon has a liquid core unless everything we have been taught about the Moon is complete nonsense. The Moon is suppose to be dead because it has no atmosphere, and a very weak gravitational pull. If the Moon is dead like Mar`s the core would be frozen solid as it floats around earth in the sub zero vacuum of space.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by loagun
that was my mistake, i didn`t mean to say it had no gravity, i meant to write it didn`t have the same pull as on earth which means the sonar readings would be grossly weaker then what they could measure on earth.


And that instrument is not only old but also quite small..
You wonder if it has the power to reach the core and get readings back..

I'll try to look up it's spects and mission..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Excuse me but, a liquid core would suggest something molten, and all of that would suggest earthquakes and volcanic activity, especially with the pull of the Earth on it, and then add in the varying pull of the Sun. So why are there still impact craters from billions of years ago?


All of this is garbage.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by loagun
 


And just how Tiny Were They?
You're talking Space Shuttle, We're talking Apollo Space Craft, With the Capability of using a lander to safety put two men and a rover and other equipment on the Moon, I understand that the Apollo Passive Seismic Experiment consisted of four seismometers deployed between 1969 and 1972, which recorded continuous lunar seismic activity until late 1977.

They analyzed the Apollo lunar seismograph using array processing, techniques that identify and distinguish signal sources of moon-quakes and other seismic activity. The question is, What is Array Processing? I don't know exactly.
From the article: The researchers identified how and where seismic waves passed through or were reflected by elements of the Moon’s interior, signifying the composition and state of layer interfaces at varying depths.

Again, from the article: To mitigate this challenge, Dr Weber and her team employed an approach called seismogram stacking, or the digital partitioning of signals.
Stacking improved the signal-to-noise ratio and enabled the researchers to more clearly track the path and behavior of each unique signal as it passed through the lunar interior. Stacking improved the signal-to-noise ratio and enabled the researchers to more clearly track the path and behavior of each unique signal as it passed through the lunar interior.
OK, The Stacking of the Signals to Noise Ratio seems to be important,,, I don't suppose they've heard anyone asking to be Let Out!!!!



OK, Here it is, Seismogram Stacking and Seismic Waves passed through or were reflected by elements of the Moon’s Interior,,, OK, So the waves passed throw the Moon and we picked up the signals and from that they have figured the Moon has and Molten Core,,,,,, DAMN,,,, I was Hoping for the Beer!!!





edit on 7-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Excuse me but, a liquid core would suggest something molten, and all of that would suggest earthquakes and volcanic activity, especially with the pull of the Earth on it, and then add in the varying pull of the Sun. So why are there still impact craters from billions of years ago?
All of this is garbage.


I was thinking that..
A molten core combined with low gravity and near zero atmosphere, you'd expect any pressure build up from a molten core to produce eruptions..

BTW, I looked up these experiments..
Most sensors were used in combination with charges set off by the atsronauts and reached a maximum depth of several kilometers..
This instrument that was left recording was merely measuring "Moonquakes"..
I don't see where it could look at the core in any way and decide what's there..
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Excuse me but, a liquid core would suggest something molten, and all of that would suggest earthquakes and volcanic activity, especially with the pull of the Earth on it, and then add in the varying pull of the Sun. So why are there still impact craters from billions of years ago?
All of this is garbage.


I was thinking that..
A molten core combined with low gravity and near zero atmosphere, you'd expect any pressure build up from a molten core to produce eruptions..

BTW, I looked up these experiments..
Most sensors were used in combination with charges set off by the atsronauts and reached a maximum depth of several kilometers..
This instrument that was left recording was merely measuring "Moonquakes"..
I don't see where it could look at the core in any way and decide what's there..
en.wikipedia.org...


All of those factors would make for an incredibly unstable planet surface indeed. Yet, it is one of the calmest places in the known solar system.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
OH! I thought the information was gathered on the moon, and brought back to earth where it is just now being deciphered. So in fact they sent sonar waves into the moon that passed through various layers and composition, and then those waves were bounced back here to earth, and that is what is being deciphered now?

Well in that case, BULL! sonar waves are bouncing back to earth and then being read. At least if the measurements were cast on the moon by the astronauts and brought back like I thought there could be some persuasion to believe their crappy little sonars actually penetrated the moon to it`s core, but believing wave lengths went through the moon and came back to earth and somehow an accurate reading of whats inside the moon can be made? I am sorry but that is just too far fetched.

There is just way, way too much that could interior with the sonar waves on the journey threw the moon, and then threw space, and into earth even if their 77 technology could have done such a reading. No this story is just baloney.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Excuse me but, a liquid core would suggest something molten, and all of that would suggest earthquakes and volcanic activity, especially with the pull of the Earth on it, and then add in the varying pull of the Sun. So why are there still impact craters from billions of years ago?
All of this is garbage.


I was thinking that..
A molten core combined with low gravity and near zero atmosphere, you'd expect any pressure build up from a molten core to produce eruptions..

BTW, I looked up these experiments..
Most sensors were used in combination with charges set off by the atsronauts and reached a maximum depth of several kilometers..
This instrument that was left recording was merely measuring "Moonquakes"..
I don't see where it could look at the core in any way and decide what's there..
en.wikipedia.org...


Try reading the full article, it is explained very will.
Again, from the article: To mitigate this challenge, Dr Weber and her team employed an approach called seismogram stacking, or the digital partitioning of signals.
Stacking improved the signal-to-noise ratio and enabled the researchers to more clearly track the path and behavior of each unique signal as it passed through the lunar interior. Stacking improved the signal-to-noise ratio and enabled the researchers to more clearly track the path and behavior of each unique signal as it passed through the lunar interior.

So, as the quakes moved through the interior of the moon because of faults I wood have to assume,,,, They could get an idea of what the sound was moving through. I have to think, sounds makes a different noise as it passes through liquid, rocks, dust, diamonds, molten rock and water.
I'm no expert, this is not my field of expertise, not even close, just saying, I think they would know better they me and they have no real reason the LIE about the Moon, Do They?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by loagun
how would those little censors sitting on top of the moons surface(that have been there for 40 years and apparently their battery is still running....) be able to accurately determine the contents of the moons core? There is no gravity and I`m sure the moon`s magnetic poles are a lot weaker then the poles found here on earth.

I mean it`s cool and interesting and all, but I don`t see how they could accurately come to this conclusion that the moon as a liquid core. Scientists aren`t even 100% the earth`s core is liquid.

Also since the moon has no atmosphere and the temperatures range from 100 degrees C to -173 degrees C on the one side, and the other always remaining dark and freezing, surely the sunlight is not enough to warm the moon right to it`s core, thus if the moon had a liquid core it would be frozen solid, and this would show up on the 40 year old sensors as the moon then having a solid core. So umm, yeah I just debunked this.



And ummmmm no you didn't. If you PAID ATTENTION you would have seen the data used for this conclusion was data that was taken in 1977 and re-analyzed. So the snappyness probably doesn't work there champ.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


I read what the instument was capable of..
I don't see how it is anywhere near powerfull enough to reach the moons core..
Even if waves were sent from one station to another, as many appolo missions placed these instruments, all the sites were on the near side, so no signals would pass through that core..

Maybe I missunderstand and someone may explain it better but I just dont see these tiny, old instruments being capable of determining what's at the core..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 



And ummmmm no you didn't. If you PAID ATTENTION you would have seen the data used for this conclusion was data that was taken in 1977 and re-analyzed. So the snappyness probably doesn't work there champ.


The instruments were continually sending data back to earth up until 1977..
The other poster is confused in believing the whole experiment was conducted from earth..

But I still don't see how this tiny experiment can show whats at the core..


The PSE was designed to detect "moonquakes," either naturally or artificially created, to help study the structure of the subsurface

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 7-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Either everything we know about how planets and moons work is wrong, or this 'test' from 40 years ago is wrong. Doesn't matter to me.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Interesting. This finding may bring up some new questions about planetary science and how such natural processes work. I know I've got a handful.


Is the core molten because there's still some nuclear activity in there? Or is it molten because of tidal stresses induced by orbiting the earth. Apparently there's energy in the system, yet not enough energy in it to drive noticeable tectonic activity. Thus no volcanism. What would data reveal about the threshold between tectonically active and non-active terrestrial planetary bodies? That might be something interesting to research and get data on. Could it be done with more modern seismic sensors, or would you need to dig in? If you had to dig, would you be able to get an automated borehole probe to work? (Such a project would make oil drilling look tame in comparison. Not to mention that funding for such science seems impossible these days.)

If the core is indeed liquid, then the moon may have magnetic fields. But current findings show that any natural dynamo which would make them apparently is too weak for those fields to penetrate outside of the surface. What little outgassing barely above the vacuum of space on the moon at it's surface might possibly be considered the very edge of it's ionosphere... So if you went deep enough down inside, would there be some interesting electrical activity as you approach the strata containing a magnetosphere? Is there something like an internal Van Allen Belt, or does the surface block enough radiation from the sun to prevent interaction which would trap radiation? Could there be an atmosphere that exists in pockets much deeper down under the regolith because of activity from a weak molten core?

I don't know if those are dumb questions. But I'm sure the professionals are likely to ponder similar stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join