A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactor theoryof Moon formation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 24th 09, 09:14 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactor theoryof Moon formation

The Moon water was discovered by three separate spacecraft. The Indian
Chandrayaan-1 was the one given the credit for the discovery, while the
Deep Impact and Cassini probes were given the credit for the
confirmation. Chandrayaan-1 was specifically looking for this signature,
before it stopped working, so it looks like it completed this work. The
Deep Impact comet impactor probe swung by the Moon on its way to comet
Tempel 1, and detected the signature back then too. And prior to that
the Cassini Saturn probe passed by the Moon too and detected it. It's
kind of backwards, as the verifications came from probes that went
beforehand, whereas the discovery came afterwards.

CBC News - Technology & Science - Water traces found in moon's dirt
"The water was spotted by spacecraft that either circled the moon or flew by. All three ships used the same type of instrument, which looked at the absorption of a specific wavelength of light that is the chemical signature of only two molecules: water and hydroxyl. Hydroxyl is one atom of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, instead of the two hydrogen atoms in water."

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...ter-probe.html

The water seems to be widespread throughout the Moon, it's not just in
shadowed Moon craters. The original Apollo astronauts brought back Moon
rock, but they couldn't find significant amounts of water. Or at least
they couldn't tell whether the water was from the Moon or Earth. This
resulted in the current favoured theory of Moon formation: The Giant
Impactor, which states an Mars-sized rock hit the Earth early on, and
created the Moon.

SPACE.com -- It's Official: Water Found on the Moon
"Apollo turns up dry

When Apollo astronauts returned from the moon 40 years ago, they brought back several samples of lunar rocks.

The moon rocks were analyzed for signs of water bound to minerals present in the rocks; while trace amounts of water were detected, these were assumed to be contamination from Earth, because the containers the rocks came back in had leaked.

"The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between water from the moon and water from Earth," said Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who is a member of one of the NASA-built instrument teams for India's Chandrayaan-1 satellite and has studied the moon since the Apollo missions."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...discovery.html

The widespread distribution of the water might be the start of a new
theory of Moon formation, though no one is really saying this directly yet.

Water Present Across The Moon's Surface, New Research Shows
"Isaacson said the M3 results were a huge surprise. “There was no evidence that this was possible on such a broad scale,” he said. “This discovery turns a lot of the conventional thinking about the lunar surface on its head.”"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0924093559.htm

Yousuf Khan
Ads
  #2  
Old September 24th 09, 11:15 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheoryof Moon formation

Yousuf Khan wrote:

The Moon water was discovered by three separate spacecraft. The Indian
Chandrayaan-1 was the one given the credit for the discovery, while the
Deep Impact and Cassini probes were given the credit for the
confirmation. Chandrayaan-1 was specifically looking for this signature,
before it stopped working, so it looks like it completed this work. The
Deep Impact comet impactor probe swung by the Moon on its way to comet
Tempel 1, and detected the signature back then too. And prior to that
the Cassini Saturn probe passed by the Moon too and detected it. It's
kind of backwards, as the verifications came from probes that went
beforehand, whereas the discovery came afterwards.

CBC News - Technology & Science - Water traces found in moon's dirt
"The water was spotted by spacecraft that either circled the moon or flew by. All three ships used the same type of instrument, which looked at the absorption of a specific wavelength of light that is the chemical signature of only two molecules: water and hydroxyl. Hydroxyl is one atom of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, instead of the two hydrogen atoms in water."

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...ter-probe.html

The water seems to be widespread throughout the Moon, it's not just in
shadowed Moon craters. The original Apollo astronauts brought back Moon
rock, but they couldn't find significant amounts of water. Or at least
they couldn't tell whether the water was from the Moon or Earth. This
resulted in the current favoured theory of Moon formation: The Giant
Impactor, which states an Mars-sized rock hit the Earth early on, and
created the Moon.

SPACE.com -- It's Official: Water Found on the Moon
"Apollo turns up dry

When Apollo astronauts returned from the moon 40 years ago, they brought back several samples of lunar rocks.

The moon rocks were analyzed for signs of water bound to minerals present in the rocks; while trace amounts of water were detected, these were assumed to be contamination from Earth, because the containers the rocks came back in had leaked.

"The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between water from the moon and water from Earth," said Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who is a member of one of the NASA-built instrument teams for India's Chandrayaan-1 satellite and has studied the moon since the Apollo missions."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...discovery.html

The widespread distribution of the water might be the start of a new
theory of Moon formation, though no one is really saying this directly yet.

Water Present Across The Moon's Surface, New Research Shows
"Isaacson said the M3 results were a huge surprise. “There was no evidence that this was possible on such a broad scale,” he said. “This discovery turns a lot of the conventional thinking about the lunar surface on its head.”"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0924093559.htm


http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/09/24/moon.water/index.html

"One ton of the moon's surface -- in which the water's ingredients are
held -- could yield as much as 32 ounces, or one quart, of water,
according to three reports from research teams who studied data from
three spacecrafts."

That is 2 lbs of water/2000 pounds of dirt in theory - and if the
surface is like the volume. Want to bet your life on it? 55 gallons
would require processing at 100% efficiency 110,000 lbs of regolith.
That's silly.

"Although that amount isn't large, said geological sciences professor
Jack Mustard, the findings show "there are ways you could convert
these amounts of water into higher amounts" that could support human
activity."

That's not even a lie. That's flat out stupid.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #3  
Old September 25th 09, 02:35 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
YKhan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheory of Moon formation

On Sep 24, 4:20*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
The Moon water was discovered by three separate spacecraft.


* *NO! NOT YET! Hydrogen with elongated bonds has been
* *detected over the years with three independent probes.


Heh-heh, that's a classical case of denial. :-)

Yousuf Khan
  #4  
Old September 25th 09, 04:50 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheory of Moon formation

On Sep 24, 1:14*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
The Moon water was discovered by three separate spacecraft. The Indian
Chandrayaan-1 was the one given the credit for the discovery, while the
Deep Impact and Cassini probes were given the credit for the
confirmation. Chandrayaan-1 was specifically looking for this signature,
before it stopped working, so it looks like it completed this work. The
Deep Impact comet impactor probe swung by the Moon on its way to comet
Tempel 1, and detected the signature back then too. And prior to that
the Cassini Saturn probe passed by the Moon too and detected it. It's
kind of backwards, as the verifications came from probes that went
beforehand, whereas the discovery came afterwards.

CBC News - Technology & Science - Water traces found in moon's dirt
"The water was spotted by spacecraft that either circled the moon or flew by. All three ships used the same type of instrument, which looked at the absorption of a specific wavelength of light that is the chemical signature of only two molecules: water and hydroxyl. Hydroxyl is one atom of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, instead of the two hydrogen atoms in water."


http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...ter-probe.html

The water seems to be widespread throughout the Moon, it's not just in
shadowed Moon craters. The original Apollo astronauts brought back Moon
rock, but they couldn't find significant amounts of water. Or at least
they couldn't tell whether the water was from the Moon or Earth. This
resulted in the current favoured theory of Moon formation: The Giant
Impactor, which states an Mars-sized rock hit the Earth early on, and
created the Moon.

SPACE.com -- It's Official: Water Found on the Moon
"Apollo turns up dry


When Apollo astronauts returned from the moon 40 years ago, they brought back several samples of lunar rocks.


The moon rocks were analyzed for signs of water bound to minerals present in the rocks; while trace amounts of water were detected, these were assumed to be contamination from Earth, because the containers the rocks came back in had leaked.


"The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between water from the moon and water from Earth," said Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who is a member of one of the NASA-built instrument teams for India's Chandrayaan-1 satellite and has studied the moon since the Apollo missions."


http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...discovery.html

The widespread distribution of the water might be the start of a new
theory of Moon formation, though no one is really saying this directly yet.

  #5  
Old September 25th 09, 08:03 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Dr J R Stockton[_46_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactor theory of Moon formation

In sci.astro message [email protected]_s22, Thu, 24 Sep 2009
20:20:39, Sam Wormley posted:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
The Moon water was discovered by three separate spacecraft.


NO! NOT YET! Hydrogen with elongated bonds has been
detected over the years with three independent probes.


Not very important. It's the protons that matter, since the Moon has
plenty of oxides. Having them as lumps of H2O would be a convenience;
otherwise, any form that bakes out as H20 will do reasonably well.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)
  #6  
Old September 25th 09, 10:30 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
YKhan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheoryof Moon formation

On Sep 24, 6:15*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/09/24/moon.water/index.html

"One ton of the moon's surface -- in which the water's ingredients are
held -- could yield as much as 32 ounces, or one quart, of water,
according to three reports from research teams who studied data from
three spacecrafts."

That is 2 lbs of water/2000 pounds of dirt in theory - and if the
surface is like the volume. *Want to bet your life on it? 55 gallons
would require processing at 100% efficiency 110,000 lbs of regolith.
That's silly.

"Although that amount isn't large, said geological sciences professor
Jack Mustard, the findings show "there are ways you could convert
these amounts of water into higher amounts" that could support human
activity."

That's not even a lie. *That's flat out stupid.


Now, that's the concentration that they can detect on the surface of
the Moon. Who's to say if there isn't water on the surface of the Moon
that there isn't water accumulated in higher concentrations much
deeper down? Perhaps even underground lakes and rivers?

Yousuf Khan
  #7  
Old September 25th 09, 10:44 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_21_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactor theoryof Moon formation


"YKhan" wrote in message
...
On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/09/24/moon.water/index.html

"One ton of the moon's surface -- in which the water's ingredients are
held -- could yield as much as 32 ounces, or one quart, of water,
according to three reports from research teams who studied data from
three spacecrafts."

That is 2 lbs of water/2000 pounds of dirt in theory - and if the
surface is like the volume. Want to bet your life on it? 55 gallons
would require processing at 100% efficiency 110,000 lbs of regolith.
That's silly.

"Although that amount isn't large, said geological sciences professor
Jack Mustard, the findings show "there are ways you could convert
these amounts of water into higher amounts" that could support human
activity."

That's not even a lie. That's flat out stupid.


Now, that's the concentration that they can detect on the surface of
the Moon. Who's to say if there isn't water on the surface of the Moon
that there isn't water accumulated in higher concentrations much
deeper down? Perhaps even underground lakes and rivers?

Yousuf Khan

Rivers?
Bwhahahahahahahaha!
The water isn't liquid at lunar surface temperatures, idiot!
Wouldn't you rather have a glacier fed by snowfall?




  #8  
Old September 25th 09, 10:56 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheoryof Moon formation

YKhan wrote:

On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/09/24/moon.water/index.html

"One ton of the moon's surface -- in which the water's ingredients are
held -- could yield as much as 32 ounces, or one quart, of water,
according to three reports from research teams who studied data from
three spacecrafts."

That is 2 lbs of water/2000 pounds of dirt in theory - and if the
surface is like the volume. Want to bet your life on it? 55 gallons
would require processing at 100% efficiency 110,000 lbs of regolith.
That's silly.

"Although that amount isn't large, said geological sciences professor
Jack Mustard, the findings show "there are ways you could convert
these amounts of water into higher amounts" that could support human
activity."

That's not even a lie. That's flat out stupid.


Now, that's the concentration that they can detect on the surface of
the Moon. Who's to say if there isn't water on the surface of the Moon
that there isn't water accumulated in higher concentrations much
deeper down? Perhaps even underground lakes and rivers?


Look up the formation of the moon then rationalize water being
anywhere. Meteoric or comet water will vaporize and be swept away by
the solar wind in the low gravity.

If the moon had any water at all the hot day side at 130 C would be
cryogenically pumped by the cold night side at -230 C. It would be as
obvious as NASA Official Truth. Ditto Mars, equator and poles.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #9  
Old September 26th 09, 08:29 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
YKhan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheoryof Moon formation

On Sep 25, 5:44*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
Rivers?
Bwhahahahahahahaha!
The water isn't liquid at lunar surface temperatures, idiot!
Wouldn't you rather have a glacier fed by snowfall?


Underground rivers of ice rather than water might work. Ice would move
slowly, literally at glacial pace. If it's happening underground, then
it won't show up as movement patterns above ground.

Yousuf Khan
  #10  
Old September 26th 09, 03:05 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default Moon water found, might also be trouble for the Giant Impactortheoryof Moon formation

Androcles wrote:
And what is going to lift the ice the top of the crater rim so that it
can slide down to the ice lake below? Kahn's mechanical pumps?
Sunlight on the underground lake evaporating the ice to form clouds
and fall as snow, all underground? The nuclear furnace at the centre
of the Moon? It might work if your brain ever did.
Tell us about the canals on Mars instead, Lowell believed in 'em.


Well, you don't need underground nuclear furnaces when any given point
on your surface faces the Sun for about half a month, and doesn't face
the Sun at all for the rest of the month. That's bound to create a small
temperature differential that may result in melting and refreezing. Of
course it depends on how far down the ice is, the further down it is,
the less the temperature differentials are going to be, thus making the
process slower.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Moon Impactor Successfully Completes Lunar Maneuver (LCROSS) ron News 0 June 24th 09 01:07 AM
Ocean of water was found on Satun's moon Enceladus Uno Misc 3 February 14th 08 06:10 AM
found a 4.1 Kg chondritic meteorites; meteors create water wells on Mars and Moon?? a_plutonium[_1_] Astronomy Misc 16 June 7th 07 06:04 PM
Water on the moon or Mars, part-2, water on your brain, you torture for microsoft, don't you? Matt Wiser History 0 December 28th 05 08:12 AM
Water on the moon or Mars, part-2, water on your brain, you torture for microsoft, don't you? OM History 0 December 26th 05 09:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.