Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Moon is just one big frozen Ice ball. Hooray
- Thread starter iOrlando
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I keep furiously consulting my bible but I can't find any mention of water anywhere else in the universe.
Anyway, amazing discovery. Check out the NASA app for the iPod or iPhone, it is engrossing to leaf through all the photographs.
Anyway, amazing discovery. Check out the NASA app for the iPod or iPhone, it is engrossing to leaf through all the photographs.
william sire
macrumors regular
Rather than repost everything you said and go to endless links that say the same thing over and over Ill simply return to the stupefying article I quoted:
Given present knowledge, water in space is believed (again) is believed (once more for those whom truly have difficulty in reading comprehension) IS BELIEVED to exist only as ice,
That is not my interpretation that is the conclusion made by scientific research from data collected since exploration into space which begin before I was born. Is believed" is not evidence. In simple terms for non scientist that means... that is their best guess. This experiment was supposed to determine that and to that end it is inconclusive, therefore adding no new knowledge.
As far as oxygen being anywhere else in the universe besides Earth I dont see how since the process of Photosynthesis, which produces oxygen cannot be determined where there is no life and scientist have not discovered life anywhere other than Earth. But that argument Ill leave alone.
Oxygen can be produced by other means besides photosynthesis. Combustion of carbohydrates for instance.
google hit said:
william sire
macrumors regular
Ill save you the trouble of returning to that article Im sure you never read and just post the whole thing here. This research team discovered proof of Oxygen in space.... looking through a telescope.
Perhaps the author of this piece made the error but these scientist only developed a hypothesis. Their research discovered nothing. This article is also over two years old. Making the moon experiment a redundant waste of time since they would have only been searching for something that has already been found.
WATERLOO, ONT. (Thursday, May 3, 2007) -- An international team of space scientists, including several Canadian astronomers, has discovered molecular oxygen in interstellar space. Oxygen is one of the main constituents of the Earth's atmosphere and was expected to be common in space too, but surprisingly this molecule appears to be quite rare in most of the universe.
A team of Canadian, Swedish, French and Finnish researchers has been seeking the elusive oxygen molecule with the Odin space observatory. The team has spent countless hours in observation and data evaluation in search of molecular oxygen. The search, a principal goal of Odin, is important to understanding the chemistry in large interstellar clouds, the birthplaces of planets and stars.
"Earlier attempts to find the elusive oxygen molecule frustrated observatories on the ground and in space until space researchers realized something crucial," said Michel Fich, UW professor of physics and astronomy. "The abundance of oxygen was much lower than assumed before the search started. The Odin measurements have now told us just how low."
The team's findings are reported in the current issue of Astronomy & Astrophysics. The Canadian members of this Odin team include Fich, Sun Kwok and Rene Plume of the University of Calgary, Christine Wilson of McMaster University, and George Mitchell of Saint Mary's University.
Astrochemists have long argued that the basic molecules of life, water (H2O) and oxygen (O2), are highly abundant in the denser regions of the interstellar medium. One of the primary goals of the Odin astronomy mission was to use spectral line data from molecular oxygen and water to study processes of star formation.
Models at the time predicted that these molecules would be abundant enough to assist the formation of stars by radiating away excess energy produced when clouds collapse to form new stars. The collapse results in compression of the gas, which is therefore heated. Unless this excess heat can be radiated away stars will not be able to form.
Many attempts have been made from the ground, balloons and space to detect oxygen, but have, until now, all failed.
The molecule was found in a dense (astronomically speaking) gas cloud (called rho Oph A) in the constellation of Ophiuchus at a distance of about 500 light years. The oxygen abundance is a thousand times lower than can be explained by today's chemical models.
Odin is a space-based radio observatory for studying both celestial objects and Earth's atmosphere. The spacecraft is equipped with a 1.1-metre diameter radio telescope operating in the millimetre and submillimetre wavelength ranges. Odin was launched into a 600-km altitude orbit on Feb. 20, 2001.
The importance of molecular oxygen led to the inclusion in the Odin five-channel microwave radiometer of a dedicated radio receiver tuned to the ground state transition of oxygen at 118.75 GHz. This frequency is about a factor 1,000 higher than the typical FM radio band.
The actual observations were made during 33 days over a period from August 2002 to February 2006. After careful processing and detailed analysis of more than 300,000 spectra, the oxygen line is convincingly visible, at a level of five times above the noise.
The characteristics of the observed oxygen profile are precisely as expected, based on the profiles of the spectral lines from other species, such as atomic carbon, carbon monoxide and water vapour, observed from the same cloud with ground-based telescopes and with Odin.
Odin was developed by the Swedish Space Corporation, which is also responsible for the operations, on behalf of the Swedish National Space Board, the Canadian Space Agency and the space agencies of Finland and France. It serves astronomers and aeronomers (who study the Earth's atmosphere) of all four partner countries."
Whoa calm down there. I did read it before I posted it.
Which is a completely valid way to do it. What problems do you have with spectral analysis?
No they discovered the spectra of oxygen in space
.Finding water on the moon is different than finding oxygen in space. Why is finding water on the moon redundant
?
This is an amazing discovery and could change the future of humanity. Without water on the moon, we might never be able to reach the stars.
With this discovery, it makes the Moon so much more viable as a stepping stone to the stars.
Furthermore, NASA have said they found other interesting materials in the vapour plume - but they won't say what for now, until they've rechecked their results. Can't wait.
With this discovery, it makes the Moon so much more viable as a stepping stone to the stars.
Furthermore, NASA have said they found other interesting materials in the vapour plume - but they won't say what for now, until they've rechecked their results. Can't wait.
Amazing discovery.
I guess if NASA had ACTUALLY put someone on the moon in the 60's instead of a sound stage in Area 51, they'd have known there was ice there already.
DOH!
I guess if NASA had ACTUALLY put someone on the moon in the 60's instead of a sound stage in Area 51, they'd have known there was ice there already.
DOH!
Here's the editorial from Science Magazine. Says a little about the possible elements that might also be there RedTomato . It'll be exciting to see what comes of this .
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1113/1
. It'll be exciting to see what comes of this .http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1113/1
Which is a completely valid way to do it. What problems do you have with spectral analysis?
No they discovered the spectra of oxygen in space
don't worry andy, the problem he has is with science in general.
and reading comprehension.
I'm stunned at this discussion. Talk about making things unnecessarily complicated.
Water got on the moon the same way water got here, on Earth. By asteroid and/or comet bombardment, after initial formation. People think water as this huge quantity, which on our scale, it is. In the grand scheme of things, that thin sliver of water covering the surface isn't much compared to the mass and volume of the Earth itself.
There's tons of water flying all over the solar system.
What do you think a comet's tail is? Water vapor jetting off the comet. The comet itself 80% water ice. A big, dirty snowball.
There's a freaking CLOUD of water surrounding the whole solar system. Literally, a trillion comets of large than 1km.
Finding water on the moon just confirms everything else we already know and our ideas about how things should be.
Water got on the moon the same way water got here, on Earth. By asteroid and/or comet bombardment, after initial formation. People think water as this huge quantity, which on our scale, it is. In the grand scheme of things, that thin sliver of water covering the surface isn't much compared to the mass and volume of the Earth itself.
There's tons of water flying all over the solar system.
What do you think a comet's tail is? Water vapor jetting off the comet. The comet itself 80% water ice. A big, dirty snowball.
There's a freaking CLOUD of water surrounding the whole solar system. Literally, a trillion comets of large than 1km.
Finding water on the moon just confirms everything else we already know and our ideas about how things should be.
LOL agree.
still it is a quite exciting discovery in the perspective of a Lunar base.
If this wasn't the case, they would have had to extract the oxygen from rocks, which is quite more complex, long and expensive.
or capture a comet, that might might turn out to be a bit tricky.
If you couple this with the recent observation of the network of moon tunnels it makes the possible colonization of the moon a tad more feasable.
Tunnels? On the moon??
Google leads me to http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18030-found-first-skylight-on-the-moon.html
Wow. Tunnels 260 feet down and 1200 feet wide. Just wow. Spray the walls with plastic and that's your lunar base more or less done.
You can bold and add red color to your post until your face turns red. That doesn't change the incorrect statements.
In regards to the article. Who wrote it? They have sources, but is the usage of the term "believe" accurate? Quoting one article and not finding their primary source for the claim does nothing to further this discussion.
Second, I don't see how this relates to your claim that the elements necessary for water do not exist outside of our atmosphere. The elements necessarily exist outside of our atmosphere and I gave you an explanation as to why that is the case. The elements necessary for water were originally forged in stars.
I truly think you are rather confused. Nothing you have stated backs up your claim that the elements required for water do not exist outside of our atmosphere. As this statement is false. Even if we "believe" water exists elsewhere as ice, this still does nothing to add credibility to your claim that the elements necessary for water do not exist outside our atmosphere. Which is what I was responding to.
You didn't even read the informational articles I posted from Wikipedia, did you? The elements, as we know, we forged in stars. That is what stars do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Isotopes_and_stellar_origin
As I stated above, it is necessarily the case that Oxygen exists elsewhere in the universe. Now the question is in what form? With other elements? In O2 form?
Photosynthesis is not necessary for the existence of O2. For O2 in abundant quantities in an atmosphere? No, Photosynthesis is not the only conceivable means of O2 production. Although, it is the ony natural process that we know of that produces large amount, over time. It took 3 billion years to get the amount of Oxygen we have.
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Yh...ng Blocks&pg=PA303#v=snippet&q=oxygen&f=false
I again refer you to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Build-up_in_the_atmosphere
Notice how that section begins: Free Oxygen.
Now, it may be your contention that Oxygen doesn't often exist in O2 form, which may be the case as noted in the article that is linked from Waterloo. However, this is obvious to anyone familiar with chemistry. Oxygen is an element that readily forms compounds, again, read the Wikipedia article on Oxygen. So it isn't at all surprising that it may not often exist alone in the Universe. However, the elements necessary for water do exist outside our atmosphere, just maybe not in forms that would be likely to produce water. But again, you need to understand chemistry.
I suggest you put more time into studying what you are discussing.
Tunnels? On the moon??
Google leads me to http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18030-found-first-skylight-on-the-moon.html
Wow. Tunnels 260 feet down and 1200 feet wide. Just wow. Spray the walls with plastic and that's your lunar base more or less done.
yep, that's kind of the idea.
if these large underground cave systems are indeed usable, they would provide shelter against meteorites and radiation and allow for much more manageable structures.
one of the problem is whether there is any in a desirable location, for example close to ice sources.
That would be awesome. This is something long overdue, and could be a great first step in colonizing other planets.
Anyone else think this is just the usual NASA, with better marketing?
NASA 1989: Uhhh.. one of our rockets is missing.. Crashed into the Moon we believe. Created a hell of a cloud. Sorry, but thanks for all the cash!
NASA 2009: Wayhey! We just crashed a rocket into the moon, and found water!
(Or maybe, Apollo 11 sprang a leak... )
On a slightly more serious note, isn't the composition of comets now being questioned - as is the differentiation between comets and asteroids?
NASA 1989: Uhhh.. one of our rockets is missing.. Crashed into the Moon we believe. Created a hell of a cloud. Sorry, but thanks for all the cash!
NASA 2009: Wayhey! We just crashed a rocket into the moon, and found water!
(Or maybe, Apollo 11 sprang a leak...
)On a slightly more serious note, isn't the composition of comets now being questioned - as is the differentiation between comets and asteroids?
Anyone else think this is just the usual NASA, with better marketing?
NASA 1989: Uhhh.. one of our rockets is missing.. Crashed into the Moon we believe. Created a hell of a cloud. Sorry, but thanks for all the cash!
NASA 2009: Wayhey! We just crashed a rocket into the moon, and found water!
(Or maybe, Apollo 11 sprang a leak...
Umm...no I don't. If you'd read about the purpose of the mission in the first place... oh hell, I give up. I don't even know why anyone should try with people like you.
In more headline news, NASA scientists were amazed to discover no Irony on the Internet. That's true folks, there is no Irony online.
(Seriously, you read the Apollo 11 line, and still thought I was serious?
)