Water found on the Moon

[Joseph & Ana 0]

You didn't read the article posted did you Joe?

Yes, it says that they saw the impact, but its contradictory to other articles. I don't know what to believe anymore.

[Peikko 1,575]

For space enthusiasts who stayed up, or woke up early, to watch the impact on Oct. 9,

the event was anticlimactic, even disappointing, as they failed to see the anticipated debris

plume. But NASA later said that a plume was indeed photographed; the live video stream

was not properly attuned to pick out the details.

The water findings come from analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact,

showing telltale signs of water.

Here, I'll help you out seeing as doing it for yourself is a bit too much trouble.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

For space enthusiasts who stayed up, or woke up early, to watch the impact on Oct. 9,

the event was anticlimactic, even disappointing, as they failed to see the anticipated debris

plume. But NASA later said that a plume was indeed photographed; the live video stream

was not properly attuned to pick out the details.

The water findings come from analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact,

showing telltale signs of water.

Here, I'll help you out seeing as doing it for yourself is a bit too much trouble.

Don't flatter yourself.

They say this now, but the initial articles contradict this. So therefore, I'm always skeptical. Where's the data?

[HAL 9000 96]

Those of you that were expecting something exciting... do realize that in space there is no oxygen for combustion right?

Maybe they should have put an O2 balloon in the rocket with a hydrosensitive combustable dye that could have been observed spectroscopically from Earth or any of the million orbiting satellites. Just sayin.

[Peikko 1,575]

Believe what you like Joe, you don't seem to like science at all. Needless to say, when a group of scientists write an article in a scientific journal, they can't get away with simply saying, it's there because we say so They aren't doing it to make a fool out of you either, funnily enough.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

For space enthusiasts who stayed up, or woke up early, to watch the impact on Oct. 9,

the event was anticlimactic, even disappointing, as they failed to see the anticipated debris

plume. But NASA later said that a plume was indeed photographed; the live video stream

was not properly attuned to pick out the details.

The water findings come from analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact,

showing telltale signs of water.

Here, I'll help you out seeing as doing it for yourself is a bit too much trouble.

Don't flatter yourself.

They say this now, but the initial articles contradict this. So therefore, I'm always skeptical. Where's the data?

What exactly do the early articles say beyond 'we saw no impact dust' that would lead you to preconclude any further analysis would be conflictive with what you read earlier?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm thirsty.

Coca-cola already is talking about bottling and selling the Martian water.

Lunar water?

Close enough for the Col. He isn't into accuracy.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Believe what you like Joe, you don't seem to like science at all. Needless to say, when a group of scientists write an article in a scientific journal, they can't get away with simply saying, it's there because we say so They aren't doing it to make a fool out of you either, funnily enough.

I love science. I am something of an expert on general knowledge of animals. I have the science channel. Am I a scientist? no. But I want to see the data. Its billions of tax dollars being spent, so I want the data shown and explained.

They come out and say, "there's water" with no proof, and you're inclined to believe it.

[BishopMnA 0]

maybe there's a whole civilization living underground

Fixxored!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

For space enthusiasts who stayed up, or woke up early, to watch the impact on Oct. 9,

the event was anticlimactic, even disappointing, as they failed to see the anticipated debris

plume. But NASA later said that a plume was indeed photographed; the live video stream

was not properly attuned to pick out the details.

The water findings come from analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact,

showing telltale signs of water.

Here, I'll help you out seeing as doing it for yourself is a bit too much trouble.

Don't flatter yourself.

They say this now, but the initial articles contradict this. So therefore, I'm always skeptical. Where's the data?

What exactly do the early articles say beyond 'we saw no impact dust' that would lead you to preconclude any further analysis would be conflictive with what you read earlier?

Because the early articles implied that it was a wasted project because the cameras missed the impact and dust. Thats all i'm saying nothing more. I want to see the info. All they've said there, is "there's water because we say so" I want to see the data.

[HAL 9000 96]

Believe what you like Joe, you don't seem to like science at all. Needless to say, when a group of scientists write an article in a scientific journal, they can't get away with simply saying, it's there because we say so They aren't doing it to make a fool out of you either, funnily enough.

I love science. I am something of an expert on general knowledge of animals. I have the science channel. Am I a scientist? no. But I want to see the data. Its billions of tax dollars being spent, so I want the data shown and explained.

They come out and say, "there's water" with no proof, and you're inclined to believe it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Believe what you like Joe, you don't seem to like science at all. Needless to say, when a group of scientists write an article in a scientific journal, they can't get away with simply saying, it's there because we say so They aren't doing it to make a fool out of you either, funnily enough.

I love science. I am something of an expert on general knowledge of animals. I have the science channel. Am I a scientist? no. But I want to see the data. Its billions of tax dollars being spent, so I want the data shown and explained.

They come out and say, "there's water" with no proof, and you're inclined to believe it.

Whats funny?

[BishopMnA 0]

And do they believe in God??

...like...Duh...BroHal9G...of courz! (We're always lookin' for new recruits!)

[HAL 9000 96]

For space enthusiasts who stayed up, or woke up early, to watch the impact on Oct. 9,

the event was anticlimactic, even disappointing, as they failed to see the anticipated debris

plume. But NASA later said that a plume was indeed photographed; the live video stream

was not properly attuned to pick out the details.

The water findings come from analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact,

showing telltale signs of water.

Here, I'll help you out seeing as doing it for yourself is a bit too much trouble.

Don't flatter yourself.

They say this now, but the initial articles contradict this. So therefore, I'm always skeptical. Where's the data?

What exactly do the early articles say beyond 'we saw no impact dust' that would lead you to preconclude any further analysis would be conflictive with what you read earlier?

Because the early articles implied that it was a wasted project because the cameras missed the impact and dust. Thats all i'm saying nothing more. I want to see the info. All they've said there, is "there's water because we say so" I want to see the data.

I see... thanks for clarifying that up.

I could direct you to look up the LCROSS site info, but data tends to be held up to peer review if it wants to be published in some fashion. But you know this from having a love of science and its proceedings...

Speaking of which:

October 16, 2009

NASA'S LCROSS Captures All Phases of Centaur Impact

MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. – NASA’s Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was a smashing success, returning tantalizing data about the Centaur impact before the spacecraft itself impacted the surface of the moon.

Plunging headlong into Cabeus crater, the nine LCROSS instruments successfully captured each phase of the impact sequence: the impact flash, the ejecta plume, and the creation of the Centaur crater.

"We are blown away by the data returned," said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS principal investigator and project scientist. "The team is working hard on the analysis and the data appear to be of very high quality.”

Within the ultraviolet/visible and near infra-red spectrometer and camera data was a faint, but distinct, debris plume created by the Centaur's impact.

"There is a clear indication of a plume of vapor and fine debris," said Colaprete. “Within the range of model predictions we made, the ejecta brightness appears to be at the low end of our predictions and this may be a clue to the properties of the material the Centaur impacted.”

The magnitude, form, and visibility of the debris plume add additional information about the concentrations and state of the material at the impact site.

The LCROSS spacecraft also captured the Centaur impact flash in both mid-infrared (MIR) thermal cameras over a couple of seconds. The temperature of the flash provides valuable information about the composition of the material at the impact site. LCROSS also captured emissions and absorption spectra across the flash using an ultraviolet/visible spectrometer. Different materials release or absorb energy at specific wavelengths that are measurable by the spectrometers.

With the spacecraft returning data until virtually the last second, the thermal and near-infrared cameras returned excellent images of the Centaur impact crater at a resolution of less than 6.5 feet (2 m). The images indicate that the crater was about 92 feet (28 m) wide.

"The images of the floor of Cabeus are exciting," said Colaprete. "Being able to image the Centaur crater helps us reconstruct the impact process, which in turn helps us understand the observations of the flash and ejecta plume."

In the coming weeks, the LCROSS team and other observation assets will continue to analyze and verify data collected from the LCROSS impacts. Any new information will undergo the normal scientific review process and will be released as soon as it is available.

Here

Of course after this you'll demand to see the binned data I assume.

[HAL 9000 96]

Believe what you like Joe, you don't seem to like science at all. Needless to say, when a group of scientists write an article in a scientific journal, they can't get away with simply saying, it's there because we say so They aren't doing it to make a fool out of you either, funnily enough.

I love science. I am something of an expert on general knowledge of animals. I have the science channel. Am I a scientist? no. But I want to see the data. Its billions of tax dollars being spent, so I want the data shown and explained.

They come out and say, "there's water" with no proof, and you're inclined to believe it.

Whats funny?

An "expert" that quotes Jerry Coyne not realizing Dr Coyne's own commentary contradicts the statement the "expert" tried making.

Indeed it really is funny how proof exists, is mentioned, is being analyzed, and yet there still appears to be a conspiracy.

A love of science doesn't necessarily translate to an understanding of science.