Moon Has 100 Times More Water, New Study Suggests

Moon Has 100 Times More Water, New Study Suggests

www.space.com

The moon's interior may harbor 100 times more water than previous estimates, according to a new study that took a fresh look at samples of moon rocks collected by Apollo astronauts nearly 40 years ago.

The researchers determined that the lunar water likely originated early in the moon's formation history, suggesting that it is, in fact, native to the moon.

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, and other colleagues, said it's likely that the water was preserved from the hot magma that was present when the moon began to form – some 4.5 billion years ago.

(visit the link for the full news article)

i know at the moment people are not interested unless a thread contains oil related topics .. but i thought i would throw this out there..

I honestly believe that disclosure is happening REAL slow and this articles is part of this .....

The greatest space scientist on our planet 'Assumed' the rocks were pretty dry without doing tests?

"When the rocks were first returned from the Apollo missions, it was pretty obvious that they were really dry," Francis McCubbin, lead author of the study, told SPACE.com. "A lot of people attributed the dry nature to something fundamental about how the moon formed. I think an estimate was thrown out there of less than 1 part per billion (ppb) water, because the presumption was that there was almost no water on the moon."

the above statement is a joke ... estimates and presumptions???

this is the best our scientific minds have to offer? pull the other one and spill the beans already!!!

they have known this all along ... there's water on our nearest neighbour .. and lots more than they have until now let on...

If they have hidden this from us for all this time .. about an object so close and obvious what else have they not told us?

I guess we are finding out .. shame its taking so long because the ptb think our little minds will explode with such information...

www.space.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

am bumping this thread .. 3 flags but not one reply?

no one has opinions .. did they know this all along and 40 years later are releasing the info?

If so what other things have we got to look forward to ? 40 year revelation of lies?

First, your article is from the 14th soooo it's a tad bit outdated to be in Breaking Alternative news.

Moon Has 100 Times More Water, New Study Suggests
By Denise Chow
SPACE.com Staff Writer
posted: 14 June 2010
03:02 pm ET

Next - please - help me out here ok? Because I really am interested.

I'm reading through the material but everywhere I look? They're still taking samples from rocks. Water samples from rocks.

So, if it was 1 in a billionth part in a rock before, and now it's 100 times that?
What, that would make like a 1/4 cup of water for the whole moon? (I have no idea actually so forgive me if I sound sarcastic, I'm not trying to be)...

My point - It's not like they're stating there's a river up there, or a underground ocean they've been hiding...

I don't mean to be a bummer here - so - if I'm missing something please tell me...

peace

[edit on 19-6-2010 by silo13]

I think the story goes that they did know that water existed originally, but it was believed to be a contamination or that they couldn't rule out contamination. Possibly because water was not expected and they couldn't explain it. Something like that.

reply to post by silo13


good catch on the 4 day old article .. didn't notice so you are correct hardly breaking news .. but since its up lets discuss...


to me it could be a egg cup full or an entire ocean .. the question is .. does that matter?

NASA only started harping on about water on the moon as other nations were sending craft there .. then all of a sudden they do the LRO experiment and bingo there is water.


the basic crux of my thread is not amounts of water on the moon ( i do not wish to swim there) it is about the nature in which this information has been released.

It has taken them 40 years to admit this, because imho to admit that there is water on our nearest neighbour AND it is indigenous to the moon opens the flood gates for water being everywhere (something i believe)

Presuming the water content and estimating are not scientific methods....

So i guess there are two options .. the tests did not exist back then that are being done now... but SOME test must have been done .. not just peoples best guesses.

Or they have known all along and as i say this is another baby step towards disclosure of some kind.

The latter gets my vote..

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

the basic crux of my thread is not amounts of water on the moon ( i do not wish to swim there) it is about the nature in which this information has been released.

Ok, now I gotcha - and I agree.

Like you said in your post, (sorry if it didn't knock me in the head and say 'Get it Silo') - if they're lying about that, then what else are they lying about or not telling us about.

Bingo!

Thanks!

peace

Thanks for the thread I am no expert, however we all know that the moon has plenty of craters created by meteor and asteroid strikes. Some of those objects would have been made entirely of ice. Once the ice had hit the moon it would have been broken into millions pieces and then because the moon has some gravity they should still be on the moon. I think I'm right in saying its how we got our water here on earth.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by tarifa37]

LOL ol john lear was right.


and we called him crazy.

Originally posted by Lysergic
LOL ol john lear was right.


and we called him crazy.

What happened to John Lear on this site? in regards to the water on the moon, clever isn't it how they slipped it out in the mainstream media without drawing attention to it. We are walking the steps of dlisclosure. Plantation will be next on the agenda.

The moon has 100 times more water than thought, and Mars may apparently harbor life;

www.bbc.co.uk...

Carbon-rich organic molecules, which serve as the building blocks of life, may be present on Mars after all, say scientists - challenging a widely-held notion of the Red Planet as barren.

It's funny how people speculating this 20 years ago would be scoffed at.

Ok , first of all regards to the OP for bringing this up, because I had missed this little bit of Moon info, and I have been a big fan of the Moon since I could go "Oooh" while looking at the sky.
I agree that it seems farcical that assumptions and guess work were involved in the Dry Moon theory. With a piece of work as important as the examination of the surface of another world, one would assume (always a dangerous game that is) that rigour and completeness would be the most important factors. However, history is crammed to its deepest fathoms with idiocy born of assumption ,from the Sun goes round the Earth idea, to the idea that the world is flat. However, there were many factors adding to the formation of the early theories regarding the moon, not all of them purely scientific in thier origins.
I would not be at all suprised to find that the main reason that this oversight occured is because the government wanted Nasa to get the hell on with it and make a statement about the content of the moon sample, wether accurate or not. Politicians have never accepted that scientists and above all science are/is more important to the survival of the human race than they are, and so demand response to scientific stimulus as if by will alone they can get an answer faster . They cannot.

Now onto the figure of one hundred times more than the one part per billion.
Interesting, and contrary to expressed opinion , is a significant amount of water as well. When speaking about a parts per billion figure one must take into account what those billion parts are, and what they represent physicaly. In this case, unless I miss my mark, we are talking about one molecule of water for every billion molecules in/on the moon (assuming (again) that the sample taken is representative of the typical water molecule dispersal throughout the structure of the moon,rather than a freakishly moist, or dry patch ). So sure , its a small fraction of the moon. But the moon is, as objects go , freakin huge. Its made up of more molecules than mathematics has terms to describe, short of some ridiculous arcane equation which only a graduate could read (I always thought where maths was concerned, that if it couldnt be written down in English (or whatever your home language is) that is probably isnt worth reading).
So the updated figure of one HUNDRED parts per billion is interesting, because that means that for every billion molecules which make up the moon, there are one hundred molecules of water, and when you consider the wieght and size of the moon, and how many freakin GAZILLION molecules that represents thats a large total of water.