• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The LCROSS Impact & Alleged Artificial Features On The Moon

'Significant' water found on Moon
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

Nasa's experiment last month to find water on the Moon was a major success, US scientists have announced.

The space agency smashed a rocket and a probe into a large crater at the lunar south pole, hoping to kick up ice.

Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water-ice and water vapour.

One researcher described this as the equivalent of "a dozen two-gallon buckets" of water.

"We didn't just find a little bit; we found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, chief scientist for the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission.

October's experiment involved driving a 2,200kg Centaur rocket stage into the 100km-wide Cabeus Crater, a permanently shadowed depression at the Moon's far south.

At the time, scientists were hoping for a big plume of debris some 10km high which could be seen by Earth telescopes.

The following probe was designed to analyse the debris plume
The actual debris cloud was much smaller, about 1.6km high, but sufficiently large to betray the evidence researchers were seeking.

The near-infrared spectrometer on the LCROSS probe that followed the rocket into the crater detected water-ice and water vapour. The ultraviolet-visible spectrometer provided additional confirmation by identifying the hydroxyl (OH) molecule, which arises when water is broken apart in sunlight.

"We were able to match the spectra from LCROSS data only when we inserted the spectra for water," Dr Colaprete said.

"No other reasonable combination of other compounds that we tried matched the observations. The possibility of contamination from the Centaur also was ruled out."

The total quantity of H2O spied by the instruments was more than 100kg. It came out of a 20m-30m wide hole dug up by the impacting Centaur rocket.

The LCROSS scientists stressed that the results presented on Friday were preliminary findings only, and further analysis could raise the final assessment of the amount of water in Cabeus.

Peter Schultz, from Brown University and a co-investigator on the LCROSS mission, said: "What's really exciting is we've only hit one spot. It's kind of like when you're drilling for oil. Once you find it in one place, there's a greater chance you'll find more nearby."

The regular surface of the Moon as seen from Earth is drier than any desert on our planet. But researchers have long speculated that some permanently shadowed places might harbour considerable stores of water, perhaps delivered by impacting comets billions of years ago.

If future investigations find the quantities to be particularly large, this water could become a useful resource for any astronauts who might base themselves at the lunar poles.

"It can be used for drinking water," said Mike Wargo, Nasa's chief lunar scientist for exploration systems.

"You can break it down and have breathable air for crews. But also, if you have significant quantities of this stuff, you have the constituents of one of the most potent rocket fuels - oxygen and hydrogen."

In September, data from three spacecraft, including India's Chandrayaan probe, showed that very fine films of H2O coat the particles that make up lunar soil.

Scientists behind that finding speculated that this water might migrate to the even cooler poles, much as water vapour on Earth will condense on a cold surface.

This cold sink effect could be supplementing any water delivered by comets, they said.

If cometary material did reside in places like Cabeus Crater it would be fascinating to examine it, commented Greg Delory, from the University of California, Berkeley.

"The surfaces in these permanently shadowed areas, such as the one LCROSS impacted, are very cold," he told reporters.

"That means that they tend to trap and keep things that encounter them - compounds, atoms and so forth. And so they act as record keepers over periods as long as several billion years. They have a story to tell about the history of the Moon and the Solar System."

LCROSS was launched by Nasa on 18 June as part of a double mission which included the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

The latter, which continues to circle the Moon, measured a temperature of minus 230 Celsius at the base of Cabeus Crater.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359744.stm
 
I've merged the original LCROSS Thread, set up by Bigfoot73 with this one.

P_M

--- --- --- --- ---

I'd be interested to know just how future Lunar prospectors are planning to extract the water, in temperatures around -230 celsius/42 kelvin.

That's pretty cold.

Did they detect any signs of Helium 3?
 
That's a question - does water ice have any significantly different properties or behaviours at those kind of super-low temperatures, or once it hits zero degrees Celsius is that it all the way down?
 
stuneville said:
That's a question - does water ice have any significantly different properties or behaviours at those kind of super-low temperatures, or once it hits zero degrees Celsius is that it all the way down?
It would be as hard as bell metal, harder than steel, at those temperatures. Whilst steel would be brittler than glass.
 
It's a digging machine, or at least I think that's what it is. It's in the upper half of the depression with the blade facing the camera. There are two struts attaching the blade to the body of the machine - with a circular projection on the front which isn't immediately apparent in the screenshots in the vid although it's easier to make out on the original.
The body extends back to the far side of the depression. I would speculate that it has dug the depression itself - instead of being curved like a natural depression or crater would be it is faceted, as if dug by that blade. Added to which they are bright, which is usually a sign of recent formation. There are other such scrapes in the surrounding area.
You could try taking a screenshot and viewing it in an app where you can adjust the contrast, this won't do anything for the detail but at least it stands out better.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
which isn't immediately apparent in the screenshots in the vid although it's easier to make out on the original.

Why not post the original instead of the video then?
 
Because the original is 138 megabytes - a composite of hundreds of Clementine photos - and doesn't divide up into smaller sections than that.
there's only 12 or so of them covering the entire Moon.
As mentioned in the video they are downloadable from the US Geological Survey website, enter it and type 'Clementine' in the search box.
 
That isn't really the original, it is a composite of many individual Clementine images. It would be interesting to see if this digger you can see (but no-one else can) shows up on the original frame.
 
Yes it is a composite but of the originals simply stuck together and duplicated. Don't you think it more likely to be the other way round i.e. that it was there on the original but not in the composite ? Are you suggesting NASA has actually added an anomalous object?
How are you so sure nobody can see it? I've posted this elsewhere and emailed it to people and noone has been unable to see it so far.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Are you suggesting NASA has actually added an anomalous object?
If they have stitched together several photographs to make a composite, there could be some overlap. This could easily result in anomalous imaging artifacts. Imaging artifacts that occur at the border between two joined images are one source of misinterpretation in composite images.
 
I can see a pair of seals and the shadow of a man with his arms raised.

When it's zoomed out you can see a temple to the bottom right of the light patch partly hidden by the overhang of the cliff, a bit like the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri, outside Luxor... No digging machine anyway...
 
Look closely and you will see an image join running through the left side of the blade, but no overlap.
Image artifacts look like image artifacts, and there aren't any at all on this clembase or any of the others.
 
I can't see anything that looks like a digging machine, but then I could never see the alien equipment in the photos in George Leonard's Someone Else is On Our Moon either.

Have you read this book Bigfoot73? From the mid 70s it's probably the ancestor of all this alien building equipment on the conspiracy theory stuff!
 
No, I've never even heard of the book or the author.
Perhaps I should draw the outline around the machine on a screenshot and add it to the video.
I don't know whether AS17-137-20993 was one of the photos in the book , but maybe it should have been. It shows the contents of Shorty crater, best viewed in the Apollo 17 Image Library large version at 200% zoom. There are objects in there that you couldn't possibly interpret as rocks.
Now that I've said that you will almost inevitably check it out and see just rocks.
 
I can see the head and shoulders of a garden gnome, about to throw a dart.

No, really.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
I don't know whether AS17-137-20993 was one of the photos in the book , but maybe it should have been. It shows the contents of Shorty crater, best viewed in the Apollo 17 Image Library large version at 200% zoom. There are objects in there that you couldn't possibly interpret as rocks.

Unless you were an expert in lunar geology, of course.


Now that I've said that you will almost inevitably check it out and see just rocks.

Good guess. What do you see?
 
How come I have to be an expert on lunar geology to conclude that there are artificial objects in the photo, but sceptics don't have to be in order to conclude that they are not?
What do I see in it ? A lot of artificial objects you would describe as rocks.

I don't know what scale the clembase pic is, they don't have scales or grid references on them. I started at 100% zoom and gradually increased it from that for the screenshots in the video.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
How come I have to be an expert on lunar geology to conclude that there are artificial objects in the photo, but sceptics don't have to be in order to conclude that they are not?
What do I see in it ? A lot of artificial objects you would describe as rocks.

The burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid, especially when you won't find a single lunar geology expert who will agree with you. My sceptical, amateur opinion is neither here nor there.

I don't know what scale the clembase pic is, they don't have scales or grid references on them. I started at 100% zoom and gradually increased it from that for the screenshots in the video.

So your supposed "digger" could be a foot long or a mile long?
 
Indeed so, your sceptical amateur opinion couldn't be less here or there.
I fail to see why anybody has to be a lunar geologist to discern a rock from an artifact - one is a rock, the other isn't. That's a computer you are sitting in front of by the way, not a lump of gabbro.

I have provided enough proof, if you're not going to see the thing then so be it.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Indeed so, your sceptical amateur opinion couldn't be less here or there.

This equally applies to your credulous amateur opinion, agreed? There seems to be a dearth of expert opinion on your side of the argument.

I fail to see why anybody has to be a lunar geologist to discern a rock from an artifact - one is a rock, the other isn't.

It tends to help in the avoidance of the misidentification of artifacts if one is educated in the field and knows what can be formed naturally and what can't. Your self-confessed failure to appreciate this is telling.

I have provided enough proof, if you're not going to see the thing then so be it.

You can't even provide a scale for the objects you have allegedly identified. Your proof seems to be about as obvious as your "digger". I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I can't make myself see what isn't there. And it would appear I'm not alone in that regard.
 
I can't see anything artificial in that image- and certainly wouldn't base a theory of hidden alien artifacts on the Moon on it. However it is not very clear to see what exactly is in that image.

I did have a tiny scrap of training in the interpretation of aerial photographs, many decades ago. Just a couple of days on a cartography course- I'm certainly not an expert, But there are some things I remember.

Often the shadow is the easiest part of an artificial object to spot. One technique which seemed to make it a lot easier to identify artificial objects was stereophotography; regular shaped objects would simply 'pop out' of their surroundings. This technique could give you a lot of clues as to the real state of affairs in a photo. It is sometimes possible to make a stereo pair out of two subsequent images on a reel- I've used it to examine Martian photos before now.

See if you can find any stereo pairs of artificial-looking objects; very often in stereo they look a lot less regular.
 
We weren't actually having an argument so I haven't voiced any opinion beyond my interpretation of the clembase image. If being an expert in something was a prerequisite for posting here this board would be empty, except perhaps for the Human Condition Forum, where there should be a big debate about that mysterious phenomenon the Fortean forum.
People don't change their views when confronted with convincing contradictory evidence any more readily than they change political leanings or religious belief. The history of human knowledge and belief is not one of thinking outside the box.
You aren't going to see any artifacts in the clembase or Apollo images just as you can't see the South Massif as six-sided, or recognise a digger blade in that CLIB image I linked to earlier in the thread, or indeed think that the WTC towers fell due to demolition charges rather than fire and gravity.

I would be very surprised to learn that any of the sceptics on this thread had actually downloaded the clembase mosaic and followed my directions.
It is NASA's fault there is no scale with this image, not mine. Seeing as you can't see anything there anyway why be so concerned about how big it isn't ?

As for the value of being a lunar geologist, you don't need to be one to decide that a flat ring with teeth around it is not a rock, nor a round-section ring with spoke-like rods radiating from it, or a symmetrical and rectangular box-like object with thin edges which is obviously hollow.

I don't know how to do stereographic comparisons but the image has no strong shadows if any at all, nor are there rocks to be misconstrued nor blobs of sun glare. The surrounding landscape is flat and featureless.
I do not unquestioningly believe all the alien Moon evidence claims, far from it. This digging machine strikes me as a clear photo of an easily discernible anomalous object. Nobody anywhere else has debunked or criticised it, it hasn't even drawn torrents of abuse on YouTube (mind you it has only had about 50 views.) :(
 
Back
Top