The anticipated "Violent Impact" and "huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals" was not observed on a 30-foot TV display by the gullible assembled masses.
Is NASA aware that there is no atmosphere on the Moon? A particle of Moon dust will fall back to the Moon's surface with the same acceleration as a bowling ball. Reference: High school physics.
NASA spokesmen have stated that the importance of finding ice on the Moon is that water could provide hydrogen for fuel and oxygen to breathe.
Is NASA aware that far more energy is required to disassociate H2O into H2 and O2 than can be recovered by the recombination of H2 and O2 to produce useful work such as rocket propulsion? Reference: Engineering chemistry and thermodynamics.
Is NASA aware that the practical absurdities of men mining polar Moon-ice crystals for any useful purpose on the Moon are too numerous to enumerate?
They were not watching it in the right wavelength. In the right wavelength there was a visible plume.
Conklin
Other than the bit that Rpenner covered... are you aware that none of your points make any sense at all?
The moon doesn't need to have an atmosphere for scientists to be able to analyze a plume of debris.
NASA and everyone is aware about how water disassociation works. They are not looking for water as a means to generate electricity. They are looking at water for air, water and thrust for rockets, etc... things you can't get with just electricity. There are lots of ways of generating electricity on the Moon, you can even bring it with you if you go nuclear.
Other than the bit that Rpenner covered... are you aware that none of your points make any sense at all?
The moon doesn't need to have an atmosphere for scientists to be able to analyze a plume of debris.
NASA and everyone is aware about how water disassociation works. They are not looking for water as a means to generate electricity. They are looking at water for air, water and thrust for rockets, etc... things you can't get with just electricity. There are lots of ways of generating electricity on the Moon, you can even bring it with you if you go nuclear.
RobDegraves wrote:
"They are looking at water for air, water and thrust for rockets, etc."
Please explain how water can be used for "thrust for rockets"
Rocket Thrust = (Mass)(Acceleration)
Water can provide mass.
What can accelerate the water?
Water has zero chemical specific impulse.
Specific Impulse = (pounds thrust)/(pounds propellant/second)
Steam rockets have propelled demonstration drag-race cars.
Steam rockets are quite impractical for space propulsion.
"They are looking at water for air, water and thrust for rockets, etc."
Please explain how water can be used for "thrust for rockets"
Rocket Thrust = (Mass)(Acceleration)
Water can provide mass.
What can accelerate the water?
Water has zero chemical specific impulse.
Specific Impulse = (pounds thrust)/(pounds propellant/second)
Steam rockets have propelled demonstration drag-race cars.
Steam rockets are quite impractical for space propulsion.
RobDegraves wrote:
"are you aware that none of your points make any sense at all?"
I made 3 points:
1. A NASA spokesman had stated that a
"huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals" was expected.
My point: A "huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals"
should not have been expected.
2. A NASA spokesmen stated that the importance of finding ice
on the Moon is that "water could provide hydrogen for fuel
and oxygen to breathe."
My point: Producing hydrogen from ice requires more energy
than the hydrogen (when recombined with oxygen) can give
back in energy or useful work (force X distance).
3. My point: The practical absurdities of mining polar Moon-ice
crystals for any useful purpose are numerous.
These points made "no sense at all" to RobDegraves. Sorry.
I will provide technical reasons for all my points if requested.
This is supposed to be a FORUM in which we can all learn.
QUOTE (conklin+Oct 15 2009, 07:14 PM)
RobDegraves wrote:
"are you aware that none of your points make any sense at all?"
I made 3 points:
1. A NASA spokesman had stated that a
"huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals" was expected.
My point: A "huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals"
should not have been expected.
2. A NASA spokesmen stated that the importance of finding ice
on the Moon is that "water could provide hydrogen for fuel
and oxygen to breathe."
My point: Producing hydrogen from ice requires more energy
than the hydrogen (when recombined with oxygen) can give
back in energy or useful work (force X distance).
3. My point: The practical absurdities of mining polar Moon-ice
crystals for any useful purpose are numerous.
These points made "no sense at all" to RobDegraves. Sorry.
I will provide technical reasons for all my points if requested.
This is supposed to be a FORUM in which we can all learn.
While the lack of atmosphere would not slow the fall of whatever particles were ejected, it would also not prevent these particles from gaining altitude.
So there would be no sustained suspension of the ejecta....gotta get in and get them readings quick!
The products, hydrogen and oxygen, are not used to as a self sustaining process.
They will be produced to breathe and as rocket fuel!
Just because it is not a perpetual motion machine is not a good reason to discount the process.
Water on the Moon could be gathered and and processed with less energy than bringing water from Earth.
My problem is that previous Apollo moon samples contained water but everyone felt that it was contaminated after it was gathered.
Bruce
"are you aware that none of your points make any sense at all?"
I made 3 points:
1. A NASA spokesman had stated that a
"huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals" was expected.
My point: A "huge cloud of lunar dust and ice crystals"
should not have been expected.
2. A NASA spokesmen stated that the importance of finding ice
on the Moon is that "water could provide hydrogen for fuel
and oxygen to breathe."
My point: Producing hydrogen from ice requires more energy
than the hydrogen (when recombined with oxygen) can give
back in energy or useful work (force X distance).
3. My point: The practical absurdities of mining polar Moon-ice
crystals for any useful purpose are numerous.
These points made "no sense at all" to RobDegraves. Sorry.
I will provide technical reasons for all my points if requested.
This is supposed to be a FORUM in which we can all learn.
While the lack of atmosphere would not slow the fall of whatever particles were ejected, it would also not prevent these particles from gaining altitude.
So there would be no sustained suspension of the ejecta....gotta get in and get them readings quick!
The products, hydrogen and oxygen, are not used to as a self sustaining process.
They will be produced to breathe and as rocket fuel!
Just because it is not a perpetual motion machine is not a good reason to discount the process.
Water on the Moon could be gathered and and processed with less energy than bringing water from Earth.
My problem is that previous Apollo moon samples contained water but everyone felt that it was contaminated after it was gathered.
Bruce
There is no need to seek combustible fuel on the moon. Solar power can be used to separate H from O in the water. I believe that lunar solar energy would be stronger than on Earth since there is no atmosphere to absorb and scatter it. Well, not that I say that I am wondering if the net amount of sunlight scattered around to a particular solar panel on Earth would be just as much as what hits a solar panel directly on the moon without any atmosphere. Any real physicists want to address that?
My guess would be that since higher frequency EM radiation is filtered by the atmosphere, that lunar solar radiation would have higher energy density than on Earth. What actually happens to those high frequency light rays in the atmosphere, though? Do they heat the upper layers of the atmosphere and then get dissipated as heat into outer space? Sorry, that was an unrelated question, but the issue of lunar solar radiation brought it to mind.
BTW, how can ice exist on the moon if there is no atmosphere to compress it? Wouldn't it boil immediately at any temperature without any atmospheric pressure? Yet what happens to water vapor when there's no air to dissolve into? Does it just sit on the ground as a gas? Or can it freeze in gaseous form? Would ice sublimate on the moon the way CO2 does on Earth? And if it does, wouldn't the gas be visible? I would think this would take place on the side of the moon that is orbiting in the direction of the sun.
My guess would be that since higher frequency EM radiation is filtered by the atmosphere, that lunar solar radiation would have higher energy density than on Earth. What actually happens to those high frequency light rays in the atmosphere, though? Do they heat the upper layers of the atmosphere and then get dissipated as heat into outer space? Sorry, that was an unrelated question, but the issue of lunar solar radiation brought it to mind.
BTW, how can ice exist on the moon if there is no atmosphere to compress it? Wouldn't it boil immediately at any temperature without any atmospheric pressure? Yet what happens to water vapor when there's no air to dissolve into? Does it just sit on the ground as a gas? Or can it freeze in gaseous form? Would ice sublimate on the moon the way CO2 does on Earth? And if it does, wouldn't the gas be visible? I would think this would take place on the side of the moon that is orbiting in the direction of the sun.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 21 2009, 07:04 PM)
There is no need to seek combustible fuel on the moon. I believe that lunar solar energy would be stronger than on Earth since there is no atmosphere to absorb and scatter it. Well, not that I say that I am wondering if the net amount of sunlight scattered around to a particular solar panel on Earth would be just as much as what hits a solar panel directly on the moon without any atmosphere. Any real physicists want to address that?
Solar panels on the moon would work, except that they would be in the dark for 15 days out of the month. The Earth's atmosphere has clouds, which can reduce solar input. Only a small amount of visible light is scattered by the atmosphere.
Our atmosphere does a good job of filtering out certain frequencies of EM radiation, thankfully the most dangerous high-band stuff is mostly blocked. If we built a solar panel that could utilize these frequencies of light as well, it would definitely work better on the moon. The ozone layer absorbs most of the UV light that hits Earth.
Solar panels on the moon would work, except that they would be in the dark for 15 days out of the month. The Earth's atmosphere has clouds, which can reduce solar input. Only a small amount of visible light is scattered by the atmosphere.
QUOTE
My guess would be that since higher frequency EM radiation is filtered by the atmosphere, that lunar solar radiation would have higher energy density than on Earth. What actually happens to those high frequency light rays in the atmosphere, though? Do they heat the upper layers of the atmosphere and then get dissipated as heat into outer space? Sorry, that was an unrelated question, but the issue of lunar solar radiation brought it to mind.
Our atmosphere does a good job of filtering out certain frequencies of EM radiation, thankfully the most dangerous high-band stuff is mostly blocked. If we built a solar panel that could utilize these frequencies of light as well, it would definitely work better on the moon. The ozone layer absorbs most of the UV light that hits Earth.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 11:15 PM)
Solar panels on the moon would work, except that they would be in the dark for 15 days out of the month. The Earth's atmosphere has clouds, which can reduce solar input. Only a small amount of visible light is scattered by the atmosphere.
Our atmosphere does a good job of filtering out certain frequencies of EM radiation, thankfully the most dangerous high-band stuff is mostly blocked. If we built a solar panel that could utilize these frequencies of light as well, it would definitely work better on the moon. The ozone layer absorbs most of the UV light that hits Earth.
What does the ozone do with the UV light when it absorbs it? What happens to the even higher frequency radiation? Does the ozone absorb that too?
Also, how much more energy is contained in UV+ frequency sunlight? My guess is that solar panels on the moon would generate a LOT more power than terrestrial ones.
Good point about the 15-day lunar night. I wonder if there's a point at one of the polar regions that is always sunny. If there was I am guessing that it would be just as powerful sunlight there as anywhere else on the moon, since there's not more atmosphere to filter through for diagonal rays as is the case at Earth's polar regions.
If solar isn't feasible though, because of the long night, what about geothermal? How deep would you have to dig on the moon to reach heat?
Our atmosphere does a good job of filtering out certain frequencies of EM radiation, thankfully the most dangerous high-band stuff is mostly blocked. If we built a solar panel that could utilize these frequencies of light as well, it would definitely work better on the moon. The ozone layer absorbs most of the UV light that hits Earth.
What does the ozone do with the UV light when it absorbs it? What happens to the even higher frequency radiation? Does the ozone absorb that too?
Also, how much more energy is contained in UV+ frequency sunlight? My guess is that solar panels on the moon would generate a LOT more power than terrestrial ones.
Good point about the 15-day lunar night. I wonder if there's a point at one of the polar regions that is always sunny. If there was I am guessing that it would be just as powerful sunlight there as anywhere else on the moon, since there's not more atmosphere to filter through for diagonal rays as is the case at Earth's polar regions.
If solar isn't feasible though, because of the long night, what about geothermal? How deep would you have to dig on the moon to reach heat?
QUOTE
While the lack of atmosphere would not slow the fall of whatever particles were ejected, it would also not prevent these particles from gaining altitude.
The statement is true. But... Let's examine the process by which Moon particles could be ejected vertically from the Moon?
Example 1: Drop a lead ball into liquid water. There is a splash. Particles of water are ejected vertically from the surface of the water. Why?
As the ball enters the water, a hole is formed as water is displaced radially from the path of the ball. The kinetic energy of the impacting ball is transformed into horizontal kinetic energy of water, plus potential energy as the water surface is raised, plus heat due to turbulence.
As the hole in the water collapses, the water takes on horizontal kinetic energy toward the center as water returns to fill the hole, plus heat due to turbulence.
The water collides at the center of the hole and creates a zone of high static pressure which vents upward in the direction of lowest static pressure. The horizontal kinetic energy of the water is transformed into vertical kinetic energy of water in the direction of the falling object plus heat due to turbulence.
In the end, the kinetic energy of the impacting ball is transformed into heat energy in the water, plus potential energy of the body of water by raising the surface of the water. Water was ejected vertically... i.e.: A splash.
Example 2: Drop a lead ball into sand. Nothing remarkable happens. A small amount of sand is displaced horizontally with a very small vertical component. The kinetic energy of the ball is transformed into heat in the sand.
Example 3. Drop an object into the Moon. Some loose rocks and sand particles, will be displaced radially outward from the impact point with a slight vertical component. The ejecta will immediately accelerate toward the center of the Moon with the same acceleration as an incoming probe which will arrive 4 minutes later to take measurements of the ejecta. Most of the ejecta will be back on the surface before the probe arrives.
NASA has not released a report on the ejecta measurements. Were there any?
QUOTE (conklin+Oct 22 2009, 03:42 AM)
Drop a lead ball into sand. Nothing remarkable happens. A small amount of sand is displaced horizontally with a very small vertical component. The kinetic energy of the ball is transformed into heat in the sand.
What about when you fire a bullet into the sand?
Maybe they are covering up the fact that the beings living underground at that part of the moon shot down the probe just before impact. The press release is about water to divert us from the real discovery: hostile moon troglodytes!
What about when you fire a bullet into the sand?
QUOTE
NASA has not released a report on the ejecta measurements. Were there any?
Maybe they are covering up the fact that the beings living underground at that part of the moon shot down the probe just before impact. The press release is about water to divert us from the real discovery: hostile moon troglodytes!
People retain visions of movies wherein bombs and artillery shells explode upon impact.
The impact of an inert rocket hulk on the surface of the Moon is different: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...syndication=rss
If the NASA Moon-Ice Probe did eject some rocks, sand, and dust,
ALL of the ejecta would immediately accelerate toward the center of the Moon
with an acceleration = a = 0.167g = 5.38 ft/sec^2.
~Four minutes (240 seconds) later, the instrument probe arrived
to perform measurements on the "flying" Moon particles.
What distance would Moon particles accelerate
toward the center of the Moon in 240 seconds?
X = 0.5 (a) t^2 = (0.5)(5.38)(240)(240) = 155,000 feet.
Assuming the particles were ejected to an elevation equal to
HALF of that distance = 155,000/2 = 77,500 feet = 14.7 miles,
the particles would ALL have returned to the surface of the Moon
by the time the instrument probe arrived to make measurements.
NASA probably obtained no measurements on "flying" Moon particles.
It has now been 14 days since the impact of the Moon-ice Probe.
Show me the data.
QUOTE (conklin+Oct 23 2009, 03:15 PM)
Show me the data.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002156/
http://spacefellowship.com/2009/10/09/moon...s-first-glance/
Dated Oct. 9, 2009
The rest to come out with the papers.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002156/
http://spacefellowship.com/2009/10/09/moon...s-first-glance/
Dated Oct. 9, 2009
The rest to come out with the papers.
Show me the data. Things that make me wonder...
1a. Before the mission... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1733...-with-moon.html : "The Centaur impact is expected to excavate more than 350 tons (~700,000 pounds) of lunar material, creating a crater 20 meters (~66 feet) wide and sending a plume of material several kilometers (~2 miles) above the surface.
1b. After the impact... http://spacefellowship.com/2009/10/09/moon...s-first-glance/ : "...the crater looked to be about the size we were predicting; about 18-20 feet or more.” ~8% of the predicted crater volume.
2a. Before the mission... The publicity hype was all about the objective being to find WATER in the form of ice crystals in the impact plume.
2b. After the impact... "Our primary objective was finding out about the hydrogen that’s been observed at the lunar poles, and honestly, our initial visual images didn’t answer that question. But the answers are in the spectra and we’ve got something there. It could be days, weeks, or months until we can give you an answer. We’ll look at data, scratch out heads, fight over who gets to look at which data, and hopefully from that we can make a public announcement of what we’ve found.” What?
3a. Before the mission... "LCROSS will follow behind the Centaur stage to take its own measurements of the impact before crashing into the moon about four minutes later."
3b. After the impact... http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002156/ : "The LCROSS (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) visible spectrometer swept across the sunlit rim of Cabeus crater before the impact, then into darkness, whereupon the reflectance drops very sharply to a flat low. Then it swept across the impact site, where it detected a TINY "BLIP" from the impact. The sharp peak following that results from a known instrument artifact that had yet to be calibrated out in this early version of the data." What?
Show me the data that LCROSS was intended to obtain on ice crystals in the plume from 700,000 pounds of excavated impact debris four minuets after Centaur hit the Moon.
1a. Before the mission... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1733...-with-moon.html : "The Centaur impact is expected to excavate more than 350 tons (~700,000 pounds) of lunar material, creating a crater 20 meters (~66 feet) wide and sending a plume of material several kilometers (~2 miles) above the surface.
1b. After the impact... http://spacefellowship.com/2009/10/09/moon...s-first-glance/ : "...the crater looked to be about the size we were predicting; about 18-20 feet or more.” ~8% of the predicted crater volume.
2a. Before the mission... The publicity hype was all about the objective being to find WATER in the form of ice crystals in the impact plume.
2b. After the impact... "Our primary objective was finding out about the hydrogen that’s been observed at the lunar poles, and honestly, our initial visual images didn’t answer that question. But the answers are in the spectra and we’ve got something there. It could be days, weeks, or months until we can give you an answer. We’ll look at data, scratch out heads, fight over who gets to look at which data, and hopefully from that we can make a public announcement of what we’ve found.” What?
3a. Before the mission... "LCROSS will follow behind the Centaur stage to take its own measurements of the impact before crashing into the moon about four minutes later."
3b. After the impact... http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002156/ : "The LCROSS (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) visible spectrometer swept across the sunlit rim of Cabeus crater before the impact, then into darkness, whereupon the reflectance drops very sharply to a flat low. Then it swept across the impact site, where it detected a TINY "BLIP" from the impact. The sharp peak following that results from a known instrument artifact that had yet to be calibrated out in this early version of the data." What?
Show me the data that LCROSS was intended to obtain on ice crystals in the plume from 700,000 pounds of excavated impact debris four minuets after Centaur hit the Moon.
Clearly they imaged the plume.
Cabeus crater: User posted image: User posted image
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0910...ross-plume.html
oh, and the images indicate that the crater was about 92 feet (28 m) wide.
oh, and your 4 minutes were the differences in the impact times, but its obvious from the picture above that the imaging was done quite a bit earlier than the second impact, thus all those calculations about debris fall time were pointless.
Arthur
Cabeus crater: User posted image: User posted image
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0910...ross-plume.html
oh, and the images indicate that the crater was about 92 feet (28 m) wide.
oh, and your 4 minutes were the differences in the impact times, but its obvious from the picture above that the imaging was done quite a bit earlier than the second impact, thus all those calculations about debris fall time were pointless.
Arthur
How could water exist on the Moon?
If you take cellulose fibers, such as are used to make paper, you can dry them down to about 5% moisture content relatively easily. But to drive off the last 5% moisture (remove the bound water) is almost impossible.
If you heat the paper hot enough to drive off the bound water, it will scorch or catch fire.
The water molecules interact strongly with the –OH groups on the cellulose, forming hydrogen bonds.
Maybe the “water” which NASA is referring is bond to the rocks by hydrogen bonding.
There are also what is referred to as “waters of hydration”. Various inorganic compounds bond with water
to from stable crystal structures. For instance, aluminum sulfate exists as a stable “dry” powder,
but if you heat this powder long and hot enough you will drive off 18 waters of hydration per molecule.
Some of the rocks on the moon may have waters of hydration bound to them.
If you take cellulose fibers, such as are used to make paper, you can dry them down to about 5% moisture content relatively easily. But to drive off the last 5% moisture (remove the bound water) is almost impossible.
If you heat the paper hot enough to drive off the bound water, it will scorch or catch fire.
The water molecules interact strongly with the –OH groups on the cellulose, forming hydrogen bonds.
Maybe the “water” which NASA is referring is bond to the rocks by hydrogen bonding.
There are also what is referred to as “waters of hydration”. Various inorganic compounds bond with water
to from stable crystal structures. For instance, aluminum sulfate exists as a stable “dry” powder,
but if you heat this powder long and hot enough you will drive off 18 waters of hydration per molecule.
Some of the rocks on the moon may have waters of hydration bound to them.
QUOTE (latta+Nov 24 2009, 06:31 PM)
..How could water exist on the Moon?...
...Some of the rocks on the moon may have waters of hydration bound to them...
The phase diagram for water indicates that, AT ZERO PRESSURE, on the surface of the Moon;
neat H20 cannot exist as a solid (ice) OR as a liquid (water) at any temperature whatsoever.
THEORY FIVE
When the 5,216-pound Centaur upper stage impacted on the Moon,
all of its kinetic energy was transformed into heat at the area of impact,
except for the potential energy of some debris raised to a higher level on the Moon.
The heat would have been exhibited as a TEMPERATURE PLUME,
and could have converted "bound" water in Moon rock into gas (superheated steam).
THEORY SIX
On August 26, the LCROOS reported having 50kg of Hydrazine mono propellant remaining.
Hydrazine liquid mono propellant consists of Hydrazine (N2H4) usually blended with H2O
for the purpose of lowering its freezing temperature in space.
How much N2H4+H2O remained aboard the Centaur when it impacted on the Moon?
Could NASA have discovered its own liquid hydrazine mono propellant on the Moon?
...Some of the rocks on the moon may have waters of hydration bound to them...
QUOTE ( keith*'s comment:+)
This wouldn't account for the total amount of water found in the test results so far. However, it may be included (perhaps as a combination of all theories) in the source possibilities listed in the article below--under "THEORY ONE--Ancient Volcanoes Pushed Moon's Water to Surface"
THEORY ONE
Ancient Volcanoes Pushed Moon's Water to Surface
THEORY TWO
Water is "Home Brewed" on the Surface
...The sun constantly emits a stream of particles called solar wind...
THEORY THREE
Comets and Asteroids Delivered Water to the Moon
THEORY FOUR
The Moon's Water Came From Earth
...when Earth's magnetic field was absent or weak, solar wind could have stripped water vapor from our planet's atmosphere and deposited it on the moon...
...Or perhaps catastrophic asteroid or comet impacts on Earth ejected seawater into space, and the orbiting moon passed through the vapor cloud...
(courtesy: nationalgeographic.com
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...-come-from.html
)
THEORY ONE
Ancient Volcanoes Pushed Moon's Water to Surface
THEORY TWO
Water is "Home Brewed" on the Surface
...The sun constantly emits a stream of particles called solar wind...
THEORY THREE
Comets and Asteroids Delivered Water to the Moon
THEORY FOUR
The Moon's Water Came From Earth
...when Earth's magnetic field was absent or weak, solar wind could have stripped water vapor from our planet's atmosphere and deposited it on the moon...
...Or perhaps catastrophic asteroid or comet impacts on Earth ejected seawater into space, and the orbiting moon passed through the vapor cloud...
(courtesy: nationalgeographic.com
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...-come-from.html
)
The phase diagram for water indicates that, AT ZERO PRESSURE, on the surface of the Moon;
neat H20 cannot exist as a solid (ice) OR as a liquid (water) at any temperature whatsoever.
THEORY FIVE
When the 5,216-pound Centaur upper stage impacted on the Moon,
all of its kinetic energy was transformed into heat at the area of impact,
except for the potential energy of some debris raised to a higher level on the Moon.
The heat would have been exhibited as a TEMPERATURE PLUME,
and could have converted "bound" water in Moon rock into gas (superheated steam).
THEORY SIX
On August 26, the LCROOS reported having 50kg of Hydrazine mono propellant remaining.
Hydrazine liquid mono propellant consists of Hydrazine (N2H4) usually blended with H2O
for the purpose of lowering its freezing temperature in space.
How much N2H4+H2O remained aboard the Centaur when it impacted on the Moon?
Could NASA have discovered its own liquid hydrazine mono propellant on the Moon?
uhh...well...the shadowed moon crater rims are apparently NOT the only lunatic fringe.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.