Lunar rocks contain water!

[SLF:JAQ SFDJS]

Is their another Apollo conspiracy here? I was under the assumption reading the threads about lunar rocks that they contain no water. On this NASA.gov site they clearly state the the samples obtained from the Apollo missions have almost no water in their molecular structures.


http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.htm
nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.htm

[BertL]

404 - Page not found.

Something must've gone wrong.

[novaderrik]

how about a link to a page that actually exists?
or did NASA realize that you were onto them, and took the page down before you could tell the world?

[Jim]

SLF:JAQ SFDJS;1044557, you have opened yet another thread while there are questions pending in a previous thread of yours.

This is becoming too much of a habit with you. Before you continue with this thread, please address the questions raised here.

[Van Rijn]

I was under the assumption reading the threads about lunar rocks that they contain no water.

Essentially, yes. You will find an occasional hydrogen atom here and there from the solar wind if nothing else, but in extremely low concentrations.

On this NASA.gov site they clearly state the the samples obtained from the Apollo missions have almost no water in their molecular structures.

Yes. What's your point?

Is their another Apollo conspiracy here?

You've yet to demonstrate there are any Apollo conspiracies. You certainly haven't shown any here.

[01101001]

404 - Page not found.

Something must've gone wrong.

SLF:JAQ SFDJS dropped an "l" on the extension.

Worldbook@NASA: Moon

However, they now suspect that the rilles are channels formed by running lava. One piece of evidence favoring this view is the dryness of rock samples brought to Earth by Apollo astronauts; the samples have almost no water in their molecular structure.

[JayUtah]

Is their another Apollo conspiracy here?

You tell us. You have opened and abandoned several threads in which you allude to well-known hoax arguments. Please be more explicit in expressing your intent.

I was under the assumption reading the threads about lunar rocks that they contain no water.

Or rather, they may have been originally described as anhydrous. Can you expound on the various roles water can play in geological processes?

On this NASA.gov site they clearly state the the samples obtained from the Apollo missions have almost no water in their molecular structures.

Do you believe that "almost" constitutes a significant admission? Please explain what you believe those statements are trying to say, and why you believe it. I'm frankly growing tired of playing your guessing games.

[novaderrik]

you guys and your government sponsored misinformation...

[Swift]

The only relevant mentions of water I can find in the NASA article are:

One piece of evidence favoring this view is the dryness of rock samples brought to Earth by Apollo astronauts; the samples have almost no water in their molecular structure.

Is your problem with the word "almost". We are talking parts-per-million, so technically you can not say "none'

Here is a very detailed article about measurements of hydrogen and water in lunar samples (and they report values in the micromole/gram range).

Radar signals that Clementine bounced off the moon provided evidence of a large deposit of frozen water. The ice appeared to be inside craters at the south pole.

The U.S. probe Lunar Prospector orbited the moon from January 1998 to July 1999. The craft mapped the concentrations of chemical elements in the moon, surveyed the moon's magnetic fields, and found strong evidence of ice at both poles. Small particles of ice are apparently part of the regolith at the poles.

That is believed to come from the impact of comets and is completely consistent with all prevailing theories of moon formation and the Apollo missions.

As others have said, what is your point?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The key phrase here is "in their molecular structure". This is a description of water molecules chemically bonded within the rock, not of free water itself.

Given that there "almost no water" and given the abundance of water on Earth this would seem to me to be pretty good evidence that these are not rocks picked up on Earth.

[Fazor]

I don't think the OP's argument is that this constitutes proof that these rocks came from earth (although, who can really tell what the OP's argument is?). I think he/she's simply picking on what he/she thinks is a contradiction in the description of the rocks by NASA (that's my interpretation. but based on history we'll never know for sure what he/she's getting at).

Although it's clearly a matter of finding something in nothing simply because you want to find it. There is no contradiction, at least not IMHO. The origonal description of "no water" sounds more like, as Waspie put it, no "free water", and the second description of "almost no water" sounds like it's describing very little evidence that there was water in the environment when the rocks formed.**

**edit: I meant, little evidence that there was a relatively large amount of water**

[Anla'Shok]

As it is the site could use a good editing. This is from the site "On the moon, the sky is black -- even during the day -- and the stars are always visible" Not what needs to be on an official NASA page. The woohoos could have a field day with this kind of "evidence". Of course this may have been brought up in another thread, if so my bad.

[JayUtah]

This is the risk you run when you use only secondary sources and summaries. You can't use sources that gloss over details and then try to drive a wedge in the summaries when they fail to capture the nuance of the actual problem. Where summaries appear to disagree, the best explanation is that one has glossed the details differently than the other, not that that there is some nefarious coverup.

As a matter of raw observation, lunar samples have always shown a barely-detectable amount of water. This amount is chemically and physically insignificant compared with terrestrial samples in which water and water-dependent processes produce observable effects. That is, water is not chemically or physically involved in the lunar samples. For the purposes of morphology and distinction, it can be said there is no water. There is no difference in expectations between specimens that would contain no water and specimens containing the amount of water found in the lunar samples.

Since the early observations, scientists have questioned whether the barely-detectable amounts of water are truly part of the samples or whether they are from terrestrial contamination. Lunar materials are highly hydrophilic; they will bond strongly to even the smallest amounts of water in their environment. While the behavior of water in the Apollo samples bears some resemblance to that of water introduced in small quantities to other minerals made artificially hydrophilic (e.g., portland cement), there is no conclusive mechanism identified to falsify the contamination hypothesis. Thus scientists may legitimately disagree at this point on the source of water appearing in the Apollo samples, and thus may offer legitimately differing opinions about whether it is native or acquired.

However there is no question that Apollo samples differ significantly from terrestrial minerals in their water content and the role of water in their appearance and genesis.

[SLF:JAQ SFDJS]

My issue is that one should not say that the Apollo rocks have no water despite the low percentage. This leads people to claim and believe and pronounce to others that moon rocks contain no water. I for one was lead to believe and repeated to others that moon rocks contain no water.

[Anla'Shok]

For all intensive purposes they do not. And you can say that and be correct.

[SLF:JAQ SFDJS]

I disagree and that doing so is misleading.

[Ronald Brak]

BOB: What's inside the bottle, Todd?
TODD: Nothing.
BOB: Is there any water inside it?
TODD: No, there's no water inside it.
BOB: Liar! There is air inside the bottle and there is water vapour in that air! How dare you tell me there was no water inside the bottle! Go to your room at once you naughty little boy!
TODD: I'm 24 years old and this is my house.
BOB: Liar! It was your birthday yesterday so that means you are more than 24 years old! And this isn't your house! You have more than 18 years of mortage to pay off before it's your house, you liar!
TODD: You know, I'm getting really sick of this.

[grant hutchison]

I disagree and that doing so is misleading.

Then I regret to inform you that you have been poisoned. Your body contains quite measurable quantities of carbon monoxide, arsenic and cyanide, among other things. As does almost everything you eat, drink and breathe.
So is it your contention that all food products should be marked with a label reading: "CONTAINS POISON"? Or would that perhaps be misleading?

Grant Hutchison

[01101001]

I disagree and that doing so is misleading.

This is the Conspiracy Theories forum. What's your conspiracy theory? That you told people there was absolutely 100-percent no water in lunar rocks?

[PetersCreek]

I disagree and that doing so is misleading.

What degree of precision do you demand of yourself in your daily life? Unless you never round to the nearest integer...or even to some other decimal place that isn't absolutely correct...shouldn't you also be considered a misleading person by your own standard?

Of course not.

Approximations are perfectly acceptable when a greater degree of precision is not required. Even when more precision is required, practical limits are placed on how far one goes to acheive it. For instance, if your margin of error is ±0.01, why bother with resolution to the sixth decimal place? In the case at hand, if the lay public will not appreciate nor care about the difference between zero and a very, very, very small number...and the difference will not othewise affect the essential accuracy of the lay summary...why not round to zero? For those who need or want it, the more precise number is available elsewhere.

[Van Rijn]

This is the Conspiracy Theories forum. What's your conspiracy theory? That you told people there was absolutely 100-percent no water in lunar rocks?

That's what I was wondering. This sounds like something that would be more appropriate for Q&A. There was a misunderstanding, and now it should be resolved. There certainly wasn't anything kept secret on the subject.

[JayUtah]

I disagree and that doing so is misleading.

Only to the hypersensitive. If you require such exactitude, you need to study geology and read only the scientific papers. If you instead want the convenience of summarization, then deal silently with the inexactness that a summary by definition provides. You seem anxious to nit-pick NASA. Why?

[triplebird]

Moon rocks contain water...and earth water contains rocks!

Hard water contains substantial (indeed easily detectable on a container where the water has been left to evaporate) amounts of calcium and magnesium carbonates, a.k.a. limestone. But most people still say there's only water in a glass filled with it...

[Jim]

What degree of precision do you demand of yourself in your daily life? Unless you never round to the nearest integer...or even to some other decimal place that isn't absolutely correct...shouldn't you also be considered a misleading person by your own standard?

So, have you ever calculated the area of a circle? To what degree of precision must it be calculated to avoid the claim of a misleading result?

Approximations are perfectly acceptable when a greater degree of precision is not required. Even when more precision is required, practical limits are placed on how far one goes to acheive it. ...

I blame Texas Instruments.

For decades, engineers designed and built some fairly intricate structures to the precision of a slide rule. (Hence, +/-10% is "close enough for engineering.") Then along came TI with their insidious handheld calculators, capable of giving results to ridiculous precision.

All of a sudden, it wasn't good enough to say the mass of a gallon of water is 8.34 pounds. You had to adjust for temperature and the mass might be 8.34000012 pounds. Slide rules didn't care, but the TI-50 sure did!

And don't even get me started on those tools of Satan, the computers!!

[Fazor]

I disagree and that doing so is misleading.

Only to the hypersensitive. If you require such exactitude, you need to study geology and read only the scientific papers. If you instead want the convenience of summarization, then deal silently with the inexactness that a summary by definition provides. You seem anxious to nit-pick NASA. Why?

Or, may I suggest that if he want exacting details he should no longer fact-gather from website blurbs and instead read actual documentation, where facts tend to be more precise.

[PetersCreek]

...ridiculous precision.

Related to ludicrous speed?

[Dave J]

With such an incredible attention to detail, why has SLF somehow forgotten all about the other questions he posted (and have been thoroughly addressed).
I smell a bird.

[pzkpfw]

I blame Texas Instruments.

...and the related silly exactness that gets into things.

You will see in a newspaper something like "He was 6 feet (182.88 cm) tall".

[Maksutov]

[edit]And don't even get me started on those tools of Satan, the computers!!

Tell me about it.

Once the drafting department was disbanded and the CAD guys took over, there was a push in one company to convert all dimensions to decimals (for clarity, they said).

I remember reviewing one drawing where the OAL of a forging had been 64 11/16 inches ± 1/16". The requirement was now 64.6875" ± 0.0625". Same deal with the rest of the dimensions.

I sent it back, explaining that I wasn't going to be using a surface plate, Cadillac, and last word indicators accurate to better than .0001" to measure a forging.

Then there was the piece of bar stock whose drawing showed a nominal diameter of something like 3.395842674 inches. I won't even mention what the size tolerance was.

[jrkeller]

Try this Link. Go to the bottom of the page to the Rocks Section. It talks about water in rocks.