Soviet find of water on the Moon in the 1970s ignored by the West

Jun 01, 2012 by Lin Edwards report
Luna 24

(Phys.org) -- In August 1976 Luna 24 landed on the moon and returned to Earth with samples of rocks, which were found to contain water, but this finding was ignored by scientists in the West.

US missions to the moon brought back a total of around 300 kilograms of . Many samples were found to contain traces of water, but NASA believed the water was a contaminant originating on Earth, because had clogged the seals of some of the containers and prevented them from being closed properly.

The presence of water on the moon will be important if a is ever to be established, but for many decades the moon was believed by Western scientists to be dry. Three articles by Professor Arlin Crotts, an astrophysicist from Columbia University in New York, has now examined the history of scientific research on the presence of water on the moon and discovered that the Russians had found water in moon rocks in 1976.

The US sent Clementine to the moon in 1994 to use radar to look for water ice by analyzing the reflected beamed at the surface, and it provided the first Western proof of crystals of water ice under the . The Lunar Prospector mission in 1998 also looked for water, this time by comparing the amount of neutrons emitted from the surface with the amount that should be present if there was no water to absorb them. Even more recently, in 2009, the Indian mission Chandrayaan-I found evidence of water on the moon by using infrared photography.

NASA also carried out an experiment in 2009 in which the upper stage of an empty Centaur rocket was crashed into a permanently shadowed (the most likely place to find ). The Centaur hit the moon at 2.5 km/s and formed a crater four meters deep and 25 meters wide. The plume of ejected material was analyzed and found to contain around 5.6 percent water.

The Soviet Luna 24 mission of 1976 drilled two meters down and extracted 170 grams of , which it brought back to Earth for analysis, taking every possible precaution to avoid contamination. The scientists found that water made up 0.1 percent of the mass of the soil, and published their results in the journal Geokhimiia in 1978. The journal does not have a wide readership among Western scientists even though it was also available in English, and Crotts said the work was never cited by any scientist in the West.

Explore further: Light of life

More information: Water on The Moon, I. Historical Overview - arxiv.org/abs/1205.5597
Water on The Moon, II. Origins & Resources - arxiv.org/abs/1205.5598
Water on The Moon, III. Volatiles & Activity - arxiv.org/abs/1205.5599

via ArXiv Blog

Related Stories

NASA Moon-Impactor Mission Passes Major Review

Feb 02, 2007

NASA's drive to return astronauts to the moon and later probe deeper into space achieved a key milestone recently when agency officials approved critical elements of a moon impact mission scheduled to launch in October 2008. ...

Recommended for you

Light of life

14 hours ago

A fluorescent microscopic view of cells from a type of bone cancer, being studied for a future trip to deep space – aiming to sharpen our understanding of the hazardous radiation prevailing out there.

Local model better describes lunar gravity

19 hours ago

Two satellites orbiting the Moon as a part of NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission have been mapping its inner structure by measuring subtle shifts in the pull of gravity on the ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ritwik
Jun 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kevinrtrs
Jun 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LuckyBrandon
4.3 / 5 (25) Jun 01, 2012
Of course having confirmed there's water on the moon means that the one supposedly viable theory for moon formation has now bitten the dust.

That theory, which proposes that the moon was formed when earth was struck by some other body, necessitates that all water was vaporized in that collision. Now that the presence of water has been confirmed - underground if you may - it means the theory has lost a lot of it's appeal. It's back to the drawing board for evolutionists on this one.

Oh, for those who wonder what evolution has to do with astronomy [or more precisely cosmogony], look at all the book and science paper titles to see how a lot of them refer to the "evolution" of this or some other system.


No it does not...that would entail that the earth has no more water either based on that logic. Any extraction of earth material is just that, extraction of earth material, water and all....water would have boiled and became steam which would have condensated...
Origin
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2012
This content of water is quite minute and it could be caused with improper handling of samples at the wet air - so I can quite understand, the people at the west ignored this finding. This doesn't diminishes the fact, these samples of Lunar soil belong into most significant achievements of Russians regarding their cosmic program at all.
barakn
3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2012
ritwik should look up the name Lysenko, or perhaps is already familiar with?
_ilbud
1.8 / 5 (24) Jun 01, 2012
unlike european mongrels RUSSIANS doesn't bow down on their feet


How quaint that a people who couldn't implement socialism because of their innate criminality and alcoholism can now pretend to know what dignity is. I guess that's what happens when racism and frostbite are the national pastimes.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (21) Jun 01, 2012
It's back to the drawing board for evolutionists on this one.

Huh? What does that have to do with evolution? I know you like the word. But before using a word in a sentence it is usually wise to know what that word means. Otherwise you just look like a fool.
ook at all the book and science paper titles to see how a lot of them refer to the "evolution" of this or some other system.
Any you will notice that there it is simply used as a synonym for 'change over time' - not in relation to the 'Theory of Evolution' in any way.

That theory, which proposes that the moon was formed when earth was struck by some other body, necessitates that all water was vaporized in that collision.

Why? Water can escape a body in may ways. A body like the moon - with not enough gravity to hold an atmosphere - can use water via sublimation.
dnatwork
4.8 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2012
Also, comets could hit the moon as easily as the Earth, bringing new water to it after its formation. Or, one theory is that hydrogen ions from the solar wind could strike the moon and react with oxygen in the rocks to create water. Anyway, a lot can happen in 4.5 billion years.
GSwift7
4.3 / 5 (22) Jun 01, 2012
Of course having confirmed there's water on the moon means that the one supposedly viable theory for moon formation has now bitten the dust.

It's back to the drawing board for evolutionists on this one.


I hate to be mean, because not everyone is lucky enough to get a good education, but that was one of your funniest posts ever. Sometimes I could swear that you're doing it just to be funny. God, I hope you're just joking sometimes.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2012
Another modern evidence for water in the moon rocks is that now we can see the concentration, it increases towards the center of many samples. I.e. the water is indigenous.

The theoretical problem was that the Earth-Moon impactor theory was new and not consensus at the time AFAIK. The near identical isotope ratios of the water is of course an excellent test of that theory.

Which brings me to this:

"kevinrtrs".

An excellent example of why creationists shouldn't comment on science. Besides making us chuckle by wilfully misunderstanding exactly everything, they prove for anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science that creationism is completely bogus. Hence their comments are selfdefeating.

[But the likely wilful conflation between system evolution in general and the specific biological theory of evolution of organism populations is something old but seldom seen. Thanks for laughs as always, but thanks for the extra large laughs this time! =D]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2012
@ GSwift7:

Actually I think creationists of the YE brand are precisely this confused. They seem to believe the many observations from older ages are invented to support "evilution", which in turn is posed precisely to reject their pet religion.

In reality there are few connections between the Earth-Moon impact and evolution.

It sets a rather robust lower age for the Earth biosphere.

And it sat up the only finetuned parameter allowing land life on Earth. Earth water content is ~ 5/1000 by mass, and an order of magnitude more or less water would have either drenched the continental plates or made complex life near impossible on a dry planet.

The chondrites that are believed to eventually have aggregated into Earth average ~ 10 %, 100/1000 by mass, water content. Most water would have been lost as the volatilized hydrogen escaped, and the 1/1000 or more by mass water of the Moon should have been the common result. LHB impactors would make up the deficit later.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2012
Note that this finetuning of water is by no means unique. The terrestrials in our system are all devoid of water. But in our case it is tied to one transforming event, in all other cases it is believed to be due to geological time processes. (UV water photolysis and hydrogen gravitational escape for Mercury, Venus and Mars.)
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2012
Of course having confirmed there's water on the moon means that the one supposedly viable theory for moon formation has now bitten the dust.
There is certain politics which motivates the investments into cosmic flights because it could give the jobs for researchers and technicians involved. We should understand all recent reports about water at Moon from this perspective. The amount of water at moon is actually very low for every practical purpose. It comes from impacts of comets and it has nothing to do with Moon formation.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2012
The amount of water at moon is actually very low for every practical purpose, it comes from cometary impacts and it has nothing to do with Moon formation.


Careful:

The practical useful water at the poles is remains of later impactors. (It doesn't need to be comets, as I noted the most common asteroid chondrites have more water per mass than the Moon polar regions.)

The water content of the Moon interior is remains of the original protoplanetary composition.

FWIW, the recent work of the Planetary Resources company shows how water on the order of chondrites (i.e. including the Moon polar regions) would be very valuable as volatiles for engines and habitations of space. If the current exploration and tourism sectors continues and expands as believed, this is an interesting near Earth resource.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2012
With enough energy you can have water on the moon. There are oxides and there are hydrogen compounds in the rocks. Melt, vaporize, separate according to mass/density, let react...voila H2O.

Would need some massive power source, though. But there's no real reason not to have nuclear reactors in the moon. It's not like fallout/contamination would be an issue. And without all the safety concerns relevant to Earth they coud be quite compact.
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2012
And so, the West had evidence if not proof of water on the moon decades ago but denied it. Because they suspected some of the containers were slightly ajar, yet completely sealed containers also showed signs of water! What's more, they refused to invoke or work with material from the Soviet Union about water on the moon, denying it was impossible the signs of water could be genuine. Because some oif the West's containers were slightly ajar! And defenders of "science" actually applaud this approach as "legitimate"!
What other facts is "science" withholding from the public? What "conclusions" are they making based on invalid assertions?
Jonseer
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2012
What other facts is "science" withholding from the public? What "conclusions" are they making based on invalid assertions?

The article DID NOT say Western researchers knew this, or that they refused to invoke or work with Soviet data.

The article DOES SAY that the journal Geokhimiia does NOT have a wide readership among Western scientists, and its never been cited by a Westerner.

Your suspicions are groundless.

Nobody hid or denied anything. Western researchers likely NEVER saw it, and the Soviets apparently didn't make any effort to promote their findings outside their own mission.

As for denying their own findings, there was no hiding or denying either. There was sufficient doubt to prevent a conclusion in favor of water.

Science is constantly revising and changing conclusions.

Science does NOT claim to know everything, nor does Science claim to get it right the first time.

That is how religion works. NOT science.
LariAnn
2 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2012
Well, the article does state that the findings were ignored by scientists in the West. In order to ignore something, you have to first know or be aware of it. Therefore, the Western scientists actively decided to treat this data as though it did not exist, if the article wording is accurate. Was this an attempt to hide or deny scientific facts, for whatever reason? You decide, but if I knew about something and chose to ignore it rather than include it in my dataset, that WOULD BE a deliberate act on my part, would it not?
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2012
Jonseer takes exception to how I described Western "scientists'" reaction to the Soviet discovery of water on the moon. Jonseer insists the article did not say that Western "scientists" knew about but refused to work with Soviet data. Then why is the article entitled, "Soviet find of water on the moon in the 1970s ignored by the West"? To ignore something, you have to know of it, but refuse to do anything with respect to it! If Western "scientists" didn't even hear about the Soviet discovery, why does the article go to lengths to "explain" why they would be suspicious of any such reports? If they didn't know, they didn't know and didn't do anything because they didn't know! And, remember, it only takes one to get the message around! The magazine may have had limited circulation, but did no Western "scientist" read it? And, if so, why?
Russkiycremepuff
2.4 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2012
ritwik should look up the name Lysenko, or perhaps is already familiar with?
- barakn -

If you are referring to Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko, in Soviet Union he was shamed as a fraudulent researcher and was favored by Stalin himself until his agricultural practices proved to be disastrous after awhile. Trofim rejected the Mendel's Law and because of it many people starved. He was not Russian, he was from Ukraine. Stalin was a fool.
Russkiycremepuff
2.4 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2012
@julianpenrod
There was much motivation for secrecy in those days for the sake of the politics and idealogy. We believed that the West very seldom wished to acknowledge successful Russian scientific research, except for those successes that could not be ignored because everyone else knew about it. For instance, Yuri Gagarin was known worldwide, and if the West, i.e., America had chosen to ignore his accomplishments, Americans would have played the fool and have been laughing stock of the world.
Shelgeyr
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2012
I assume that like Jonseer, it seems to me that the title is misguided, not the article. To ignore something, you have to be aware of its existence...

The journal does not have a wide readership among Western scientists even though it was also available in English, and Crotts said the work was never cited by any scientist in the West.


You can't cite something you're unaware of. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have ignored it if they'd known - they may very well have, especially given the political climate at the time - but in this case I think the headline paints with a vastly overlarge brush.
rwinners
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2012
Sort of a WASPISH error. Well, not just sort of....
s_m_ahmed
4 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2012
Here comes the clarification from "horse's mouth". I was the team leader of Indian payload CHACE which found direct evidence of water, and many other gaseous species, BUT MISERABLY FAILED IN PUBLISHING THE SAME. We tried very very hard to publish the work; more than 18-months passed, both science, nature rejected our work.
We tried very hard to convince many experts that we did our homework, quite well. But, it was ignored almost for 2-years until the other paylaods (M3-NASA, mini-SAR) data published. Thanks to Planetary and Space Sciences (UK) which accepted our work.
Dr.S.M.Ahmed, Team leader, CHACE, smahmedhyd@gmail.com
mjesfahani
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2012
Also, comets could hit the moon as easily as the Earth, bringing new water to it after its formation. Or, one theory is that hydrogen ions from the solar wind could strike the moon and react with oxygen in the rocks to create water. Anyway, a lot can happen in 4.5 billion years.

Very good thinking.
loneislander
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2012
unlike european mongrels RUSSIANS doesn't bow down on their feet


How quaint that a people who couldn't implement socialism because of their innate criminality and alcoholism can now pretend to know what dignity is. I guess that's what happens when racism and frostbite are the national pastimes.


Hmmm... replace "socialism" with "capitalism" and replace "alcoholism" with "psychotic materialism" and this still works.

People are people. They are all the same except for those who insist they are somehow different and better; they're scum.
Terriva
Jun 02, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kaasinees
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2012
Show cold fusion or get the F out.

I prefer hot fusion myself.
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2012
Kevin:

The presence of water on the moon is irrelevant to the theory of it's formation/creation event.

There is at least some water in almost every object in the solar system anyway.

the water on the moon could be from "wet rock" inclusions and as components of exotic crystals in rocks, which considering the number of impact craters, would vary GREATLY by location, shadowing, and depth of craters or other shielding effects.

Water-ice, water vapor, or even liquid water bubbles could be trapped in just about any impermeable solid rock or crystal formation (such as Gypsum or normal crystals,) in millimeter scales or smaller in any solid object in the solar system.

The real question has always been whether it's in a quantity large enough to be relevant to potential human or robot activities.

As for where the Moon came from, I'm not a fan of the impact theory, because it doesn't make sense. Why doesn't the Earth have an asymetrical core and mantle, if the impact theory is true?
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2012
I mean, the Moon has a noticeably asymmetric core and mantle (confirmed by gravity experiments,) and is tidally locked to the earth, but the Earth doesn't have an asymmetric core or mantle.

If a planetesmal struck the Earth, where is it's core remains? Are they claiming the planetesmal's core totally re-melted and was distributed evenly within the Earth's own core and mantle?

the claim that something the size between Ceres and Mars hit the Earth and totally re-melted and assimilated undetectably evenly throughout the Earth crust, core and mantle is absolutely ludicrous, unless the entire Earth's core actually is the remnants of the planetesmal, and even that is a hard swallow...
r_evolutionist
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2012
I love hearing these rethink quotes... water would be redeposited on the earth AND moon from comets and other celestial objects striking it over time...

I also actually think he might be 'getting it' since he did say 're-think' which is something the scientific process does in fact promote...

r_evolutionist
MandoZink
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2012
the Moon has a noticeably asymmetric core

The evidence associated with the moon's asymmetrical characteristics suggest that the asymmetry was caused much, much later than the earth impact event. There are indications that the moon had cooled after the event, and had been in orbit for a long time, when it was struck by a very large object,

The speculation is that the earth-impact mass ejecta actually formed two moons at the time, one of them smaller. That smaller moon was thought to have orbited at a somewhat-stable Lagrange point, until an eventual rotational imbalance resulted in it crashing, and merging, into the current moon.

When the original earth-moon cataclysm occurred, the bodies were molten enough for the cores to settle. The second moon impact much later caused the current lunar asymmetry.

Here is one article:
http://science.na...womoons/
Going
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2012
I have nothing but admiration for the Russian engineers who managed to build a robot capable of drilling into the Moons rocks and returning a sample to earth using 1970s technology.
slayerwulfe
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2012
what i see here is the propaganda of politics and the inappropriately termed moon rocks could have been obtained in N.Y. state (anorthite)a calcium feldspar.
MandoZink
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2012
"That smaller moon was thought to have orbited at a somewhat-stable Lagrange point, until an eventual rotational imbalance resulted in it crashing, and merging, into the current moon."

The term "rotational" is not correct. I meant to indicate that the stability of the it's orbital location at a Lagrange point was eventually lost. Then it would have been just a matter of time before an "event" occurred.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2012
Never mind.
Thex1138
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2012
Apes/
Such Humor... we ape humans are so naive to assume that the earth is the only place in the universe for water to exist... keep banging those sticks chimps..
/Apes
Anda
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2012
Of course having confirmed there's water on the moon means that the one supposedly viable theory for moon formation has now bitten the dust.

That theory, which proposes that the moon was formed when earth was struck by some other body, necessitates that all water was vaporized in that collision. Now that the presence of water has been confirmed - underground if you may - it means the theory has lost a lot of it's appeal. It's back to the drawing board for evolutionists on this one.

Oh, for those who wonder what evolution has to do with astronomy [or more precisely cosmogony], look at all the book and science paper titles to see how a lot of them refer to the "evolution" of this or some other system.


Again and again and again... Stupid ignorant creationist...
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2012
unlike european mongrels RUSSIANS doesn't bow down on their feet


How quaint that a people who couldn't implement socialism because of their innate criminality and alcoholism can now pretend to know what dignity is. I guess that's what happens when racism and frostbite are the national pastimes.
- Sean O'nilbud -

@nilbud
It is unclear to me what your reference to Socialism, innate criminality, alcoholism, racism and frostbite have to do with the topic of this thread. The Soviet Union saw Socialism for what it is and rejected it. It is well known that the working man has dignity and pride and that the paycheck depends largely on parameters for productiveness and sales. Socialism kills ambition for attaining the jobs, since it is also well known that governments that do not recognise the evils of Socialism often permit it to continue without abatement. It is government's fault that millions have become lazy and indolent in America and Europe.

Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2012
- cont'd -
Your bias against Russians is quite illogical and you paint a wide swath for a people whom you have probably never met. I have googled your name and found a website in which you talk about Luciferians, the Freemasons and the NWO, among others.

http://www.wearec...eligion/

I would never paint all Irishmen as drunkards, alcoholics, criminals and racists as you have said about Russians. If the link is your website, then you must be made aware that there is no such thing as a Lucifer or Satan. Any innate criminality in humans is an individual trait, and can not be attributable to all of humanity. To believe such lies is illogical.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2012
"Seán O'Nilbud · Top Commenter · Dublin, Ireland
This is what happens when village idiots read stuff above their reading grade. You haven't the wit to understand allegory or humour above the man fell down level."

OK, I see that O'Nilbud made the above comment in that link. What then was he doing reading such obvious ludicrousness? And then spouting such biased opinions in this thread of Russians whom he has never met?
I tried O'Nilbud's Facebook page and quickly received a warning from my antivirus that his page may be one to infect my computer with a trojan, worm or virus if I continued.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2012
unlike european mongrels RUSSIANS doesn't bow down on their feet

You are aware that almost 80 percent of russians live in Europe? Anything west of the Ural mountains is part of Europe (roughly 25 percent of total russian territory). This includes most major cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
Yet again religionists like kevinrtrs demonstrate low levels of imagination by emotional attachment to a book which only came from "Voices in the Head" of Moses...
..it means the theory has lost a lot of it's appeal. It's back to the drawing board for evolutionists on this one.
There is a lot of water coming from Earth, in so far as ozone and ionised oxygen in the high atmosphere collides with the sun's proton flux this is a great source of water, some may even fall back to earth - we do seem to have rather a lot of water. Some will inevitably be scoured off into space and with the orbit of the Moon pretty inevitable some clouds of water vapour will find there way to that region. Also, even if much of the ionised atoms are swept up in the Earth's magnetic field there is still plenty of opportunity and over a long period of time for the Moon to capture water. I think the Russians certainly knew about relative humidity and how to examine samples properly from the Moon on Earth.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
@antialias
It is actually considered Eastern Europe, which includes Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltics. St. Petersburg/Leningrad are closer to Finland, while Belarus, Ukraine and Baltic countries all share borders with Russia.
Moskva is a bit further to the East of Smolensk
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
Point being: That's not 'Asia' as you claim. If you were a russian (or anyone with a minimum of education) you'd have known that.

But since you have been outed about 2 seconds after you made that sockpuppet account..who cares.It was just excrutiatingly funny to see you try to pass yourself off as a russian.

Time for a new sockpuppet. Loser.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2012
Lurker2358 offered a snippet:
I mean, the Moon has a noticeably asymmetric core and mantle (confirmed by gravity experiments,) and is tidally locked to the earth, but the Earth doesn't have an asymmetric core or mantle.
Quite understandable considering comparative size & specific heat.

Lurker2358 got emotional but, with minimal imagination:
the claim that something the size between Ceres and Mars hit the Earth and totally re-melted and assimilated undetectably evenly throughout the Earth crust, core and mantle is absolutely ludicrous..
The Earth had much higher stored heat at the time of any collision & will retain this for far longer allowing time for 'recombination' & smoothing, we cant discount more impacts at diverse angles & energies that add substantial heat & also oscillations which smooth out as the upper layers cool, well within bounds of probability !

Not 'absolutely' ludicrous at all, you are not the authority on application of emotional language or absolutism..
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2012
Point being: That's not 'Asia' as you claim. If you were a russian (or anyone with a minimum of education) you'd have known that.
Not surprising for someone who thinks Spain is on the equator.
Time for a new sockpuppet. Loser.
Different sockpuppet - same imbecile.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
Point being: That's not 'Asia' as you claim. If you were a russian (or anyone with a minimum of education) you'd have known that.

But since you have been outed about 2 seconds after you made that sockpuppet account..who cares.It was just excrutiatingly funny to see you try to pass yourself off as a russian.

Time for a new sockpuppet. Loser.
- antialias the stupid-

Outed? It is your obvious lunacy that trips you up, so that you and your friend GhostofTardo are the ones that are outed. You show your lack of intelligence well with your accusation and you also show that you are not aware of Russian history and geography. You think that all of Russian territory is only in Europe? Perhaps you should think again.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
"Russia remained largely medieval until the reign of Peter the Great (16891725), grandson of the first Romanov czar, Michael (16131645). Peter made extensive reforms aimed at westernization and, through his defeat of Charles XII of Sweden at the Battle of Poltava in 1709, he extended Russia's boundaries to the west. Catherine the Great (17621796) continued Peter's westernization program and also expanded Russian territory, acquiring the Crimea, Ukraine, and part of Poland. During the reign of Alexander I (18011825), Napoléon's attempt to subdue Russia was defeated (18121813), and new territory was gained, including Finland (1809) and Bessarabia (1812). Alexander originated the Holy Alliance, which for a time crushed Europe's rising liberal movement."
Alexander II (18551881) pushed Russia's borders to the Pacific and into central Asia. Serfdom was abolished in 1861, but heavy restrictions were imposed on the emancipated class. "

Pacific and CENTRAL ASIA. Wow!! Amazing!!
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
"Central Asia is the core region of the Asian continent and stretches from the Caspian Sea in the west to China in the east and from Afghanistan in the south to Russia in the north. It is also sometimes referred to as Middle Asia, and, colloquially, "the 'stans" (as the five countries generally considered to be within the region all have names ending with that suffix)[3] and is within the scope of the wider Eurasian continent.
In modern contexts, all definitions of Central Asia include these five republics of the former Soviet Union: Kazakhstan (pop. 16.6 million), Kyrgyzstan (5.5 million), Tajikistan (7.6 million), Turkmenistan (5.1 million), and Uzbekistan (29.5 million), for a total population of 64.7 million as of 2012. Other areas included are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mongolia, and sometimes Xinjiang and Tibet in western China and southern Siberia in eastern Russia."
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
"From the 19th century, up to the end of the 20th century, most of Central Asia has been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, both being Slavic majority countries. As of 2011, the "stans" are still home to about 7 million Russians and 500 thousand Ukrainians."

Now, antialias the stupid and the GhostofTardo (who appears to have had a sexual encounter with his Richie, and imagines me to be him)......what else would you like to know about my country??
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
Ritchie is getting pretty good with copy/paste. Multiple sources I see. Hey ritchie did you find spain yet? Here try this:
http://www.lonely.../mexico/

-Same difference, right? Closer to the equator anyway-
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
I see Crazy Otto is still searching for his Richie. Everyone knows about Crazy Otto's copying and pasting from Wikipedia all the time. Others have mentioned it and Tardo now pretends to never having done it. (LAUGHING)
I wonder what GhostofTardo would say if I told him there is a man who wants to meet him in person. I know of a perfect man for him to call Richie and who would love to have sex with the creature, GhostofTardo.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2012
Ritchie is getting pretty good with copy/paste. Multiple sources I see. Hey ritchie did you find spain yet? Here try this:
http://www.lonely.../mexico/

-Same difference, right? Closer to the equator anyway-
- TheGhostofTardo1923 -

I see that the Crazy Otto clings to his strawman tightly, and" antialias the stupid" right along with him.
They get more desperate as the days and weeks go by.
When I leave this website to start my teaching job, they will have to find someone else to call their Richie. These two are the laughing stock of the Phys.org threads and they still do not realise it. When I am home in my own country, I will sign in to see who else they are trying to crucify. They are already known in academic circles for being fools who pretend to be knowledgable, but depend heavily on Wikipedia. (LAUGHING)
BCCM
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2012
We informed the Meteoritical Society in 2006 our lunar sample chemical analysis showed there is no water or "water-ice" on the Moon. Our lunar sample contains phlogopite. Terrestrial phlogopite (from Earth) is a two dimensional sheet silicate which with weak hydrogen bonds between the sheets like mica which is used as an insulator in micro-electronics. Chemical analysis of our sample shows lunar phlogopite is a high temperature three dimensional framework silicate with halogens primarily chlorine replacing hydrogen in the crystal lattice. And because age dating shows the sample to be billions of years old, and with halogens replacing hydrogen in the mineral there can be no water. The sample is completely inorganic and 100 percent crystalline original crustal material from the lunar highlands (BCC9601). This sample is confirmation of what Eugene Shoemaker from the USGS said in 1972 upon looking at the Apollo samples. He said, "the Moon is even drier than we thought".
BCCM
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2012
We informed the Meteoritical Society in 2006 our lunar sample chemical analysis showed there is no water or "water-ice" on the Moon. Our lunar sample contains phlogopite. Terrestrial phlogopite (from Earth) is a two dimensional sheet silicate which with weak hydrogen bonds between the sheets like mica which is used as an insulator in micro-electronics. Chemical analysis of our sample shows lunar phlogopite is a high temperature three dimensional framework silicate with halogens primarily chlorine replacing hydrogen in the crystal lattice. And because age dating shows the sample to be billions of years old, and with halogens replacing hydrogen in the mineral there can be no water. The sample is completely inorganic and 100 percent crystalline original crustal material from the lunar highlands (BCC9601). This sample is confirmation of what Eugene Shoemaker from the USGS said in 1972 upon looking at the Apollo samples. He said, "the Moon is even drier than we thought".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2012
Everyone knows about Crazy Otto's copying and pasting from Wikipedia all the time. Others have mentioned it and Tardo now pretends to never having done it.
I do it to add to the discussion. You do it to try to prove youre a Russian which you're obviously not. See the difference Ritchie?
They are already known in academic circles
Sorry but you and your goober friends standing around the pickup in the Tractor Supply parking lot, passing the jug, does not qualify as a venue of higher learning.

Sorry BCCM didn't mean to step on you.
MP3Car
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2012
I hate to be mean, because not everyone is lucky enough to get a good education...


I haven't head anyone phrase it like that before, I'll have to remember that one ;)
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2012
We informed the Meteoritical Society in 2006 our lunar sample chemical analysis showed there is no water or "water-ice" on the Moon. Our lunar sample contains phlogopite. Terrestrial phlogopite (from Earth) is a two dimensional sheet silicate which with weak hydrogen bonds between the sheets like mica which is used as an insulator in micro-electronics. Chemical analysis of our sample shows lunar phlogopite is a high temperature three dimensional framework silicate with halogens primarily chlorine replacing hydrogen in the crystal lattice. And because age dating shows the sample to be billions of years old, and with halogens replacing hydrogen in the mineral there can be no water.... This sample is confirmation of what Eugene Shoemaker from the USGS said in 1972 upon looking at the Apollo samples. He said, "the Moon is even drier than we thought".
- BCCM

@BCCM
What response did you get from Meteoritical Society?
MMurari
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2012
kevinrtrs spat:

for those who wonder what evolution has to do with astronomy... look at all the book and science paper titles to see how a lot of them refer to the "evolution" of this or some other system.


"You use this word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I am ENTIRELY willing to accept kevinrtrs' disbelief in evolution, inaccurate definition and all... from what I've seen, it is obvious that he hasn't evolved a bit. Or at least not far enough to distinguish personal belief from ignorance and spite.

As for me, I don't have a choice but to believe in evolution (as kevinrtrs defines it, and as the papers he mentions do not) because the only alternative is that an omnipotent Creator bestowed upon people like him some of the most wondrous, beautiful, complex things in the universe - a human mind, and consciousness - and the only use he has found for them is to filter out anything that doesn't fit his prejudices

And that is just too sad to bear.
MMurari
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2012
kevinrtrs spat:

for those who wonder what evolution has to do with astronomy... look at all the book and science paper titles to see how a lot of them refer to the "evolution" of this or some other system.


"You use this word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I am ENTIRELY willing to accept kevinrtrs' disbelief in evolution, inaccurate definition and all... from what I've seen, it is obvious that he hasn't evolved a bit. Or at least not far enough to distinguish personal belief from ignorance and spite.

As for me, I don't have a choice but to believe in evolution (as kevinrtrs defines it, and as the papers he mentions do not) because the only alternative is that an omnipotent Creator bestowed upon people like him some of the most wondrous, beautiful, complex things in the universe - a human mind, and consciousness - and the only use he has found for them is to filter out anything that doesn't fit his prejudices

And that is just too sad to bear.
panorama
not rated yet Jun 06, 2012
"You use this word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means."


"Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?"
BCCM
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2012
@Pussy Cat Eyes
@BCCM
What response did you get from Meteoritical Society?


Two weeks after our submittal we received a response in which they indicated they would not list our lunar sample in the nomenclature committee agenda. In other words we were punished and censored. (During that time frame NASA was in full swing issuing press releases from different researchers claiming substantial water ice had been found on the south pole of the Moon. Unless this was a recent development and the lunar environment changed in the last million years it would be impossible for this to be true. Where can you find water or ice in a vacuum of 10-14 atmospheres of negative pressure at a temperature extreme of -233F and 212F? Nowhere that I know of. On April 10, 2007 NASA HQ held a secret meeting with all NASA centers, JSC JPL Marshall, Stennis etc etc, and they laid out a plan on how we would be censored and no one was allowed to work on our various projects. Google NASA meeting April 10, 2007.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
@BCCM
So they quite effectively squashed your own discovery and made sure that nobody would hear from you again. Typical government funded nudniks. And our tax money is going for this kind of treatment? It's outrageous. I'm just assuming that the Meteoritical Society is tax funded, but it could be privately funded. They all have their agendas, you know. And somehow, I think that NASA believes that the general public WANTS there to be H2O on the moon and elsewhere, even if they have to fabricate the story.
LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2012
@antialias- isnt the energy potential already there in the form of helium-3??? I say this agreeing with your statement with one exception...our gravitational pull may just pull that excess radiation our way (not that we dont already do that on earth anyways) :)