|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 28, 2009 5:03:49 GMT -4
Even with all this water found from the start, are the lunar samples much drier than terrestial samples to justify the fame of "no water"? I'm sure this was meant in the spirit of innocent inquiry, Jairo, but please think about this. The Apollo samples were analysed by scientists across the globe. The claim of 'no water' is a scientific conclusion, not a hyperbolic statement. If they hadn't been significantly lower in water content than Earth rocks then no such statement would have been made in the first place. The lunar rocks are strikingly lacking in water in any free or chemically bound form once you start looking at the interior of the rock itself.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 28, 2009 11:21:59 GMT -4
It is interesting that the presence of water on the surface of lunar samples and in lunar soil was dismissed as "contamination" without further investigation. Another reminder that scientists can be just as dogmatic about what they know is true as anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 28, 2009 12:36:10 GMT -4
I don't think it was "dismissed" so much as it was found that they were unable to eliminate earthly contamination as a source of an unexpected finding. That is not dogmatism, but good science. Particularly for a public institution whose findings get widespread media attention.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 28, 2009 12:57:54 GMT -4
Larry Taylor's mention of having to "eat his shorts" sounds very much like an admission that it wasn't good science to write the source of the water down to contamination.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 28, 2009 14:05:28 GMT -4
"Eat his shorts" doesn't sound much like dogmatism to me. So why call them dogmatic when the simpler explanation is they made a judgment that seemed justified by conservative standards but in hindsight turned out to be incorrect? Science is not about getting it 100% the first time. Its about elaborating on what the data gives you, subject to revision. The opposite of dogmatism.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 28, 2009 14:12:26 GMT -4
DNFTT
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 28, 2009 15:03:43 GMT -4
"Eat his shorts" doesn't sound much like dogmatism to me. So why call them dogmatic when the simpler explanation is they made a judgment that seemed justified by conservative standards but in hindsight turned out to be incorrect? Science is not about getting it 100% the first time. Its about elaborating on what the data gives you, subject to revision. The opposite of dogmatism. So the "conservative standards" in this case would be the assumption that there was no surface water on the moon, and that therefore the water detected on the surface of lunar samples must have been the result of contamination? Taylor, rather than accepting the data at face value, went above and beyond trying to prove that the rust in the samples occurred on Earth. "Rust from the Moon? No way?" Why did he do this? Because he refused to accept the data that there was water on the samples in favor of the prevailing theory that there could be no water on the moon. As another thread pointed out, holding and expressing a strong opinion as if it were a fact is a viable definition of dogmatism. I would say that this is especially the case when you have been presented with contrary evidence. I'm not anti-science by any means. I'm merely pointing out that scientists are just as human as the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 28, 2009 15:30:52 GMT -4
It is interesting that the presence of water on the surface of lunar samples and in lunar soil was dismissed as "contamination" without further investigation. Another reminder that scientists can be just as dogmatic about what they know is true as anyone else. Dogmatic? Cautious would be a better word for it. Contamination could not be ruled out. And the lack of hydrous minerals in the rocks would indicate that as well. Declaring dramatic results based on shaky evidence would be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 28, 2009 16:05:49 GMT -4
"Eat his shorts" doesn't sound much like dogmatism to me. So why call them dogmatic when the simpler explanation is they made a judgment that seemed justified by conservative standards but in hindsight turned out to be incorrect? Science is not about getting it 100% the first time. Its about elaborating on what the data gives you, subject to revision. The opposite of dogmatism. So the "conservative standards" in this case would be the assumption that there was no surface water on the moon, and that therefore the water detected on the surface of lunar samples must have been the result of contamination? Taylor, rather than accepting the data at face value, went above and beyond trying to prove that the rust in the samples occurred on Earth. "Rust from the Moon? No way?" Why did he do this? Because he refused to accept the data that there was water on the samples in favor of the prevailing theory that there could be no water on the moon. As another thread pointed out, holding and expressing a strong opinion as if it were a fact is a viable definition of dogmatism. I would say that this is especially the case when you have been presented with contrary evidence. I'm not anti-science by any means. I'm merely pointing out that scientists are just as human as the rest of us. No, he didn't try and prove that it was a contaminate, he tried to eliminate it as one, and failed. Since he couldn't eliminate it as a possible contaminate, he couldn't say if it was from Earth or had pre-exisited on the moon, thus took the more cautious line, that it was a contaminate.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 29, 2009 7:37:22 GMT -4
So the "conservative standards" in this case would be the assumption that there was no surface water on the moon, and that therefore the water detected on the surface of lunar samples must have been the result of contamination? No, not at all. The 'conservative standard' is that water quite definitely is present on Earth, and is virtually impossible to eliminate from any testing rig, and that therefore trace quatities of water on lunar samples may be the result of contamination. Unless that possibility can be eliminated it is not good science to attribute that water to the lunar soil.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2009 11:14:19 GMT -4
I have to wonder how useful this small amount of water will actually be to a potential moon base. If it's only on the surface and forms slowly then it seems they would exhaust the immediate surroundings rather quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 29, 2009 13:44:12 GMT -4
Still better than nothing, and might give a little boost to the earlier missions.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 29, 2009 14:26:39 GMT -4
It may not seem like a lot, but it's there, and doesn't need to be lifted out of the "well" from earth.
One cubic yard is about one mounded loader-bucket full. How many yards of regolith will be moved just to make flat working areas, landing pads/strips and roads? And then there's the excavation for below-ground habitat....
The cost-benefit will have to be worked out to decide whether or not to run every single scoop of dirt through a solar-heated vacuum water extractor, vs just launching tons of water. I imagine water-extraction equipment will have to be taken up or built on-site anyway, to process the "rich" pockets.
One of the ideas I've read somewhere involved ringing the entire moon with photovoltaic collectors and powerlines, to supply power month-around. Work teams could take an extractor mounted on a truck as part of the excavation gear.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 29, 2009 18:50:57 GMT -4
Assuming the water in the Apollo samples was earthly contamination was the "agnostic" approach. If you can't prove something exists it's best to leave the question unanswered, and scientists never ruled out the possibility of water on the Moon. They've been trying to find it ever since Apollo. If they were dogmatic they wouldn't have been looking for it, right?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2009 19:00:51 GMT -4
That would depend on whether we're talking about the same scientists belonging in each group, wouldn't it? If some scientists declared that the water found on Apollo samples must have been conatmination since their theories say there can be no water on the moon, but other scientists aren't so sure and keep looking, then we have scientists acting both dogmatically and skeptically.
|
|