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

[quote][B]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.[/B] US missions to the moon brought back a total of around 300 kilograms of moon rocks. Many samples were found to contain traces of water, but NASA believed the water was a contaminant originating on Earth, because lunar dust 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 moon base 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 radio waves beamed at the surface, and it provided the first Western proof of crystals of water ice under the lunar surface. 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 lunar crater (the most likely place to find water ice). 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 lunar soil, 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. [/quote] [url=http://phys.org/news/2012-06-soviet-moon-1970s-west.html]Source[/url] Well... hmm.

I'm sure I've read this before but the article was posted today, whattt.

[quote]Many samples were found to contain traces of water, but NASA believed the water was a contaminant originating on Earth, because lunar dust had clogged the seals of some of the containers and prevented them from being closed properly.[/quote] So quite sensationalist once again.

Russia's space programs seem more helpful than what NASA does, don't get me wrong I think NASA is cool but honestly I think Russia is a little bit more advanced

[QUOTE=Asgard;36155213]So quite sensationalist once again.[/QUOTE] The title didn't even get it right - the west didn't even ignore the findings as proven by that quote, the findings were just dismissed as they contained contaminants.

This is a really dumb article.

Article is stupid, and this is a lot more interesting: [quote]NASA also carried out an experiment in 2009 in which the upper stage of an empty Centaur rocket was crashed into a permanently shadowed lunar crater (the most likely place to find water ice). 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.[/quote]

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;36155236]Russia's space programs seem more helpful than what NASA does, don't get me wrong I think NASA is cool but honestly I think Russia is a little bit more advanced[/QUOTE] They're not actually. NASA was still ahead until they started to lose funding.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;36155752]They're not actually. NASA was still ahead until they started to lose funding.[/QUOTE] The Russians were first with everything, except the moon landing thing. gg NASA.

[QUOTE=Radley;36156122]The Russians were first with everything, except the moon landing thing. gg NASA.[/QUOTE] Well not really. The Soviet had a lot of nice firsts, but not by very much (For example, Alan Shepard went up less than a month after Yuri Gagarin). And the US did have a lot of very nice firsts as well, including first spaceflight with a winged craft, first person to be to space twice, first orbital maneuvering, first to spend more than a week in space, first space rendezvous, first docking, and the first to leave Low Earth Orbit (Actually, to date nobody but Americans have left LEO). So that the Russians/Soviet was first with everything is absolute bullshit. Thanks for the dumb ratings, I always like being rated dumb when all I post are hard facts that you can go look up yourself. Anyone care to explain why they think the post is dumb?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;36155236]Russia's space programs seem more helpful than what NASA does, don't get me wrong I think NASA is cool but honestly I think Russia is a little bit more advanced[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call them more advanced. As far as I know they haven't gotten an as successful track record as NASA. What I do think, however, is that they're more ambitious than the American government. Which is a good thing.

Who gives a shit who was first with anything, be happy they had a race which gave us shit like satellites and the internets instead.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;36155752]They're not actually. NASA was still ahead until they started to lose funding.[/QUOTE] I wish NASA demanded to continue to Buran shuttle and program as part of Russia's transition, that thing was years ahead of it's time. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noss;36155237]The title didn't even get it right - the west didn't even ignore the findings as proven by that quote, the findings were just dismissed as they contained contaminants.[/QUOTE] What? That was about the US lunar samples, not the Soviet ones. [quote]The journal does not have a wide readership among Western scientists even though it was also available in English, and C[B]rotts said the work was never cited by any scientist in the West.[/B][/quote]

[QUOTE=Radley;36156122]The Russians were first with everything, except the moon landing thing. gg NASA.[/QUOTE] And it cost a lot of their GDP to get that far ahead. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=LarparNar;36156224]Well not really. The Soviet had a lot of nice firsts, but not by very much (For example, Alan Shepard went up less than a month after Yuri Gagarin). And the US did have a lot of very nice firsts as well, including first spaceflight with a winged craft, first person to be to space twice, first orbital maneuvering, first to spend more than a week in space, first space rendezvous, first docking, and the first to leave Low Earth Orbit (Actually, to date nobody but Americans have left LEO). So that the Russians/Soviet was first with everything is absolute bullshit.[/QUOTE] Thank you.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;36156602]And it cost a lot of their GDP to get that far ahead. [/QUOTE] Space is expensive, obviously. We're all reaping the benefits now, of course. [t]http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nasa_budget_history.png[/t] If only JFK wasn't assassinated, we might have had a joint US-USSR moon landing (and maybe even a base).

[QUOTE=Radley;36156122]The Russians were first with everything, except the moon landing thing. gg NASA.[/QUOTE] Well except for the first space research flight, the first pictures taken of the earth from space, the first animals to be launched into space, the first solar observatory, the first planetary flyby, the first orbital rendezvous, the first soil samples and photos taken from a celestial body, the first human landing on a celestial body, the first reusable manned spacecraft, the first spacewalk, the first flyby of an asteroid, and the first photograph of the solar system- to name a few space exploration achievements they were not responsible for. Not that any of this matters anyway since both the Soviet Union and the United States were just piggybacking off the accomplishments and ingenuity of [b]German[/b] scientists like Wernher von Braun, Hans von Ohain, Helmut Grottrup, Eberhard Rees, Hermann Oberth, etc. This man is laughing at you and your ridiculous argument from the great beyond: [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/167jry1.jpg[/IMG] :v:

[QUOTE=LarparNar;36155416]Article is stupid, and this is a lot more interesting:[/QUOTE] Yeah, that was the same day Obama got his Peace Prize.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;36155236]Russia's space programs seem more helpful than what NASA does, don't get me wrong I think NASA is cool but honestly I think Russia is a little bit more advanced[/QUOTE] Back then perhaps, but right now not really. Be honest to yourself and look up stuff on the wikipedia.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;36159268]Back then perhaps, but right now not really. Be honest to yourself and look up stuff on the wikipedia.[/QUOTE] Right now US program is actually relies on Russians to deliver their own astronauts, and that's quite awkward if you ask me.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;36156224] person to be to space twice. [/QUOTE] wow what a fucking achievement that is

[QUOTE=Vasili;36159534]wow what a fucking achievement that is[/QUOTE] Wow lets ignore all the other shit and focus on the smallest of the achievements!

I think it's obvious that the Russians have much more [i]practical[/i] experience in space. Sure, we here in the US are proud of our fancy, hi tech gizmos we make and use. And I'm sure a lot of that stuff does/will pay off in the long run. But the Russians had, for instance, manned space stations for much longer periods than we did. If you're running a space station and crew it for long periods of time then you ARE going to gather a ton of valuable data that cannot be acquired from high tech devices, only by people going there and doing it themselves. It doesn't matter if the space station itself is small and relatively low tech, the important thing is it's being used. So here we are, one of a kind Space Shuttle fleet out of service, meanwhile Russians STILL have rockets to get people to the ISS. I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather have a running car that I can drive places, even if it isn't a luxury car, than a fancy schmancy Porshe sitting in the garage on concrete blocks because it costs too much keep in safe operating condition.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36159425]Right now US program is actually relies on Russians to deliver their own astronauts, and that's quite awkward if you ask me.[/QUOTE] I realized this would be brought up, but I don't understand how that shows that Roscosmos is somehow more advance or "more useful". To be honest NASA is way more ahead of Roscosmos right now in our time. Edit: Just to make a silly point I'm going to list some of the ongoing missions that NASA is in control of. - New Horizon, a space probe launched 2006 that will be the first one to reach Pluto. - The Voyager probes. Still active after 30 years and one of them soon to enter [B]interstellar space[/B]. - Mars Science Laboratory, a freaking huge rover that is going to touch down on Mars in less than 100 days. - Messenger, an orbiter surveying Mercury. Entered orbit 2011. - Dawn, an orbiter studying an asteroid and a dwarf planet. - Hubble. Soon to be replaced by the James Webb space telescope. - Kepler, the spacecraft that has found tons and tons of Earth like planets. Mission extended to 2016. - Juno, launched 2011 and now heading for Jupiter. Some examples above. I'm not saying Roscosmos are stupid, because they aren't. I'm just saying that this apparent NASA "is bad" attitude is groundless.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;36159624]Wow lets ignore all the other shit and focus on the smallest of the achievements![/QUOTE] thats irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Vasili;36160228]thats irrelevant.[/QUOTE] How is it irrelevant at all? He said Russia/Soviet was first with everything except the moon landings, I provided a list of things they weren't first with that weren't the moon landings. The importance of them vary, yes, I know, most people know, so what the fuck is your point?

"Wow lets ignore all the other shit and focus on the smallest of the achievements!" - is irrelevant the guy was likely talking about the actual space race.

[QUOTE=Vasili;36160318]"Wow lets ignore all the other shit and focus on the smallest of the achievements!" - is irrelevant the guy was likely talking about the actual space race.[/QUOTE] His post clearly implied that the Soviets were significantly better at space travel than the US, which I pointed out is not true. That the US was first with one small thing does not detract from that point, in fact it shows that the US was so close to the Soviet that they actually got another man up before the Soviet got their second man up after Yuri. So I ask again, what was the point of your original post?

Instead of making an assumption that he did mean that, why don't you just ask him. The achievement of putting the same guy in space again is not very significant compared to the first man in space, its like you were trying to scrape the barrel. If he meant the space race situation (which is the likelihood) then Russia had the US beaten in list of accomplishments.

[QUOTE=Vasili;36160589]Instead of making an assumption that he did mean that, why don't you just ask him. The achievement of putting the same guy in space again is not very significant compared to the first man in space, its like you were trying to scrape the barrel. If he meant the space race situation (which is the likelihood) then Russia had the US beaten in list of accomplishments.[/QUOTE] And again you ignore the larger achievements of the US during the space race. First orbital maneuvering, first to spend more than a week in space, first space rendezvous, first docking, and the first to leave Low Earth Orbit. All of these were [I]critical[/I] to the space race.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;36160640]And again you ignore the larger achievements of the US during the space race. First orbital maneuvering, first to spend more than a week in space, first space rendezvous, first docking, and the first to leave Low Earth Orbit. All of these were [I]critical[/I] to the space race.[/QUOTE] One of my favorites: [img]http://i.imgur.com/M9NPG.gif[/img] Ford wasn't the first to make the car, but he made it easy. NASA wasn't the first in space, but they made it more accessible.