EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:32 pm

jjohnson, here's what NASA did to vent the impactor.

Mission duration is designed to allow the Centaur to 'vent' off all of any unused propellant. The Centaur fill valves are not designed to be totally leak proof as this upper stage on normal missions is jettisoned before or soon after orbit insertion of its payload. We are actually monitoring this venting by watching the 'protuberance torque' which we have to counteract to stay solar array sun pointed. When we no longer have to fight such torques, we feel reasonably good that the Centaur has vented all its unused propellant. Operationally, we have also designed maneuvers to roll Lcross and Centaur so that the sun can 'cook off' water captured in the insulating foam on the Centaur. We've done a couple of these 'bar-b-que' sessions already, and can actually detect the effect by observing the spacecraft attitude when we roll the other side into the sun.


Sounds like they considered the residual fuel situation and took steps to eliminate it.
Perhaps they haven't responded directly because that is covered in the FAQ's?

LAShaffer, I hear ya. I've been talking about chemical reactions involving the protons in the solar plasma stream, continuously producing water on rocky bodies, but that's an interesting insight about the oxygen in the ISM contributing to the mix. Seems to be another vector by which water can be produced.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention, and my apologies for not noticing previously.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby mharratsc » Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:15 pm

The title of this article should be "NASA Hires Spin-Doctors To Get Funding For Return Visit To Moon":

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/science/14moon.html

My favorite quotes from the article:

The confirmation of scientists’ suspicions is welcome news to explorers who might set up home on the lunar surface and to scientists who hope that the water, in the form of ice accumulated over billions of years, holds a record of the solar system’s history.


the italicized bit shows typical disregard of data and penchant for 'interpretive explanations', and how they're using 'buzzwords' and drawing on how we "need to know the history of the solar system" to get them ongoing grant monies...

The 5,600-miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 60 to 100 feet wide and kicked up at least 26 gallons of water


That should read "We looked at the amount on hydroxyls in the plume and surrounding area and have determined that 26 gallons of ice must've been obliterated on impact to produce what we saw... (what do you expect? We couldn't filter out the ambient production of hydroxyls very well while looking at that miniscule plume, now could we??)

“We got more than just a whiff,” Peter H. Schultz, a professor of geological sciences at Brown University and a co-investigator of the mission, said in a telephone interview. “We practically tasted it with the impact.”


OMG does he moonlight as an Ad man for Budweiser on weekends, or what? >.<

The water findings came through an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing telltale signs of water molecules that had absorbed specific wavelengths of light. “We got good fits,” Dr. Colaprete said. “It was a unique fit.”

The scientists also saw colors of ultraviolet light associated with molecules of hydroxyl, consisting of one hydrogen and one oxygen, presumably water molecules that had been broken apart by the impact and then glowed like neon signs.


The second part there... the impactor hit so hard that it blew a hydrogen atom off each of the water molecules and made them glow in ultraviolet like 'neon signs'... Seriously?? o.O

In addition, there were squiggles in the data that indicated other molecules, possibly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane or more complex carbon-based molecules. “All of those are possibilities,” Dr. Colaprete said, “but we really need to do the work to see which ones work best.”


What?? WTH does that mean? "Possibilities" of what? Works best for what? And WTH are "squiggles in the data"?? :roll:

These craters are “really like the dusty attic of the solar system,” said Michael Wargo, the chief lunar scientist at NASA headquarters.


Stupid... NASA... analogies... *arrrrgh...*

In September, scientists reported an unexpected finding that most of the surface, not just the polar regions, might be covered with a thin veneer of water.


Someone should've asked for a bit more clarification before they chose the word 'veneer'... good ol' misinterpretation between reports and the reporters again. >.<

The Lcross scientists said it was not clear how all the different readings of water related to one another, if at all.


A moment of humble, honest admission of ignorance rather than their usual opinionated stance.

The deposits in the lunar craters may be as informative about the Moon as ice cores from Earth’s polar regions are about the planet’s past climates


I bet geologists around the globe said "OMG are you serious?? Stupid astro-hippies..."

“Now that we know that water is there, thanks to Lcross, we can begin in earnest to go to this next set of questions,” said Gregory T. Delory of the University of California, Berkeley.


Beginning with "If you believe all this, then can we have more funding now??"

Lunar ice, if bountiful, not only gives future settlers something to drink, but could also be broken apart into oxygen and hydrogen. Both are valuable as rocket fuel, and the oxygen would also give astronauts air to breathe.


Italics mine. So close, yet so very far away from the truth... :\

And last but not least:

Even though the signs of water were clear and definitive, the Moon is far from wet. The Cabeus soil could still turn out to be drier than that in deserts on Earth. But Dr. Colaprete also said that he expected that the 26 gallons were a lower limit and that it was too early to estimate the concentration of water in the soil.


So Dr. Colaprete "expected" that these results are the "lower limit", but scientifically speaking it is "too early to estimate"... Well, form your own opinion... :oops:


Mike H.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby moses » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:25 pm

Finding water is consistent with my prediction of deposits and maybe fossils on the Moon:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1978&p=22632#p22632
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:17 am

Here's a little synopsis:

I suggest starting by absorbing the information in the following link from NASA...The Moon and the Magnetotail:

Stranger still, moondust might gather itself into a sort of diaphanous wind. Drawn by differences in global charge accumulation, floating dust would naturally fly from the strongly-negative nightside to the weakly-negative dayside. This “dust storm” effect would be strongest at the moon’s terminator, the dividing line between day and night.


The scenario the above article describes is a “diaphanous wind” and “dust storms” between the sunlit and “night” sides, along a band (likely ~300km – 400km wide on average, or about 10% of the moons diameter, imo) that follows the terminator around the entire pole to pole circumference of the surface. This “wind” of electrons and electro-statically charged dust grains can be classified as an electric current sheet, which hugs the surface across the terminator band. I'll describe it as the Terminator Current Sheet.

During the time the moon is within the magnetotail, the TCS has measured voltage potentials of 200v – 1000v. They mention that when outside of the magnetotail there are fewer electrons available to the “night” side, so (imo) the average voltage potential would be less, and fluctuate less severely, potentials are probably on the order of averaging ~ 100v, but the point is that it's always there to some degree. With the sphere of the moon rotating through the TCS, like a globe spinning in a stationary frame, the higher latitudes towards the poles will be within the band of the TCS more frequently, and even constantly in the band, above a certain latitude. The permanently shadowed craters in these latitudes would accumulate a thicker layer (~1-2cm, imo) of these migrating grains and particles, than other regions of the surface (~2-3mm as detected as part of the “hydration cycle”) that receive at least some sunlight, where they can be “sputtered” from the surface more readily than they are in shadows.

Grains of iron (Fe was detected in the plume by LRO) bonded with silicates form dielectric layers in the regolith and subsurface strata, which release ions and electrons under the force of sudden compression. That's a piezoelectric discharge. It would be relatively weak, but enough to add to the mechanical forces of impact to break atomic/molecular bonds producing free atomic/molecular ions, and electrons, which are energized by the electro-magnetic pulse that helped free them, to initiate chemical bonding/reactions, while fracturing some of the material into micron sized grains. The result would be a central column of vapor from reactions, electrostatically charged micron sized dust, and grains of accumulated surface material mentioned above, along with larger and heavier material thrown out around the perimeter. The central column of micronized dust and vapor reaction products would form in a matter of micro-seconds, and be accelerated by a combination of mechanical and weak electromagnetic forces. Charged dust grains would be suspended longer before settling out, than would non-charged grains influenced by gravity alone. Some chemical reaction chains could continue for several seconds after the initial burst of reactions.

What was observed?
A strong UV flash on impact. (NASA: “We aren't sure what that means”) Piezoelectric discharge might be what that means and that UV flash, reported as a flash of sodium, could be evidence to support it.
A rather complex chemical soup, including water vapor, sodium (abundances of Na were a bit of a surprise to NASA, which I predicted btw), carbon dioxide, and possibly methane. I expected a comet like mix of volatile and organic chemicals, and NASA mentioned it was much like a comet, and/or some asteroids. Yeah, I know, previous ancient impacts could deposit similar materials.
A central ejection column of fine dust (finer than expected by NASA, I believe) and vapor that rose more than twice (30km+) as high as predicted by NASA( ~15km). A curtain of heavier material thrown to the sides (which is expected balistically in most impacts anyways) The dust column remained aloft for about four times as long as predicted by NASA. I expected a more energetic impact than NASA predicted, as well as lingering electrostatic dust.
The timeline of the spectrographic data indicate ongoing chemical reactions (NASA mentioned this as part of the data to be examined closer). A very small percentage were actual icy grains so far as they can determine, suspected to be water ice, and the rest of the detected water/hydroxyl groups were in vapor form. I expected that as well, although I'm saying that most of the vapors are by-products of chemical reactions rather than sublimation, and the icy grains are accumulated from molecules and grains migrating across the TCS, of which the water/hydroxyls, among other molecules including CH4, were created by reactions with solar plasma stream protons and silicates in the lunar regolith.


This is just a different way of putting known physics (geology, chemistry, electromagnetic and kinetic), and observed processes together into a unique explanation that goes beyond a simplistic, purely mechanical description something akin to... projectile hit dirt, dirt fly up, dirt fall down, wow look maybe ice in dat dirt, dudirtdudirt.
;)

Actually, I give the LCROSS mission a 10/10 for accuracy in hitting the designated target, data collection, and their ingenuity in successful utilization of a relatively small budget.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:45 am

This video is a pretty good demonstration of what happens in the material during a piezoelectric discharge. In the case of this Fermilab demonstration, the acrylic is holding a strong negative charge which discharges under the compressive force of a centerpunch. In the case of an impact into the lunar regolith, with abundant metal/silicate inclusions, the piezoelectric effect is initiated by elastic deformation of the crystalline structure from the compressive force of impact, releasing electrons and causing the dielectric layers to break down (metal/silicate inclusions) allowing a discharge to propogate through the material.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby jjohnson » Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:53 pm

Solray - thanks! They never got back to me, and you are right; I didn't see a FAQ section as I was glancing around, so missed it. They obviously did the right thing to eliminate that source of 'contamination'.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby jjohnson » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:11 pm

BTW, Solray, excellent discussion of what may have happened dring the impact to obtain the observed results, and thanks for bringing your predictions into it at the right points. The video of the impact creation of the Lichtenberg figure at the dog and pony show at Fermilab was a good demo of piezo forces being released to discharge out of the center. I wonder if the steel punch happened to be where the collected charge exited? Oops! The silly blog replies sounded like not one of the viewers of the video who responded had the slightest idea of what had happened, nor why.
Another typical tale in Readers Digest's Life in These United States.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:33 pm

I knew... I knew, mind you!- that Sol would not put that much science into one big post without throwing me at least some humor at the end to balance out his post and restore my smart-vs.-ignernt Zen balance yin-yang thingy... o.O

I wonder if anyone else thought to look down into the microcosmic scale and look for piezoelectric effects from a high impact into a ferro-silicate mishmash trapped in a vacuum? None that I've heard of, at least.

Kudo's to Sol on that one! 8-)

Duly impressed,

Mike H.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:32 pm

Thanks, ya'll. :)

Check this out!

Chandrayaan Instrument Finds Magnetosphere Around Moon

After confirming the presence of water on the lunar surface, India's Chandrayaan-1 mission has, for the first time, discovered mini-magnetosphere that would throw light on the "inventory" of Hydrogen on the moon, a top space scientist said on Friday.


They focus more on the hydrogen "inventory" on the moon being affected by 1 out of 5 solar protons being deflected by the lunar magnetosphere.
Not enough to really affect the chemistry on the surface much, though.
But for EU there is even greater significance.
What is a "magnetosphere"? A plasma double layer. A double layer will form between a charged body and the surrounding plasma. Therefore the moon is not electrically neutral or simply electrostatic, it has a measurable voltage potential by plugging the dimensions of the magnetosphere into the formula describing debye length to extrapolate an approximate voltage. Or something like that. ;)

Just a wild guess, but if it's strong enough to deflect 20% of solar protons as neutral hydrogen, the potential might be in the range of 105v. I think this greatly increases the probability that the piezoelectric effect and the resulting chemical reactions is correct.
I would say this new revelation means the body of the moon has a measurable voltage potential, which is covered with a top "insulating" layer of regolith that experiences a fluctuating electrostatic potential by "rubbing" against the solar plasma stream and the Earth's magnetotail.
:mrgreen:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:45 pm

I think the magnetosphere is better explained from Miles Mathis' charge field that is emitted by all matter:

The Magnetopause Calculated from the Unified Field

Did they give any number for the size of the magnetosphere? Then we could check the numbers with Miles' formula's.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:16 pm

I've looked some, but haven't seen the paper or any info on the actual data.

In the meantime, I'll have a look at that interesting stuff from Miles. :)
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:04 am

Found the following while searching to glean more details. They just provide some more technical background for the piezo/reaction thing.

This one by Friedemann Freund is essentially a description of the impact induced piezoelectric discharge, Prediction of impact-induced O(1D) 630 nm emission from the lunar surface. I hadn't seen that until today (honest), but I'm familiar with Freund's other work which actually helped verify the basis for the impact induced discharge scenario.

This one, Chemical reactivity of activated lunar regolith grains describes the possible migration, and collection, of water group molecules into "cold traps" and, imo, a dynamic environment just waiting for a "trigger".

cheers
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

"Water" on the Moon confirmed?

Unread postby FS3 » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:46 am

Recent radar experiments from India's Chandrayaan-1 lunar spacecraft allegedly have identified "thick deposits of water-ice" near the Moon's north pole, as trumpeted throughout all mainstream-media all over the world.

The NASA's Mini-Sar experiment has found over 40 "craters containing water-ice".

Other compounds - as hydrocarbons - have been found as well. They are said to be mixed up with that lunar ice.

The findings were presented at a conference in Texas.

According to NASA's mission site...

...Mini-SAR is a lightweight (less than 10 kg) imaging radar. It uses the polarization properties of reflected radio waves to characterize surface properties. Mini-SAR sends pulses of radar that are left-circular polarized. Typical planetary surfaces reverse the polarization during the reflection of radio waves, so that normal echoes from Mini-SAR are right circular polarized. The ratio of received power in the same sense transmitted (left circular) to the opposite sense (right circular) is called the circular polarization ratio (CPR). Most of the Moon has low CPR, meaning that the reversal of polarization is the norm, but some targets have high CPR. These include very rough, fresh surfaces (such as a young, fresh crater) and ice, which is transparent to radio energy and multiply scatters the pulses, leading to an enhancement in same sense reflections and hence, high CPR. CPR is not uniquely diagnostic of either roughness or ice; the science team must take into account the environment of the occurrences of high CPR signal to interpret its cause....


...CPR has been used for the proof of "water". It's noteworthy that these recent "findings" appear on the heels of president Obama's chancelling of manned Lunar Missions in near future.

Question remains aditionally whether traces of electromagnetic interaction with the lunar soil wouldn't produce similar polarizations of the radar reflections inside those craters.

Any ideas?

FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby jjohnson » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:28 pm

They note correctly that a high CPR is not necessarily indicative of either surface roughness nor the presence of ice - i.e., it could be signaling the presence of something else that causes a high CPR ratio. It is NASA's responsibility, if they are claiming that this points to a lot of ice, to explain how they ruled out all the other possible causes of high CPR to converge on this as the best explanation. Science 101. Possibly Forensics 101. The best way is to set somebody or something down right there with a shovel and sample bags, dig some out, and put it in a warm container and see if ice melts out and forms water. Since China is likely to set foot on the Moon next, we ought to delegate that to them.

The really important question for purposes of exploration, survival or propulsion refueling is whether or not there is a significantly large, readily obtainable supply of water on the moon, which could be accessed and processed, small thin deposits of OH ions or a layer above the ground only a few cm thick is not likely to prove much more than to be a scientific curiosity.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: EU Theory predictions for LCROSS moon impact mission?

Unread postby solrey » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:55 pm

The Lunar and Planetary Institute held a conference a few weeks ago. I've been waiting for details on LCROSS from that conference, but so far all that's available are the presentation abstracts.

SPECIAL SESSION: A New Moon: LCROSS, Chandrayaan and Chang’E-1

A New Moon: LCROSS

Here are some highlights:

Evidence of chemical reaction chains:

The spectra are complex with overlapping spectral bands of volatile gases in addition to water vapor. The temporal evolution of the spectra also is complex, with features evolving on time scales of several to tens of seconds. Groups of features evolve together.


Evidence for H2O as a reaction by-product:

The arrows in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 indicates the wavelength where intense H2O hot band lines exist. We could not find the H2O emission lines in any spectra. The estimated upper limit of the H2O mass ejected over the height of the slit from the crater floor (~2.5 km) is ~40 kg by the 3σ of the noise around 28512.2 Å after absolute flux calibration. However the SPH calculation shows that the H2O mass ejected over the 2.5 km height is ~150 kg,
when assuming the water content in the excavated lunar soil is 1 wt %. The difference between our observation resuts and pre-mission SPH calculation results would suggest three possible interpretations. The first interpretaion is the lack of water in the shallow regions in the PSA. However because the upper limit of the ejecta (~1000 kg) and H2O mass (~40 kg) obtained by Subaru leads to ~4 wt % of water content, four times the estimate for average abundance (~1 wt %) from LP observation. Thus this interpretation of dry upper layer is not necessarily supported by our observation. The second interpretation is that ice grains excavated by the Centaur impact had a very large average size, slowing the rate of sublimation greatly. However this interpretation is inconsistent with the observation of the significant amount of water vapor observed by the S-S/C, which can see the ejecta as low as about 1 km above the floor of Cabeus crater. The third interpretation is that the amount of high-speed ejecta reaching the height of the slit of the Subaru telescope was much smaller than the theoretical estimates. The IRCS imaging observation results also supports this interpretations.
There are two possible mechanisms for this interpretation. (1) The cut-off velocity exists between the ejection velocity reaching the height observable by the S-S/C and the ejection velocity reaching the height observable by the Subaru telescope. The ejection angle of the Centaur impact was much smaller than that of standard impact cases (~45°).


Evidence for hydroxyl as a reaction by-product and piezoelectric discharge causing Na emissions and influencing ejecta plume.

A two-second exposure in the UV/VIS Spetrometer (VSP) included the first moments of impact and detected not only a small rise in brightness (in visible light) but also a range of atomic and molecular
emission lines. As described elsewhere, hydroxyl band strength was observed to increase with time. Absorptions lasted over most of the approach. The Mid-Infrared (MIR) cameras recorded “first light” in the first frame after impact and remained visible in multiple frames [e.g., see 19]. The visible (VIS) camera captured the ejecta cloud expanding about over tens of seconds before disappearing. The expected ballistic ejecta annulus, however, never emerged; rather, the ejecta remained as a diffuse (and relatively symmetric) cloud throughout.

The combined measurements from the MIR, NIR, VIS, VSP, and NSP instruments provide clues for the evolution of cold-trapped volatiles on the surface and at depth. In the first few seconds, tomic emission lines (e.g., low-energy Na) appear. At the EDUS impact speed (2.5km/s), spectra of laboratory impacts into particulate targets record only short lived (few microseconds) Na emission lines at the EDUS impact speed. Much higher speeds are needed to generate detectable atomic emission lines. Although the ejecta plume disappeared in the VIS camera, it remained detectable in other instruments. The nominal sequence of crater excavation, however, predicted a ring of ejecta. Its absence requires a high angle ejecta component filling the inner region. In controlled laboratory experiments, this component first emerges at high speeds (>1km/sec) and persists throughout crater excavation.


Evidence for low angle high mass rocky ejecta curtain with central vapor/microparticle column:

Fourth possibility is that the ejecta plume was ejected a much lower angle than stardand 45°. Then much less mass of ejecta can reach the field of view of our observation than standard impact theoretical predictions.


Analysis of sodium observed from Kitt Peak:

Sodium emission was observed above the impact point and off the lunar limb until 6 minutes after impact. The sodium emission seen over the impact during the first 90 seconds after impact is bright but confined to an area with FWHM of 3.78 km. The amount of sodium seen in this time was about 2.4 grams or 0.1 mole, indicating a release rate of 0.027 g/s of sodium gas. However, a comparison of our observed sodium above the limb with simulations indicates that 2 kg of sodium was released by the LROSS impact. The very large discrepancy between the sodium seen above the impact site and that seen off the limb could be due to the fact that the emission is due to resonance scattering of the solar flux. If most of the sodium was still in shadow during the first 90 seconds after impact then it would not have been observed; however, we estimate that 14% of the sodium was in shadow during the first 90 seconds. Further analysis will be performed to resolve this issue.


On the nature of the water that was detected:

Given that we see no CPR enhancements with Mini-RF at the LCROSS impact site, if the regolith in Cabeus has material properties similar to the lunar highlands, there can be no thick deposits of water ice in this region. The water discovered by LCROSS would therefore be in the form of small pieces of ice mixed into the regolith, or water adsorbed onto minerals.


Or a by-product of chemical reactions perhaps?


On the electrical environment on the moon:

Since the Moon is an airless body, its surface is directly exposed to unfiltered solar UV and soft X-rays, as well as charged particles from the surrounding plasma environment – this causes it to become electrically charged. In sunlight, the lunar surface typically charges to a positive electric potential of ~5 V with respect to the surrounding plasma, due to the dominant current being from the photoemission of electrons; while in shadow the plasma electrons usually provide the dominant current, and so the surface charges to a negative potential of ~100–1000 V. The direct exposure of regolith to the space environment also results in space weathering, the generation of exospheric species (ion sputtering), and maybe the electrostatic transport of dust.


Just waiting to see the details but EU based predictions are looking pretty good so far.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests