I saw it on CNN, and I’ve seen it in the science blogs I read. Water discovered on the moon!
Big frackin’ deal.
Why am I not impressed? Several reasons:
- We know there is H2O in space. Remember your high school science? What are comets made of? Ice, very good. So why are we surprised to find water on the moon? Just because THEY said the moon was dry 40 years ago?
- It’s not new news. It’s old news. Here’s an article about moon water from a July 2008 article in National Geographic. New testing found water in moon lava from the Apollo missions. They didn’t say which Apollo mission, but Apollo lunar landings were from 1969 and 1972.
- This week NASA is admitting that water was found decades ago, but they thought the samples were contaminated with earth water. Oops. I’m guessing there is a vindicated NASA researcher out there muttering “I told you so! But you wouldn’t listen.” Right about now.
(To be clear, the H2O wasn’t water, steam or ice but H2O in a different state. It’s the chemistry that counts here.)
Not sure why I decided to rant on this topic today. I guess I get annoyed when something that should have been agreed upon 40 years ago is now finally big news on cable. Forgive me. I just like to keep things simple and straight forward. And maybe my rebellious side is showing today.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I feel the same as you! I hate when people act all surprised about something when it’s been a known fact for over 3 decades!
September 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Hi Jenny. I guess I’m peeved that as artists and crafters we thrive on our mistakes and incrementally learn from them. So it bugs me when scientist (those ‘smart’ guys) have such a hard time swallowing the crow they must sometimes eat in order to progress forward.
We know how it works, why don’t they?
September 24th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that all of the old data is based on samples that were brought back to Earth for analysis. As you stated above, the scientists were a bit afraid to trust their findings as the samples could have been contaminated after they arrived. This new finding involves data from 3 different remote sensors which has been independently analyzed by multiple scientists. The chances of the findings being bogus just dropped considerably.