[quote]Thnakyou. now point it out to me where do you see any pyrolysis?[/quote]

Um...You seem to have missed my point completely. Plus if they wanted to make the picture satisfy all the incredulous requirements.....they could have just heat treated the fake with an impulse heater till it achieved a desired charring to really make it look good for the audience. Too bad they didn't know they would be picked apart as a hoax by some self-declared internet whizzes.....if only they had seen that coming!

The relative presence/non-presence of charring is a subject of interpretation given the materials used. Since it has been proven you are not a materials specialist....and are clearly biased....there is no point exploring this subject further since you seem to like to close your ears and yell over the counterpoints.

You latch onto big words which you have no understanding of and you have no general appreciation of what the scientific method and analysis is.... to you its as simple as pyrolysis = charring. This kind of absurdity is like dealing with a 6 year old kid that thinks he knows calculus because he can do his times tables.

All this elaborate hoax stuff reminds me of all the apollo hoax theories as well....your mental acumen follows this same trajectory.....find a so-called loophole that presents itself somewhere....latch on for dear life....and then keep shouting it while refusing to actually have a meaningful discussion....

[quote]So you’re saying that the SRE-1 capsule fell to earth in an oblique angle, just like how a meteorite would be seen hurling towards earth at an depressed trajectory. There is no evidence if meteorites would fall in such manner only other then what Hollywood shows, even so, most spherical object entering the atmosphere would still be engulfed in hot plasma and gases. You are actually comparing the SRE-1 to the USA space shuttle discovery! The SRE-1 would still rotate the cone shape would stabilise orientation and dispersing the heat around it and would not remain lateral and stationary on its axis throughout the decent, hence there should be some evidence of charring on all sides.[/quote]

Nice try (and I expected exactly this to come out from your puny 1+1=2 mind).....but nope....not what I was going for. Try again. My guess is you're going to have to keep going for a long time....I would like to see what other wonderful gems you have locked up.

I guess I was lying when I said it was obvious...just wanted to see if you would say what I thought you would.

[quote]Not a shiny untouched surface on one side.[/quote]

Out of interest, is this an admission of charring on the one side? Or are you just going with the flow of the argument?

[quote]Specially when an object enters at 100 KM alt it’s a rather a splash down in the atmosphere nose first then an oblique angle entry (that phenomena is only perceived by comparing an objects fall to the earths curvature), lateral landing would be true once the object is forced to slow further down the descent until the drag chutes slow it till it just drops nose first. The logic that because the SRE-1 came down latterly would only effect deviation in designated landing area not how charring would effect only one side not the other . You cant compare the shape of the SRE-1 to the orbiter or the thermal shields.[/quote]

Good, you did a little mental exercise for yourself. Problem is you are missing some really really important in all these statements. Try to think of the problem part by part and figure out what is happening at each stage and the system itself. Then you might have better luck answering my question.

Right now you are thinking at 100% of your capacity....to get above that you need to cool off and approach from a different angle. But maybe your bias will prevent you from doing this....who knows.

If you are still stuck, try reading this:


There is another pretty obvious relation to our debate here presented in that paper....lets see if you can figure that out...and put two and two together and not guess at the answer.

[quote]Im not disputing the fact that is there water or not Im disputing the fact that the indian QSM discovered it.[/quote]

Let me just get this crystal clear....you are solely disputing whether the water the QMS detected was of lunar origin?

[quote]Scientist say stupid things all the time, for example some scientist spotted using google earth that all the cows at once graze facing north or south and stated that the cows align themselves to earths polar magnetic fields!!!???? What ridiculousness! The truth is. The cows align themselves N or S to keep the sun out of their eyes. But these things do happen. Anyway I’m not disputing that there aren’t any water deposits on the lunar poles.[/quote]

Still waiting for a video or a transcript so I can see exactly what was said for myself. I am not taking your word for it...regarding what was said and the context.

[quote]But the handyman-1 was much of a failure then success and also that the M3 was not positioned to scan the regolyth ejected just after the QMS hit the lunar surface, hence pretty much everything is in doubt.[/quote]

Um the M3 did not scan the ejecta. Do you know how tiny of a mark the ejecta would have made by the impact probe? Of course the M3 wasn't positioned to scan the ejecta and crater....it was not its objective in the first place! You are confusing the ejecta analysis with the LCROSS mission which is where this was conducted. THAT was a completely different mission.

Having a read of the synopsis of this paper should be more than enough to illustrate the basic idea from what the M3 accomplished (which was NOT ejecta analysis). It didnt have the resolution for this.:


In fact Carle Pieters was one of the scientists from Brown University that worked on the M3....I met her at a conference a year ago...and she had nothing but praise for the chandrayaan mission and the results it achieved.

This seems to be a hallmark of you: Confused and unable to string together a coherent argument. You are wildly grasping at straws and losing sight of basic debate discipline (if you had any to begin with). At least do a little research on what you are talking about beforehand.

[quote]The QSM and M3 results are complete opposites to each other, which clearly states that either the QSM was a one shot device detected some constituents at altitude, got swamped or saturated, seized to operate, or a malfunction occurred due to heat (lets not forget Handyman-1 did get cooked) or contamination picked up from earth, which the M3 is immune to since it’s an imaging SM (a passive device), all of these factors should render the QSM results corrupt or at least a red herring and not something to base theories upon.[/quote]

So far, its been only you: a nondescript, faceless and clearly biased and confused (or just lazy) internet individual who has mentioned to me that the results are mutually exclusive. To top it off you do that with little scientific knowledge or understanding (stating the existence of water in nebulae means large water traces in all of space as well).

Should I believe you, or should I believe Carle Pieters who worked on the M3 payload and its analysis? I mean you got the very objective and operating procedure of the M3 mission wrong (you stated it as ejecta analysis). Pieters told me personally that the Indian results need to be re-confirmed at a later date ideally (as any experiment should)...but that they are not inconsistent with M3's results or LCROSS's results....because of the sublimation factor.

In fact if you had bothered to read about the M3 results in various papers, you would find that one key result it found actually supports the result of the increasing and decreasing trend that the CHACE on the MIP picked up....sublimation across temperature differentials during a lunar day changes the surface presence of hydroxyl proxies. I think this speaks for itself in adding a big validity to the trend that CHACE picked up....so much so that a consistently increasing trend would have been the suspect one as far as the (forming) theory goes.

[quote]No matter how you try to see this, the fact is QSM is reading a vacuum or a exosphere near the surface of the pole (no water vapour), yet M3 is indicating considerable amount of water deposits! There should be water vapour present according to your sublimation theory.[/quote]

If you are talking about this image:


I think you don't quite understand what a reference is or what it means in this context. From the paper I read, it is simply put there to compare the trends from the latitudes M3 started detecting hydroxyl presence. It basically makes the assumption for comparison purposes that the atmospheric concentration is also 0 at the same latitude (which need not be reality...in fact this is stated in the paper).

What is required is a repeat of the experiment, properly calibrated from the start (which couldn't be done in this mission due to power requirements and the last minute addition of the MIP payload). This will be done in the next chandrayaan mission from what I hear which will have a dedicated payload for measuring atmospheric constituents.

Good reading: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2720/stories/20101008272009000.htm

[quote]If there is a surface boundary with vacuum or exosphere, where did the water vapour come from in the thin lunar atmosphere? If not from the lunar south pole then is it possible to have water vapour release from the lunar equator where the temperatures could rise +130 degrees Celsius?. yet the regolith in that region does not prove any theories of sublimation! [/quote]

Not exactly sure what you are asking here.....but there are a myriad of lunar water replenishment processes at work that fluctuate with given variables (such as time of day and latitude) that determine both surface and atmospheric presence. How it all relates together is still pretty open-ended and needs a lot more investigation.

[quote]And if the QSM has detected water why did the other devices not detect any water molecules in the atmosphere?[/quote]

What other devices? Both M3 and mini-SAR could not measure the tenuous water presence in the atmosphere since they were designed to measure surface concentrations (which are much higher).

[quote]And how does the MIP QSM distinguish between the 16/17/18 AMU molecules detected when there is no sample available of the lunar constituents?[/quote]

16/17/18 AMU water? Please show me where 16 AMU and 17 AMU water is possible anywhere in the universe?

Also you obviousy (again!) have no inkling on how a QMS (you can't even use the correct acronym) works....or in fact any mass spectrometer because you wouldn't have even asked this question.

[quote]could it not be that the QSM is reading water vapour trapped from earth itself at the time of manufacturing of the QSM?[/quote]

A possibility. However the outgassing of this material would have to have some pretty wicked cohesion properties to be able to stick to a probe flying at more than a kilometer a second. The paper in question talks about this in some depth and renders such a situation next to impossible.

However scientists are still split, and all agree that a second more reliable experiment on Chandrayaan 2 will provide better confirmation and more valid results (and also back check to see how accurate the CHACE results were). I guess we will have to wait and see.

[quote]Anyway…The discovery of water on the moon is confirmed by 2 instruments: American instrument M3 on the Indian Handyman-1 probe and instrument VIMS of the Cassini Huygens mission (ESA / NASA). Sorry no Indian QSM is credited with any find. However you can believe what ever you like the facts are indisputable.[/quote]

QMS QMS QMS! You can also add deep-impact probe to that list. It found a hydroxyl line when it flew past the moon about 5 years back. I've never supported claims that India can take credit for being the FIRST to discover water on the moon....just that the atmospheric composition that the MIP found raises some very interesting questions on the actions that take place on the moon.

[quote]I know what instrument noise is![/quote]

[quote]"what the f*ck is that?!!! lol. anyway.. :rolleyes:"[/quote]

Short term memory loss?

Now, I’m going to use common sense correspondence theory over here. That the QMS is an active device unlike the M3, this QMS has been manufactured on earth and at one time swamped with the constituents it is to seek out on the moon. I can understand if this device is used on a planet or rather a moon, like Titan, looking for any kind of constituents or dropped on a gaseous planet where the primary goal isn’t to look for water vapour, then the device would be fine. However one shouldn’t rely on this device at all which was once swamped with the primary constituents it is to seek out elsewhere in an alien environment, where there is very little if any to begin with in the first place. Its not a possibility of contamination mate.[/quote]

Ok, so you just established that you have no idea about how space mission manufacturing is done. Good for you mate! Tell me when you are able to get within 1 kilometer of a class 100 clean room and if you have been in one.....explain to me how we get rid of water in water measuring instruments for space. I am looking for 3 very specific things in your answer.....google might provide one of them. But till then, bugger off....your common sense is about as good as a goldfish for all I care.

There is another line of questioning regarding contamination, but it doesnt involve the QMS. But I doubt you would get there unless I spoonfeed you it (I might have already done so earlier).

[quote]99% probability.[/quote]

Haha, even the most sceptical of the scientific community (who have spent years in space research fields) wouldnt put it at 99%.....I guess you are more intelligent than all of us....good for you. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

What's even more interesting is that an individual who thinks that nebulae produce enough water to increase the concentration of it everywhere in space...is able to come to such a certain precise number! Amazing.

[quote]Exactly. now how do you propse to do that? just repeat the experiment Handyman-1 could not perform, just make sure the M3 spectrometer is in position to scan at the right time. Easy said then done.[/quote]

Err ...read about Chandrayaan-II. There are going to be a number of missions to gather much more information about the nature of the moon...to a greater reliability. And you still have no clue about what the M3 is and what its performance is. And since the impact mission of the LCROSS has already been done, there is no point in repeating that. Another impact probe with better power budget for calibration (and part of the core mission from the start rather than a last minute addition) would be welcome to sample the atmosphere....and look at more variables this time.

[quote]Lose what? this debate? Lol. So the boy has some time on his hands, psyched him self up, ready to take this p*ki on.ooh! I’m so scared I want my mumy! I should point out that you are slighty confussed, you contradict yourself from paragraph to paragragh, and leave self refuting statements at the end of the paragraph. Its ok, because I know you are a victim of the strong Israeli lobby and media and I’m trying to free from that. So please show some taste and courtesy and remember what that little Canadian girl said.[/quote]

Haha, funny man....Israeli lobby? Wow, ok...keep the desperation coming. Because while you keep digging yourself a bigger hole (and yell louder to compensate)...I'm actually working in the space industry...and have interacted with many key members over many years.....

You don't even realise when you are way out of your comfort zone....its some XYZ accomplishment by a country you hate so you have to do everything you can to somehow bring it down.....its pretty clear to me. Whatever, keep hollering....isn't going to change the reality of the situation.
Enjoy the site? All donations are appreciated

Free Text Host is brought to you by Dagon Design
This site contains no adware, spyware, or popups
Questions? Comments?     Privacy Policy     Report abuse here