Just in: India's Nirbhay cruise missile blasts off from Integrated Test Range, Odisha. Details await

[MimophantSlayer]

Dude, you gotta stop using CAPS, COLORS and BIG FONTS, it's a pain for me to read. Is this some sort of strategy to distract me from debating? There is no point pasting pictures with no explanation and then overwhelming some one. Dissect the facts and present it in a coherent manner.

You are typing like a retard here, pouncing here and there like a 5 year old playing with crayons..

Since you clearly are ignoring all the important details the only way I can have a sane discussion with you is talk to you as if you are a child and spell it out in BIG COLOURFUL WORDS.

All my "pictures" have been explained, if you are not smart enough or lazy enough to read my comment properly or find out what it means then THAT-IS-NOT-MY-FAULT.

I dissect everything you say and I mean EVERYTHING you are the one who ignores the facts that I provide when you simply can't refute it.

1)Can you provide me a quote and evidence they found 600 million tonnes of ice or water?

Here's your quote and evidence.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mini-RF/multimedia/feature_ice_like_deposits.html



Mini-SAR map of the Circular Polarization Ratio (CPR) of the north pole of the Moon. Fresh, “normal” craters (red circles) show high values of CPR inside and outside their rims. This is consistent with the distribution of rocks and ejected blocks around fresh impact features, indicating that the high CPR here is surface scattering. The “anomalous” craters (green circles) have high CPR within, but not outside their rims. Their interiors are also in permanent sun shadow. These relations are consistent with the high CPR in this case being caused by water ice, which is only stable in the polar dark cold traps. We estimate over 600 million cubic meters (1 cubic meter = 1 metric ton) of water in these features.

2) How are they differentiating OH of water and other minerals with OH like Magnesium Hydroxide since the wiki link above clearly says they can't differentiate it. Please no more caps and big fonts, try to explain it professionally.

Do you suffer from selective blindness or something?
I already explained that.
READ before REGURGITATING.

This is why I use bold, all caps, and colorful fonts coz you clearly suffer from some form of attention deficiency.

try to explain it professionally.

Look dude, I know you are here to troll so I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt and be any form of "professional" with you. I'll be "professional" in front of people who deserve it.

But rest assured, I will not and have not given you any overwhelming & unneeded information, I'll give you everything that is unfiltered and necessary. Now it is your duty to understand it or make an attempt at understanding it.
Just don't expect findings to be a 2 liner statement.

3) Did they find water or hydroxide? The link seems to say its hydroxide.

What link says its hydroxide and not water?
Please provide it.

Why are you even referring a wiki page?
Those have deconstructed information posted by mostly noobs who have 0 knowledge on the subject

The point is this Chang'e-3 prove that there couldn't possibly be vapor at the 'atmosphere' with the first actual measurement of it on the moon. Remember this is the first time it was done in human history, there was so much water claimed by LRCROSS and Chandrayaan that at first the mission was concerned about the LUT functioning since it was so sensitive.

WHERE IS THE CHINESE STATEMENT THAT SAYS THAT "THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE WATER VAPOUR ON THE MOON"
No one really cares about WHEN YOU SAY "couldn't possibly be VAPOUR".
You just keep making stuff up.
SO do stop coming to your brilliant scientific conclusions and provide an official CNSA link.

Give proof and stop ignoring the question..
Which CNSA article says that there is no water vapour on the moon?

And I already told you so don't act like an idiot, it is the electromagnetic radiation absorption of water that is messing with the reading not malfunctioning the LUT.

You can't retrieve something to prove the absence of something, understand? You can only retrieve something to prove the the existence of something. LOL...what a smart Indy.

This is such nonsense, what are you even talking about?

You don't need to retrieve something to know that it exists, you just need proper equipment that have been proven to work for decades and decades now.
Who is trying to prove the absence of anything?

You are the only one who is talking about something being not present on the moon.
US, India and everyone else are all in consensus over the fact that water, water vapour and ice all exist on the moon.

Clearly you are smarter than 100s of scientists out there please provide your peer reviewed journal so that we can all marvel at your magnificence.

You have to stop typing like a madmen and expecting me to debate OK? Slow down, list down the points properly and dissect it. Then we will check the validity of each evidence. Just because you talk and talk and talk doesn't mean it is correct. Crazy people shout and talk alot too..LOL Typical Indy, they go crazy when they feel they are losing an argument

Its not my fault you can't keep up with me.
I'm not going to slow down for you, that's not how science works, there's a simple finding and then there's a tsunami of information all out there to absorb. Get used to it coz I'm not going to encourage your laziness or your ignorance.

Check it out for yourself, I've not made up one of those facts.
And If you are not willing to do even that then you are clearly in denial.
Can you actually refute my statements without resorting to adhominem attacks?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsore...18/lunar-probe-confirms-no-water-on-moon.html


Subpar instrument?

Again, these are opinions by presstitutes who have not read anything about earlier space missions.

FACT.(Search it if you don't believe me)
THESE ARE REAL SPECS.

LRO had like 3 instruments far better than the inferior LUT on Chang'e 3.

LAMP UV imaging spectrograph its range being in the low 52 to 187 nm.
LROC WAC's ranges are 315-680nm whereas LROC NAC's spectral range is 400-750 nm also a Ritchey-Chretien telescope like the LUT on Chang'e 3 whose measly range is 245 to 340nm.

Basically, two types of spectroscopy with two different results. Which is true?

Again these are opinion pieces by presstitutes.
Prove it with real facts not with confirmation bias.
Show me a government link that agrees to this point.
Like the one I gave you above.

 

[Han Patriot]

Since you clearly are ignoring all the important details the only way I can have a sane discussion with you is talk to you as if you are a child and spell it out in BIG COLOURFUL WORDS.

All my "pictures" have been explained, if you are not smart enough or lazy enough to read my comment properly or find out what it means then THAT-IS-NOT-MY-FAULT.

I dissect everything you say and I mean EVERYTHING you are the one who ignores the facts that I provide when you simply can't refute it.

Now there little boy, stop throwing tantrums yah, I realise you are starting to behave since most of your post after the rainbow above is readable. LOL

Here's your quote and evidence.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mini-RF/multimedia/feature_ice_like_deposits.html



Mini-SAR map of the Circular Polarization Ratio (CPR) of the north pole of the Moon. Fresh, “normal” craters (red circles) show high values of CPR inside and outside their rims. This is consistent with the distribution of rocks and ejected blocks around fresh impact features, indicating that the high CPR here is surface scattering. The “anomalous” craters (green circles) have high CPR within, but not outside their rims. Their interiors are also in permanent sun shadow. These relations are consistent with the high CPR in this case being caused by water ice, which is only stable in the polar dark cold traps. We estimate over 600 million cubic meters (1 cubic meter = 1 metric ton) of water in these features.

Below is the quote from your source:

CPR is not uniquely diagnostic of either roughness or ice;

That's why it was a hypothesis, understand? Nothing is proven until you land something there to extract or do in-situ detection. Space remote sensing has its limitations and large errors can occur as shown by my previous article. Only ground level analysis and sensing can prove the orbital sensors are working.

Do you suffer from selective blindness or something?
I already explained that.
READ before REGURGITATING.

This is why I use bold, all caps, and colorful fonts coz you clearly suffer from some form of attention deficiency.

Maybe that's the reason why i can't comprehend what you are trying to say when you just keep on pasting large pictures and using big fonts like a crazy 5 year old. Give the most important point, did they find water or hydroxyl?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/09/whiff-water-found-moon

A less dry moon makes its debut courtesy of the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) that has been orbiting the moon onboard India's now-defunct Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft. A spectrometer, M3 detected an infrared absorption at a wavelength of 3.0 micrometers that only water or hydroxyl--a hydrogen and an oxygen bound together--could have created.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090924-water-moon-confirmed.html

It's unclear at present whether the satellites detected water or hydroxyl on the moon, but both substances could prove useful to future lunar missions.

Even if the lunar soil contains only hydroxyl, Taylor said, that hydroxyl can be extracted and combined with lunar hydrogen to form freshwater.

Hmmm.

WHERE IS THE CHINESE STATEMENT THAT SAYS THAT "THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE WATER VAPOUR ON THE MOON"
No one really cares about WHEN YOU SAY "couldn't possibly be VAPOUR".
You just keep making stuff up.
SO do stop coming to your brilliant scientific conclusions and provide an official CNSA link.

Give proof and stop ignoring the question..
Which CNSA article says that there is no water vapour on the moon?

http://english.gov.cn/news/video/2016/08/01/content_281475406426873.htm
Even better direct from the Chinese government.

And the telescope helped prove that there is no water on the moon.

And I already told you so don't act like an idiot, it is the electromagnetic radiation absorption of water that is messing with the reading not malfunctioning the LUT.

LUT cannot function with high vapor, so does 'cannot function' means malfunctioning? it's the same right genius? If as per LCROSS and Chandrayaan there is so much water, LUT would fail, understand?

This is such nonsense, what are you even talking about?

You don't need to retrieve something to know that it exists, you just need proper equipment that have been proven to work for decades and decades now.
Who is trying to prove the absence of anything?

You are the only one who is talking about something being not present on the moon.
US, India and everyone else are all in consensus over the fact that water, water vapour and ice all exist on the moon.

Clearly you are smarter than 100s of scientists out there please provide your peer reviewed journal so that we can all marvel at your magnificence.

The point is this, until you can land on the moon and prove on the ground there is water or ice, it is still a speculation. Why don't you need to retrieve something to prove something exist? So what if the results were wrong and the hydroxyl was due to something else? There are two conflicting arguments, one says there is an absence of something, one says there is an existence of something, tell me who should retrieve something to prove his point? Simple logics right?

Its not my fault you can't keep up with me.
I'm not going to slow down for you, that's not how science works, there's a simple finding and then there's a tsunami of information all out there to absorb. Get used to it coz I'm not going to encourage your laziness or your ignorance.

Check it out for yourself, I've not made up one of those facts.
And If you are not willing to do even that then you are clearly in denial.
Can you actually refute my statements without resorting to adhominem attacks?

LOL, crazy people says this most of the time.

Again, these are opinions by presstitutes who have not read anything about earlier space missions.

FACT.(Search it if you don't believe me)
THESE ARE REAL SPECS.

LRO had like 3 instruments far better than the inferior LUT on Chang'e 3.

LAMP UV imaging spectrograph its range being in the low 52 to 187 nm.
LROC WAC's ranges are 315-680nm whereas LROC NAC's spectral range is 400-750 nm also a Ritchey-Chretien telescope like the LUT on Chang'e 3 whose measly range is 245 to 340nm.

I knew you were an idiot when I see you answer debates. Since when is UV wavelength more than 400nm? You are such a genius. The LROC WAC and NAC are not used to detect water, there basically remote sensing components, to map the surface. The EUV is the world first extreme UV imager at 30 nm. If there were accurate, they would have found out the most accurate moisture content measurement on the moon to date. Btw, you do know there is no atmosphere on the moon right? So if one place show no water vapor, it is the same across the moon. Therefore, how could your MIP detect water vapor 98km above the surface? If you say you found ice in the darkened craters, there is still a possibility, but no, someone is lying, isn't it so convenient you announce it after the M3 results? LOL

Although the LCROSS mission, which deliberately crashed a probe into the lunar surface to look for water, detected water in Cabeus Crater, Mini-RF did not detect water ice at the LCROSS impact site.

Funny how the impactor said it found water but the probe say it didn't.

 

[MimophantSlayer]

Now there little boy, stop throwing tantrums yah, I realise you are starting to behave since most of your post after the rainbow above is readable. LOL

TRUTH hurt your feelings now?
Don't you worry I'll keep it layman like so that I won't hurt your feelings.

Below is the quote from your source:

Oh you poor poor child.
Desperately looking for something to justify your trolling.

How conveniently you omitted the whole paragraph.

This result of 600million tonnes is not just based on just Mini RF data, it was based on all of the equipment of LRO.

But since you are worried about CPR(even though you know zero $hit about it).
Let me quench that thirst for you, it is the LOLA payload that calculates surface roughness at its best accuracy not MiniRF

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.
Main L, 14 km diameter, 81.4° N, 22° E
View a Larger version of the fresh crater CPR (537KB).
The fresh impact crater Main L (14 km diameter), which shows high CPR inside and outside its rim. SC is the “same sense, circular” polarization; CPR is “circular polarization ratio.” The histograms at right show that the high CPR values within (red line) and outside the crater rim (green line) are nearly identical.


Numerous craters near the poles of the Moon have interiors that are in permanent sun shadow. These areas are very cold and water ice is stable there essentially indefinitely. Fresh craters show high degrees of surface roughness (high CPR) both inside and outside the crater rim, caused by sharp rocks and block fields that are distributed over the entire crater area. However, Mini-SAR has found craters near the north pole that have high CPR inside, but not outside their rims. This relation suggests that the high CPR is not caused by roughness, but by some material that is restricted within the interiors of these craters. We interpret this relation as consistent with water ice present in these craters. The ice must be relatively pure and at least a couple of meters thick to give this signature.

Maybe that's the reason why i can't comprehend what you are trying to say when you just keep on pasting large pictures and using big fonts like a crazy 5 year old. Give the most important point, did they find water or hydroxyl?

I have said it like 3 times already, but eyes-child-eyes, use them once in a while. LOOK before you leap.

OH, water & ice all reflect differently and hence we can confirm that by this M3 data(LOOK at the 2nd graph, LOOK Forrest LOOK) what is water and what is hydroxyl.

From your own link.

The discovery "opens up a whole different avenue to a source of water on the moon," says M3 principal investigator Carlé Pieters of Brown University. EPOXI observations show the water/hydroxyl signal coming and going from the surface over days, notes Pieters, which shows that there's water loosely bound to surface rock, not just tightly bound hydroxyl.

LCROSS team principal investigator Tony Colaprete.
“We measured it in water vapor,” Colaprete said, “and much more importantly in my mind, we measured it in water ice. Ice is really important because it talks about certain levels of concentration.”

With a combination of near-infrared, ultraviolet and visible spectrometers onboard the shepherding spacecraft, LCROSS found about 155 kilograms (342 pounds) of water vapor and water ice were blown out of crater and detected by LCROSS. From that, Colaprete and his team estimate that approximately 5.6 percent of the total mass inside Cabeus crater (plus or minus 2.9 percent) could be attributed to water ice alone.

"We are ecstatic," said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS project scientist and principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. "Multiple lines of evidence show water was present in both the high angle vapor plume and the ejecta curtain created by the LCROSS Centaur impact. The concentration and distribution of water and other substances requires further analysis, but it is safe to say Cabeus holds water."

"We were only able to match the spectra from LCROSS data when we inserted the spectra for water," said Colaprete. "No other reasonable combination of other compounds that we tried matched the observations. The possibility of contamination from the Centaur also was ruled out."

LUT cannot function with high vapor, so does 'cannot function' means malfunctioning? it's the same right genius? If as per LCROSS and Chandrayaan there is so much water, LUT would fail, understand?

Which is why it did fail and gave shitty results.

Who will go with the Chinese version when 2 better versions of ISRO and NASA are available.

No wonder you lot won 0 awards or had any international acclaim for your "significant" findings.

And by acclaim I don't mean the presstitute opinions you keep plastering, real awards by real science organisations.

The point is this, until you can land on the moon and prove on the ground there is water or ice, it is still a speculation. Why don't you need to retrieve something to prove something exist? So what if the results were wrong and the hydroxyl was due to something else? There are two conflicting arguments, one says there is an absence of something, one says there is an existence of something, tell me who should retrieve something to prove his point? Simple logics right?

It has already been proven that it exists, the onus is on the people who disagree to prove us wrong.
That is how it has always been.

And since no one is really paying any attention to the Chinese findings it is questionable at best and outright wrong at worst.

LOL, crazy people says this most of the time.

Stupid people feel threatened by that all the time and call stuff crazy when they can't wrap their head around the obvious truth.

I knew you were an idiot when I see you answer debates. Since when is UV wavelength more than 400nm? You are such a genius. The LROC WAC and NAC are not used to detect water, there basically remote sensing components, to map the surface.

Now you are lying and changing the subject because you were caught with your pants down.LOL

You argued if LUT is the best telescope to study water on moon and I proved to you it wasn't, firstly because it did not have the ranges that NASA equipment have and secondly because LUT was not meant to study water.
This is just a secondary inferior finding done by the Chinese with contaminated results

And when did I say UV wavelength is beyond 400nm? You just keep resorting to strawman arguments to console your battered ego.

The LROC WAC and NAC are not used to detect water, there basically remote sensing components, to map the surface The EUV is the world first extreme UV imager at 30 nm. If there were accurate, they would have found out the most accurate moisture content measurement on the moon to date.

And your EUV was supposed to find water on moon?
Ever heard of SOHO?
Funny how chinese did not send 1 specialised water finding equipment but can come up with so many fudged data on water. lol

Besides the water findings are based on LUT not your EUV, it wouldn't have found anything eitherway so stop lying.

You must be an idiot because it is already discussed that LRO didn't use the LROC to find water it wasn't made to do that just like LUT and EUV weren't made to find water.

The data is from other LRO equipment.

Funny how the impactor said it found water but the probe say it didn't.

No, no, no son.
The MiniRF did not find "water", the other equipment did.
Mini RF is not qualified to distinguish water from ice or minerals.

Get your facts straight.