NASA has selected seven proposals to do science on the Moon as part of the Lunar Exploration Program. This is pretty good news, as I know many folks who are wondering if any science was being planned for the Moon (and who still worry that the Moon program will eat up funds from other science).
They all appear to be interesting projects, but I am hoping to see a lot more from this one:
Daniel Glavin
“Volatile Analysis by Pyrolysis of Regolith on the Moon using Mass Spectrometry”
Glavin? MM-hey!
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
June 21st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I assume these would be volatiles brought during impacts, right? I wouldn’t think there would be much in the way of the original volatiles left on the moon considering there isn’t much on the Earth and the moon has even lower gravity. The main model for how the moon formed probably wouldn’t leave much in the way of volatiles to being with. But then again how they would end up inside the regolith is a bit of a question. Unless of course it was melted during impacts, which it was. I guess carbonaceous condrites would have volatiles in them, by definition, and probably make up some portion of the regolith. Of course I guess I am talking about VOC’s, they may be talking about other types of volatiles. But then again mass spec wouldn’t be that useful unless they were looking for VOC’s.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pm
OK I’m doing this without a dictionary so I will probably screw it up but…….So he is looking for things with a mass spectrometer in the lunar dirt by burning it? Hope he brings O2
June 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
And what does hyperbolic topology have to burning sand, anyway?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Using O2 would defeat the purpose. Mass specs tells you what organic molecules are in the regolith (or at least how big they are), but if there is O2 the organic molecules will break down into CO2 and H2O, making identification impossible.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
That quote was always disappointing. I guess Harvard taught none of its mathematics majors who went on to the Simpsons writing staff that “hyperbolic” is a geometric term, not a topological one.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Someday that monkey is going to pay.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Just do the hammer & feather thing, please.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Might work if they use a solid, single element impacter mass ‘bullet’ (like Cu or U-238).
Deep Impact was a good test, but since we already know much more about lunar composition than we do comets, an impacter will need to be much more ‘pure’ to define further details of the impact plasma, explosive cloud, and residue.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 am
Roughly translated it means, by using a series of wax candles they are going to see if squids are hiding in the moon dust.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Just as long as they don’t confuse the Monsterometer with the Frog Exaggerator, Gwyvyn! That’s what I like about Phil, he makes you laugh, makes you think, he likes to run and then the thing with the… person.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 am
What gave it away? Was it the HOY-VIN MAY-VIN or just the whole thing that I do?
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 am
I feel rather stupid, but what exactly about the lunar regolith paper reminded you of Prof. Frink?
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 am
Ross,
Professor Frink often finishes his soliloquies with a phrase containing, among other odd things, something like “Glavin!”, which is the last name of the author of the regolith paper.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
This is why most NASA projects have catchy acronyms. Everyone knows congress won’t fund anything that doesn’t have a catchy acronym. I say they call the project DERT. They can worry about figuring out what the letters stand for later.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:49 am
“DERT”
Cool acronym.
I have one expanded already, it stands for “Does Everyone Really Think”
“Moon Base Alpha establishes in 2099, 100 years after its television show name sake. News at 11, thank-you very much…”