1. Groovy. Now we have a financial reason to go back. We can bottle al that water, bring it back here, and sell it to stupid yuppies in LA as a health drink. It is suddenly worth more than oil, the only other liquid that would drive America to the Moon again.

  2. That was an interesting response in SS, wasn’t it? Although, I suspect that the peer review will confirm this. NASA took its sweet time making the announcement, so I’m betting its pretty solid.

    1. Oh, not knocking peer review. Yes, very important. But to call a press conference “meaningless?” Well, I’m sure the data is now available. And there are plenty of people wanting to find water on the moon, and plenty who’d love to prove NASA wrong. We’ll hear about it pretty quick if their is a problem.

  3. Yeah . . . the comment went overboard. I didn’t think you were trashing peer review. I just didn’t want any students (not that they’re on here now, but maybe someday) to think that I wasn’t supportive of peer review since I stress it so often in class.

    I would imagine that we’d probably have already heard something if there were problems with the announcement, but what do I know . . . I chose English as a major BECAUSE I hated math and science so much!

Comments are closed.