This is super awesome and an exciting story that was released yesterday. Turns out there is liquid water on the surface of the moon. First NASA saw h2o on Mars next humans have seen it on the surface of the moon. This is really awesome exciting news!!

This story was updated at 10:49 p.m. EDT.

Since man first touched the moon and brought pieces of it back to Earth, scientists have thought that the lunar surface was bone dry. But new observations from three different spacecraft have put this notion to rest with what has been called “unambiguous evidence” of water across the surface of the moon.

The new findings, detailed in the Sept. 25 issue of the journal Science, come in the wake of further evidence of lunar polar water ice by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and just weeks before the planned lunar impact of NASA's LCROSS satellite, which will hit one of the permanently shadowed craters at the moon's south pole in hope of churning up evidence of water ice deposits in the debris field.

The moon remains drier than any desert on Earth, but the water is said to exist on the moon in very small quantities. One ton of the top layer of the lunar surface would hold about 32 ounces of water, researchers said.

“If the water molecules are as mobile as we think they are — even a fraction of them — they provide a mechanism for getting water to those permanently shadowed craters,” said planetary geologist Carle Pieters of Brown University in Rhode Island, who led one of the three studies in Science on the lunar find, in a statement. “This opens a whole new avenue [of lunar research], but we have to understand the physics of it to utilize it.”

Finding water on the moon would be a boon to possible future lunar bases, acting as a potential source of drinking water and fuel.

Apollo turns up dry

When Apollo astronauts returned from the moon 40 years ago, they brought back several samples of lunar rocks.

The moon rocks were analyzed for signs of water bound to minerals present in the rocks; while trace amounts of water were detected, these were assumed to be contamination from Earth, because the containers the rocks came back in had leaked.

“The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between water from the moon and water from Earth,” said Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who is a member of one of the NASA-built instrument teams for India's Chandrayaan-1 satellite and has studied the moon since the Apollo missions.

While scientists continued to suspect that water ice deposits could be found in the coldest spots of south pole craters that never saw sunlight, the consensus became that the rest of the moon was bone dry.

But new observations of the lunar surface made with Chandrayaan-1, NASA's Cassini spacecraft, and NASA's Deep Impact probe, are calling that consensus into question, with multiple detections of the spectral signal of either water or the hydroxyl group (an oxygen and hydrogen chemically bonded).

Three spacecraft

Chandrayaan-1, India's first-ever moon probe, was aimed at mapping the lunar surface and determining its mineral composition (the orbiter's mission ended 14 months prematurely in August after an abrupt malfunction). While the probe was still active, its NASA-built Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) detected wavelengths of light reflected off the surface that indicated the chemical bond between hydrogen and oxygen — the telltale sign of either water or hydroxyl.

Because M3 can only penetrate the top few millimeters of lunar regolith, the newly observed water seems to be at or near the lunar surface. M3's observations also showed that the water signal got stronger toward the polar regions. Pieters is the lead investigator for the M3 instrument on Chandrayaan-1.

Cassini, which passed by the moon in 1999 on its way to Saturn, provides confirmation of this signal with its own slightly stronger detection of the water/hydroxyl signal. The water would have to be absorbed or trapped in the glass and minerals at the lunar surface, wrote Roger Clark of the U.S. Geological Survey in the study detailing Cassini's findings.

The Cassini data shows a global distribution of the water signal, though it also appears stronger near the poles (and low in the lunar maria).

Finally, the Deep Impact spacecraft, as part of its extended EPOXI mission and at the request of the M3 team, made infrared detections of water and hydroxyl as part of a calibration exercise during several close approaches of the Earth-Moon system en route to its planned flyby of comet 103P/Hartley 2 in November 2010.

Deep Impact detected the signal at all latitudes above 10 degrees N, though once again, the poles showed the strongest signals. With its multiple passes, Deep Impact was able to observe the same regions at different times of the lunar day. At noon, when the sun's rays were strongest, the water feature was lowest, while in the morning, the feature was stronger.

“The Deep Impact observations of the Moon not only unequivocally confirm the presence of on the lunar surface, but also reveal that the entire lunar surface is hydrated during at least some portion of the lunar day,” the authors wrote in their study.

The findings of all three spacecraft “provide unambiguous evidence for the presence of hydroxyl or water,” said Paul Lucey of the University of Hawaii in an opinion essay accompanying the three studies. Lucey was not involved in any of the missions.

The new data “prompt a critical reexamination of the notion that the moon is dry. It is not,” Lucey wrote.

Where the water comes from

Combined, the findings show that not only is the moon hydrated, the process that makes it so is a dynamic one that is driven by the daily changes in solar radiation hitting any given spot on the surface.

The sun might also have something to do with how the water got there.

There are potentially two types of water on the moon: that brought from outside sources, such as water-bearing comets striking the surface, or that that originates on the moon.

This second, endogenic, source is thought to possibly come from the interaction of the solar wind with moon rocks and soils.

The rocks and regolith that make up the lunar surface are about 45 percent oxygen (combined with other elements as mostly silicate minerals). The solar wind — the constant stream of charged particles emitted by the sun — are mostly protons, or positively charged hydrogen atoms.

If the charged hydrogens, which are traveling at one-third the speed of light, hit the lunar surface with enough force, they break apart oxygen bonds in soil materials, Taylor, the M3 team member suspects. Where free oxygen and hydrogen exist, there is a high chance that trace amounts of water will form.

The various study researchers also suggest that the daily dehydration and rehydration of the trace water across the surface could lead to the migration of hydroxyl and hydrogen towards the poles where it can accumulate in the cold traps of the permanently shadowed regions.

With NASA's recent public admission of 'kinda' losing the original moon landing tapes by possibly taping over them, the Moon Landing Hoax theory has resurfaced, yet again. This, just in time for the 40 year anniversary of Neil Armstrong's “Giant Leap for mankind.” I'd like to quote my favorite conspiracy theorist who likes to say,
” You fake just one moon landing and 40 years later technology comes and bites you in the arse.” True, Hollywood's greatest special effects in 1969 are laughed ( or horrify ) the teenagers of today. So was the moon landing faked? Skeptics have asked some very thought provoking questions, and experts have provided incredibly educated answers. Here, the some of the most common 8 arguments used by conspiracy theorists, followed by the rebuttal by experts.

Argument 1: The American Flag is Flapping in the video, as though there is a breeze blowing through the airless, low gravity surface of the moon.

Expert Rebuttal: According to NASA, and agreeable upon inspection, the U.S Flag obviously has the placements of rods within it. While the presence of the rods are most obvious on the top of the flag, there are places where one can possibly spot other less obvious areas where rods may be present. To place rods into the Flag would have been an intelligent measure to ensure that a 'good' picture of the Flag could be taken, considering the moon's atmosphere. According to NASA, in the course of the Apollo 11 mission, the astronauts also accidentally bent several of the horizontal rods that held the rods in place, thus creating the appearance of a 'rippling' Flag.

Notable mention comes from Space Flight Historian Roger Lanius of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. According to Lanius “the video you see where the flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving.”

Argument 2: In one of the most Famous photos of the 1969 moon Landing video,
both Neil Armstrong and the Eagle lunar lander are reflected in Buzz Aldrin's
visor, prompting the argument that the landing was faked because while only two astronauts flew the mission,
both are visible in the picture. The question is, who took the picture?

Expert Rebuttal: The cameras used to capture the images of the Apollo 11 missions were mounted
to the astronauts' chests according to astronomer Phil Plait, author of the award-winning blog Bad Astronomy
and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation. This would make sense, seeing as how many of us manage to
drop/lose/damage our cameras without the handicap of the atmosphere of the moon.

In the picture that made this claim famous, Plait further noted that “you can see arms are sort
of at his chest. That's where the camera is. He wasn't holding it up to his visor.”

Argument 3: If the Astronauts were in space, walking around on the moon, taking pictures, then where are all the stars? The astronauts didn't even make mention of stars during the 15 minute footage. With front row seats to the spectacular sights of space, wouldn't they have even mentioned stars, let alone take pictures of them?

Expert Rebuttal: Phil Plait takes on this argument citing that the surface of the moon reflects sunlight. ( Authors note: We simple folk know this because that is the only reason we can actually see the moon at night )
According to Plait, the glare caused by the reflection of the sunlight would have made the stars difficult to see.
The astronauts also would have photographed their lunar experience using fast exposure camera settings,
which would have additionally limited incoming background light.

Plait adds “They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second…In that amount of time,
stars just don't show up.”

Argument 4: One of the most convincing arguments in public opinion. The lunar lander, the Eagle
is photographed undisturbed on the surface on the moon. The picture was reportedly taken only a
few hours after the 1969 moon landing. Questions arise because the module is shown sitting on a relatively flat surfaceof what looks to be undisturbed lunar soil. So where is the crater? Shouldn't the lander's descent have been accompanied by a large dust cloud strong enough to have caused some kind of indentation in the surface?

Expert Rebuttal: This strong rebuttal comes from the Smithsonian Institution's space curator Roger Launius.
Lanius, who is also a former NASA chief historian has this to say. “The lander's engines were throttles just before landing and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick as much dust.” Lanius adds
“Science fiction movies depict this big jet of fire coming out as land,
but that's not how they did it on the moon…That's not the way they would do it now or anytime in the future.”

Argument 5: A mission picture shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the foot pad of the Eagle's ladder.
His knees are bent which would suggest he is about to jump to the next rung. Conspiracy theorists point out that
Aldrin is seen in the Lander's shadow, yet he remains clearly visible. In addition to many strange looking shadow
pictures, some shadows don't seem to be parallel to each other. In addition, some objects which should be 'shadowed'
appear well lit, prompting the suggestion that the light was coming from multiple light sources, such as studio lights.

Expert Rebuttal: Space Curator Roger Lanius tackles this theory. The fact of the matter, according to Lanius
is that there were, in fact multiple light sources.”You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting
off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface.”

Lanius adds that ” It's also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat…If an object is in a dip,
you're going to get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface.”

Argument 6: The telling Boot. This theory surrounds an image of Buzz Aldrin's boot as he lifts his foot to record an image for studying the moon's soil properties. Pictures from the Apollo mission show several well defined boot prints made on the lunar surface. Too defined, according to some sceptics who state the astronauts' boot prints are a bit too well defined and clear. They were imprinted in a bone dry world, for a print to be as well formed as those photographed on the Apollo mission, the imprinted material could have only been wet sand or something similar.

Expert Rebuttal: Bad Astronomy's Plait dismissed this claim as “nonsense” Moon dust, or regolith,
is “like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash.
So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot.”
Taking the airless vacuum on the moon into consideration, Plait concludes that these imprints could remain pristine for a long time.

Argument 7: Not a very strong argument, but an argument none the less.
When Armstrong and Aldrin departed from their July 1969 mission, they left behind part of the Eagle,
the U.S. flag, and along with a few instruments and several mementos. Among them a seismometer
that is depicted in of the Mission photos as Aldrin adjusts the piece of equipment.
Skeptics argue that with today's technology and that of telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope
capable of peering into vastly distant parts of the universe, scientists should definitely be able to see the
these still on the moon, yet no sightings have yet been made, or at least reported – not even by NASA.

Expert Rebuttal: According to Plait, there is no existing telescope on Earth or in space or that matter that
is capable that kind of resolving power. “You can calculate this,” Plait said.
“Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of moon is something
bigger than a house.”

Argument 8: In an image of Buzz Aldrin setting up a foil sheet for collecting solar pictures near the eagles,
strange patterns of light appear in the upper left part of the photo. According to Conspiracy theorists, this is strong evidence of a 'studio' hoax as those unexplained reflections
come from studio lights on a production set.

Expert Rebuttal: According to NASA representatives along with Plait it's highly unlikely NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake the moon landing.

“Okay, let's take a step back,” Plait says “NASA's going to release a picture showing studio lights?
Hello! The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares.” Plait adds “There's a big fat
pentagonal one right in the middle that is from the aperture of the camera itself.”

Compelling arguments and compelling evidence. So was the moon landing really faked? Will Hollywood's 'scrubbed up' landing tape provide more answers or more questions. In all it's discoveries and advancements, Science is still a baby in this universe of ours. Let us not forget that at one point, the mightiest brains of the planet believed the world was 'flat', and also 1/3 of it's actual size.

So more than likely, the answer to the authenticity of the moon landings can be answered by one element: Time.