Really, they couldn't afford to put even a token image in there? ScienceDaily really is a trash publication, and ofc not just for this.
"We have discovered these truly beautiful samples of extraterrestrial material, absolutely incredible to behold, breathtaking in its glistening crystaline appearance, one of the finest samples we've ever seen... anyway here's an Excel spreadsheet and a bunch of academic references."
From your link, "the researchers extracted beads from deep within samples". Which made me laugh as earlier they stated, "The beads, each less than 1 mm across," so deep here is relative.
I went to TFA to see if there were additional data, as the article didn't mention what the analysis results were to see what the beads were made of, yet it's an exact copy.
> From your link, "the researchers extracted beads from deep within samples". Which made me laugh as earlier they stated, "The beads, each less than 1 mm across," so deep here is relative.
What's contradictory about this? The beads are small and they taken from underneath the surface: [0]
> These black glass beads were collected in a double drive tube during Apollo 17 from a depth of ∼0.5 m on the south rim of Shorty Crater.
not samples taken from deep in the lunar surface--is .5m really deep though
they were concerned the surface of the samples would be contaminated by earth's atmosphere. regardless of where the samples were taken in regards to the moon's surface, they'd still need to be worked here on earth's surface. so they are taking their samples from within each bead from the "depths" of the 1mm bead and not just scratching something off the bead's surface.
Edit: I finally read "extracted beads from deep with in samples" correctly. ::face-palm::
Articles only need click-bait titles, not pictures, in order to be profitable. Relevant and informative pictures are an unecessary expense. People don’t read articles to be informed, people read articles to feel smart. And to just feel smart, you don’t actually need a picture.
Really, they couldn't afford to put even a token image in there? ScienceDaily really is a trash publication, and ofc not just for this.
"We have discovered these truly beautiful samples of extraterrestrial material, absolutely incredible to behold, breathtaking in its glistening crystaline appearance, one of the finest samples we've ever seen... anyway here's an Excel spreadsheet and a bunch of academic references."
Nevermind, at least the original source comes through: https://source.washu.edu/2025/06/why-the-moon-shimmers-with-...
From your link, "the researchers extracted beads from deep within samples". Which made me laugh as earlier they stated, "The beads, each less than 1 mm across," so deep here is relative.
I went to TFA to see if there were additional data, as the article didn't mention what the analysis results were to see what the beads were made of, yet it's an exact copy.
> From your link, "the researchers extracted beads from deep within samples". Which made me laugh as earlier they stated, "The beads, each less than 1 mm across," so deep here is relative.
What's contradictory about this? The beads are small and they taken from underneath the surface: [0]
> These black glass beads were collected in a double drive tube during Apollo 17 from a depth of ∼0.5 m on the south rim of Shorty Crater.
0: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001910352...
"deep within the samples"
not samples taken from deep in the lunar surface--is .5m really deep though
they were concerned the surface of the samples would be contaminated by earth's atmosphere. regardless of where the samples were taken in regards to the moon's surface, they'd still need to be worked here on earth's surface. so they are taking their samples from within each bead from the "depths" of the 1mm bead and not just scratching something off the bead's surface.
Edit: I finally read "extracted beads from deep with in samples" correctly. ::face-palm::
Articles only need click-bait titles, not pictures, in order to be profitable. Relevant and informative pictures are an unecessary expense. People don’t read articles to be informed, people read articles to feel smart. And to just feel smart, you don’t actually need a picture.
More to the point -- even if there were no pictures, I'm sure the ads loaded successfully.
For those who browse without protection, at least.
Apollo 17 astronauts discovering orange on the moon [0]. Probably my favorite recording from any Apollo mission. Their childlike glee is infectious.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipj1aFZxTt0