Whisky Aged On NASA's International Space Station Tastes "Different" 210
MarkWhittington writes: Back in October 2011 Ardbeg Distillery on Islay, the southernmost island of the Inner Hebrides of Scotland, sent a vial of whisky to the International Space Station courtesy of Houston based Nanoracks. The idea was the see if microgravity affects the way that whisky ages, particularly the way terpenes that are the building blocks of food and liquors behave. A similar vial was kept on Earth as a comparison. The BBC reported that the contents of the two vials were sampled and compared. As it turns out, pronounced differences were noted.
Yeah!!! (Score:5, Funny)
That's the sort of science that I like!
Re:Yeah!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Chris Hadfield here. I drank the whole bottle and it sure tasted different. But summary has to be modified, strictly scientifically speaking, we aren't sure if the change of taste came from the fact that the whiskey aged in space or from the fact that I was in space while drinking it.
In phase two, we expect to be able to wait until bottles are back on the planet before taste testing.
Re:Yeah!!! (Score:4, Funny)
But, but ... what was in the bottle that went back to Earth?
Oh God no ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it was the science of marketing they would have aptly called it "Moonshine"
Re: Yeah!!! (Score:5, Funny)
In space its actually called Earthshine
Re: (Score:2)
Not science. Art.
What sort of science is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it the goal seeked science originated by marketing departments that you like?
Did you really think that after oodles of money was spent on this "experiment" that the answer would be "it tastes the same"?
This is reminiscent of the space souvenir industry in the 1970's, where trinkets that had been "in space" possessed some fetishistic value for collectors.
This isn't science at all. The determination of "it tastes different" was made by those with the profit motive to declare as much.
This is the sort of "science" that nobody should like.
Re:What sort of science is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be that quick to condemn it. It's not like they're going to sell off microscopic droplets for $500 each or something stupid like that, else they'd send a whole bottle up and auction that off when it returned.
Distillation and aging of alcohol is actually a very interesting hobby in addition to a huge business. Even if you don't do it yourself, for those who actually enjoy the taste of good whisky (as opposed to chugging a mass-marketed bottle of honky-tonk juice), it's not hard to see that this can be done for perfectly scientific reasons (and food chemistry is only for starters). IMHO, the timespan involved was the bare minimum at best for aging a drinkable whisky in the first place (and the quantity tested way too low given the typical barrel size, no accounting for venting-off of higher-level spirits through a typically semi-porous container, etc), but when every cubic centimeter of ISS has to be accounted for, I get it. Not something I would design, but I get the limitations.
Overall, if it was all about marketing, why didn't one of the mass-marketed spirits makers do it? Ardbeg only has two main stills and only moderate output as far as Scottish distilleries go, if memory serves. It has a recognized name among the glass-sniffing crowd, but it's not exactly a mass-market brand.
Certainly I'll admit that the whole "in spaaaaace!" aspect is there, no doubt. On the other hand, I doubt they'll be slacking off when it comes to analysis, either.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm actually surprised it did taste different, makes me wonder how it would taste if a sample was centrifuged at 10G for two years.
Stirring research, or merely shaken? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stirring research, or merely shaken? (Score:5, Informative)
It would probably impact beer more since beer is carbonated. Because adding CO2 to a liquid turns it acidic, it adds a sour flavor. When you shake carbonated liquid, the CO2 is going to be more likely to combine and turn into a gas, floating to the surface and raising the pH, making it less sour.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a vial supposedly.
one would assume sealed glass vial.
which would make the one's doing the experiment pretty keen on wasting money for some reason or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it a Double Blind Test? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From the article:
The Isle of Inner Hebrides sent a "vial of whiskey" to the space station, and one vial was kept on earth. No mention of the volume or makeup of the two vials (assuming they were both the same). Here is how the two samples were described:
For the earth sample: "The sample had a woody aroma, reminiscent of an aged Ardbeg style, with hints of cedar, sweet smoke and aged balsamic vinegar, as well as raisins, treacle toffee, vanilla and burnt oranges." ... with some more about the flavours on t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You completely missed the point of the GP. It's about testing protocols, not the results. The results are totally unreliable and therefore completely uninteresting without some amount of blind-testing.
It's good to know they've tested and worked out a protocol designed to produce unreliable results.
/sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was it a Double Blind Test? (Score:5, Informative)
In other words. No science was performed in the creation of this blatant attempt to exploit dumb rich people.
That is what I thought at first. Then I went looking for more details and found the paper: The impact of micro-gravity on the release of oak extractives into spirit [ardbeg.com] in which they claim:
Organoleptic Assessment -- multiple micro-gravity and control samples were compared in the sensory laboratory using Ardbeg 'tulip' shaped nosing and tasting glasses, for both triangle tests (in which three 'blind' glasses are compared, two of which contain one sample, and one the other sample) and for detailed aroma and flavour descriptions.
They don't say if it was double-blind or not, but even if it was just single-blind, that's at least passable science.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't say if it was double-blind or not, but even if it was just single-blind, that's at least passable science.
I disagree - using the words "sensory laboratory" adds nothing. Neither does the naming of the type of wine glass used for tasting whiskey. The 'triangle test" might at least add something of a protocol, but we are still talking about a very soft end point - a subjective taste test. This is at most an adjunct to a more rigorous examination. And a real taste test would include many other samples and would have the requirement of being reproducible - something that has been called into question repeatedly
Re: (Score:2)
As I replied to the AC, they did do 'Real Science (tm)' [ardbeg.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Well, depending on the quality of the finished product, the tasters might have gone double blind AFTER the experiment.
Re:Was it a Double Blind Test? (Score:5, Informative)
Real science would have been if they put the two samples in a mass spectrometer and found a significantly different chemistry.
Apparently they did, but that doesn't make sensational headlines. [ardbeg.com]
Re:Was it a Double Blind Test? (Score:4, Insightful)
They show differences, but they don't show what the typical bottle-to-bottle dispersion is in the concentrations for Earth-aged bottles, without which there's no way to judge whether the difference is significant.
[TMB]
NASA's station? (Score:2)
It's one thing to say that this idiotic experiment was run on the United States Orbital Segment but the headline seems to imply NASA's ownership and right of use.
The description of both flavors is identical (Score:5, Interesting)
Earth sample: "The sample had a woody aroma, reminiscent of an aged Ardbeg style, with hints of cedar, sweet smoke and aged balsamic vinegar, as well as raisins, treacle toffee, vanilla and burnt oranges.
"On the palate, its woody, balsamic flavours shone through, along with a distant fruitiness, some charcoal and antiseptic notes, leading to a long, lingering aftertaste, with flavours of gentle smoke, tar and creamy fudge."
Space sample: "Its intense aroma had hints of antiseptic smoke, rubber and smoked fish, along with a curious, perfumed note, like violet or cassis, and powerful woody tones, leading to a meaty aroma.
"The taste was very focused, with smoked fruits such as prunes, raisins, sugared plums and cherries, earthy peat smoke, peppermint, aniseed, cinnamon and smoked bacon or hickory-smoked ham. The aftertaste is intense and long, with hints of wood, antiseptic lozenges and rubbery smoke."
From the given descriptions, I can make no prediction as to how the flavor of one would differ from the other. The description contains only differences that I would expect from two booze tasters tasting the same booze, or from one booze taster tasting the same booze twice but thinking it's different. Or perhaps someone could translate it to English for me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
furthermore it's not enough time for anything to happen it anyways. add to that it spent minimal time in space anyways.
you would expect them to have lab tested it, but no.
it's basically just an advertisement for (japanese iirc) whisky(furthered by claiming the earth base sample to have 'aarberg' taste. the space one is probably the more honest review.. 'fishy').
-lassi
Re: (Score:2)
It is English. There's nothing to translate. If someone says something tastes of raisins then it tastes of raisins. I've seen this sort of criticism before and I don't understand it. When someone says something tastes like something else, why not take it at face value that it is at least their opinion?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The description of both flavors is identical (Score:5, Insightful)
From the given descriptions, I can make no prediction as to how the flavor of one would differ from the other. The description contains only differences that I would expect from two booze tasters tasting the same booze, or from one booze taster tasting the same booze twice but thinking it's different. Or perhaps someone could translate it to English for me?
First off, I will say that I agree to some extent with your implicit skepticism. There have been a lot of double-blind tests that have shown tasting rates, even by professional judges, to be highly flawed.
That said, have you ever tried to describe the difference in taste of two different whiskies to someone else? You need to come up with some way of characterizing the taste -- and while I often am skeptical of these long descriptions, I frequently find that there's something in the flavor profile that often matches my experience pretty well -- "Wow... yeah, I actually DO taste the 'toffee' " or "The 'plum' note really does stand out here." These things are particularly notable when you're sampling a number of different drinks at the same time.
Also, note that these tastings were done blind, and there were three glasses with two having the same whisky, so there were several ways to discount those characteristics which were apparently just "random" variance with "one booze taster tasting the same booze twice but thinking it's different" or whatever.
Anyhow, there's no way to "translate" this exactly, because it's already English. To me, these descriptions tell me that I'm likely to hate the space sample, which sounds positively awful -- "antiseptic smoke, rubber, and smoked fish" are all things that generally are BAD qualities in a scotch nose. Do you want to drink scotch that smells like rubber and fish? "Antiseptic" is a clue that the taster probably thought the alcohol notes were out of balance. There's also the word "curious" in "curious perfumed note" which again hints that something seems out of place or weird. The actual primary taste sounds okay, though very fruity, but the aftertaste again sounds horrible: "intense" is rarely a good thing in aftertastes, and when you pair it with more "antiseptic" and "rubber" -- it sounds to me that whoever drank this stuff HATED it.
The earth sample, on the other hand, has a nice nose, perhaps bourbon-like from the description. The "antiseptic" is downplayed in the taste (though it probably has a little "burn" given the mention), and the "long lingering aftertaste" is not "intense" but rather a blend of "gentle" and "creamy" pleasant flavors like smoke and fudge.
In short, you might think these are similar descriptions, but the basic effect I get is that the earth-based sample was fairly balanced and pleasant overall, with perhaps a little bit of "bite," but the space sample was wildly out-of-balance and, frankly, terrible. I know some people who like "extreme" whiskies that taste pretty weird, and maybe they'd like the space sample. But I imagine the more interesting conclusion (if anything, from such a small, short study) is that space aging can change which notes are brought out in whisky, and perhaps some sort of combination of aging processes could result in something better. But this study was fairly limited.
Re: (Score:2)
in soviet russia... (Score:2)
Seriously, 3 years of unfulfilled temptation? Such a vial wouldn't survive very long on the Mir.
But then, vodka doesn't benefit so much from aging.
Analyzis required (Score:2)
They did exactly that (Score:2)
, if you bothered to RTFA, they analyzed the samples using GC, HPLC, and GC/MS, and found various quantitative differences to explain the qualitative differences found via taste testing.
Einstein's whisky (Score:5, Funny)
Of course they tasted different. Due to relativity, the one on the ground aged longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they tasted different. Due to relativity, the one on the ground aged longer.
Love the joke, but actually it's the other way around. [wikipedia.org]
Re: Einstein's whisky (Score:3)
But I was thinking about the velocity of the ISS. Isn't their time slowed down more due to velocity than it is sped up due to greater distance from Earth's gravity well?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. The two effects compete with each other. And you're right: in the (low) ISS orbit, velocity wins. [ideonexus.com] Gravitational effects dominate in orbits with altitudes greater than 5,900 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
No, GrantRobertson was right. You accounted for gravitational time dilation but forgot relative velocity time dilation [wikipedia.org]. The one on the ground aged longer because the ISS is moving so quickly.
A discussion of the two, and which one outweighs the other:
http://ideonexus.com/2009/02/1... [ideonexus.com]
Other links:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-t... [quora.com]
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/t... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I already conceded, per my reply above. Thanks for the extra info.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any easy way to see the entire posting tree for a thread? Right now, it shows me my post, and all the parents and children of it. But if I expand your post, I don't see other replies. The two ways I know to find those replies are either go back to the original story and find this thread, or to click on your name and find your post. At that point it shows me the replies to your post. Surely there is a better way.
Try again (Score:4, Interesting)
To be a valid they would need to have at least three sample tested by each person. Some would be given 2 Earth whiskies, some 2 space whiskies, some 3 Earth whiskies and some 3 space whiskies. That way it is easier to weed out biases in this very subjective test. Presenting someone with two samples and asking what are the differences biases the tester towards finding differences when none exist.
NASA's? (Score:5, Informative)
Since when does the ISS belong to NASA? The headline is misleading - other countries own the majority of it, and Russia is already planning to recycle their bits when the ISS is scrapped.
Hair of the dog (Score:2)
Let's send a case of Lagavulin on the next re-supply and a box of Advil to see what else might be different in space. If anything...
I love tasting notes (Score:4, Funny)
They never say the thing tastes like what it is. Never does wine have a "distinctive note of fermented grapes". I also love to read a couple tasting notes about the same thing. One will say "citris, vanilla and anise" another "watermelon", "bacon", "chocolate". Without fail they seem to have complete different components. Then you get in the room with a wine or whiskey snob and watch them discuss the "peach note" in the drink. Fantastic.
Thank goodness for the Romulans (Score:2)
You and your puny Earthling beverages!
99% marketing (Score:2)
Sorry, but considering that tens of thousands of pages have been written on the subtle nuances of wine flavors, yet blindfolded wine experts couldn't actually distinguish between red and white varieties, I'm guessing the fine distinctions of whiskeys are pretty much the same.
http://www.theguardian.com/lif... [theguardian.com]
It's certainly credible that a chemical reaction taking place in an environment without convection or gravity, etc might proceed differently in some respects, but I'm going to file this one down around "
It was a good experiment, right? (Score:2)
I suppose that if you get to send stuff up into space for experiments like this, everyone involved makes sure that you have your ducks in a row when it comes to basic science. Nevertheless, I have to ask: they kept both samples at exactly the same temperature, right?
And the microgravity one didn't have the whiskey frequently coming into contact with a stopper or cap, with the Earth gravity one having a constant layer of gas (air or CO2 or something) in between, right?
Right? I ass/u/me so.
(I do think think
We need More Results... (Score:2)
The results where inconclusive, so I suggest that we organize additional experiments which include public taste testing up to and including intoxication and long term experiments which address the long term affects of light to moderate "Space Aged Spirits" consumption.
Too expensive you say? Not so, sell raffle tickets for a chance to be part of the study to varying degrees with the grand prize being a lifetime supply of Space Aged Spirits to offset the costs. Heck, it the stuff is good enough, you could
Who Pays The Bill for $10,000/Lbs? (Score:2)
Who are we going to send the bill to?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ma... [nasa.gov]
Local climate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Its intense aroma had hints of antiseptic smoke, rubber and smoked fish,
I can understand where the smell of antiseptic and rubber came from in the space station.......but wherefore the smoked fish???
Re: (Score:2)
"Its intense aroma had hints of antiseptic smoke, rubber and smoked fish,
I can understand where the smell of antiseptic and rubber came from in the space station.......but wherefore the smoked fish???
Ohh. That so begs ab abswer, but I lack the balls to post it. Or maybe it's that I do have balls...
Re: (Score:2)
Bever say bever!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised the whisky aged differently (or at all) up there; sitting in a glass vial doesn't do much for whisky, it's the barrel that matters. Perha
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't it arrive on Russian spacecraft?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Over here everybody, a new /. record. AC here didn't even read the TITLE of TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
A vial in free-fall changes nothing.
So AC says they're no different. Title says:
Whisky Aged On NASA's International Space Station Tastes "Different"
That wasn't so hard to figure out, now was it?
Re: (Score:2)
AC above apparently thinks they are no different. I don't know if he/she/it would expect toilet aging to make a difference or not.
Re: (Score:2)
My objection was the dismissal of the taste difference. This is an opportunity to learn something about the aging process of whisky. Apparently there is something going on here that might be good to know. If we reject all observation that doesn't match what we already believe we know, we never learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but at least there are problems with the "observation". The article doesn't even mention about any attempt at a blind test, least of all randomized double blind test. That is a serious flaw, worthy of tossing out the subjective results reported by human beings completely.
Only chemical analysis of samples is now remaining as a possibility of valid "observation". They can do the double blind tests now - but possibly not enough is left for the purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but that is a distinctly different argument than "There is no difference, I'm not listening, La La La La":.
However, another article made thinge more clear, both vials included shavings from the inside of a barrel.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that you mention, yes, I expect that thin vertical structures and gravity load bearing sections in general hold up better than on Earth. It's possible to print artwork in space that wouldn't be possible on Terra.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I support space research. (Score:5, Funny)
I support space research......but couldn't they find anything more important to study?
MORE important than WHISKY?
That sound you just heard was my head exploding.
Re:I support space research. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, cognac.
Re: I support space research. (Score:4, Funny)
Star board aged port? You'll have your hands full with confused seamen.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I...guess I meant to post that as AC.
HEY! What's over there?!
Re: (Score:2)
formerly
I don't think this word means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
The article doesn't even mention if the tasting was a blind experiment. If it wasn't, even the tasting's results are totally insignificant.
I'd be interested in a study about beer brewing in micro-gravity. Specifically, how yeasts handle such atypical conditions. Would have some practical purposes, besides the booze.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably worthwhile in terms of how to confine potentially dangerous substances, and the benefits to fermented foods in space.
I *really* wouldn't like to experience a vigorous wort fermentation in a confined space. You know it produces CO2 and ethanol?
OTOH, kimchi would be a BLAST!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"One of the things they do for science up there is to see if normal things end up different simply because of the microgravity."
Which is precisely why, as the previous poster indicated above, a precise analysis of the returned vial would have been more helpful than some guy tasting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the god-knows-how-many-G launch acceleration and/or the travel back down had some impact as well.
Did they also include vials to test right after arrival and right before departure?
Re:I support space research. (Score:5, Informative)
They actually did a precise chemical analysis, in addition to tasting the whisky.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/science/space-whisky-glass.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
The article says that the whisky had lower amounts of compounds that are typically extracted from the oak. Most of what I could find online is pretty light on the details of what's different chemically, but there was definitely more done than tasting.
Re:I support space research. (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, FINALLY, they tell us exactly how they 'aged' the whisky (normal aging entails long-term storage in 'previously used' charred oak barrels).
In the Ardbeg experiment, 32 vials, each with six milliliters of unaged whisky, were sent to the space station in 2011 and then mixed with oak shavings. After 971 days of aging, the whisky returned to Earth last year to be compared with samples that had been aged on the ground. Dr. Lumsden and a panel of experts sniffed and tasted, and he ran them through a battery of chemical analyses.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they imply that when they mentioned they broke the glass on their MixStix(tm) on Earth: From the PDF [ardbeg.com], emphasis mine:
... in January 2012, the experiment was initiated, as the astronauts broke the glass separating walls in the individual MixStix(TM), thus allowing the distillate and the oak wood shavings to come into contact with each other. At the same time on Earth, we initiated the control experiment by breaking the separating wall in my MixStix(TM) on Islay (which had been sent back to me at Ardbeg Distillery from NanoRack’s laboratories in Houston, USA).
So it looks like Ardbeg sent hooch and shavings to NanoRack in Houston, they created two (identical?) MixStix, and sent one to Russia to be boosted and the other back to Islay.
Re: I support space research. (Score:5, Informative)
GO (fuck yourselves) NASA!!
What's NASA got to do with this?
This was the result of Ardbeg Distillery being invited by a company called NanoRacks to send a vial of whiskey up in a Russian rocket to the International Space Station - which is run by five participating space agencies, only one of which is NASA.
You want to damn an entire agency because a single vial of liquid was taken into space? I'm sure there have been plenty of experiments on different food stuffs in space, but you think that on this occasion this one example shows them to be a sham. Sorry, but that is a textbook case of overreaction. I bet you are still hurt from having your crayon-written application to be an astronaut denied. Or maybe you are just mad that NASA keep producing findings of studies that are at odds to your beliefs about global warming.
Re: I support space research. (Score:5, Funny)
You want to damn an entire agency because a single vial of liquid was taken into space?
Only if it was over 3 ounces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Flawed premise... (Score:5, Interesting)
To assume that all chemical interaction stops merely because you've put a liquid in a glass container is perhaps somewhat naive. Whiskey, wine, and essentially everything else, continues to age in the bottle, albeit at different rates. Given the profound changes that are evident in a matter of days-to-months when wood is included in the ageing process, it is easy to dismiss the changes that happen when it is not included, but that is a mistake.
I make a sour cherry infusion from brandy. It matures significantly in sealed glass, changing color from bright cherry to deep maroon, and peaking in flavor at 5-8 years. The biggest change in color comes after the first year, but the taste continues to develop, significantly, over many years. After about 15 years, the flavor starts to lose it's depth, and it becomes less interesting.
I have no doubt that a difference could be detected between a whiskey aged in vial that in microgravity would lack convective currents versus the equivalent on Earth if vibration were adequately controlled such that convection would be the major mixing force on Earth versus diffusion in space. I do not, however, think anyone could predict what the differences would be. An interesting follow-on experiment would be to age whiskey in a centrifuge at 2g, 5g, 10g, and beyond. In an ultra-centrifuge, convection also essentially ceases as a mixing mechanism, but now diffusion would in addition be limited.
Re:Flawed premise... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flawed premise... (Score:5, Interesting)
The amount of change in a scotch whiskey is absolutely tiny after it has been put in a bottle. There are almost no reagents available in a normal bottle with there being a tiny amount in the air trapped under the lid / cap / cork and the tiny tiny tiny amount of tannin that was leached out of the timber during ageing. If this was a glass vial I expect the air quantity to be even lower.
The only real changes you may get are where the bottle goes through too wide a heat range and as a result pushes and pulls air past the seal.
Note this is different from say Bourbon which does age in the bottle, in particular because it still has a high tannin level when bottled. Taking the example of your cherry infusion you have introduced a significant amount of sugar to the mix and a number of reagents so it is much more inline with a wine then a distillate spirit at the time you bottle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whisky is aged in wooden barrels...they just put it in glass bottles to sell it...
I bought several of those cheap bottles of Macallan from Costco back when that was a thing and I can tell you personally that the stuff gets smoother the longer you leave it in the bottle. I usually have six or seven 18+ year old single malts going at once, so sometimes one or more of them is around long enough to age substantially after purchase.
All quality scotches are corked, as in with a cork. The cork breathes. And that doesn't even account for the effects of what amount of air is sealed into the bottl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All quality scotches are corked, as in with a cork
Utter rubbish. Cork is not inherently better than a simple screw-cap (each has their own disadvantages). These days pretty much every brand and bottler I know of (plenty...) uses screw-caps, except for special editions that are meant as expensive gifts or for collectors. Perhaps it was more common in the past, but if you buy an 18, 35 or 50 year old whisky today, chances are that it has been bottled only very recently.
Re: (Score:2)
These days pretty much every brand and bottler I know of (plenty...) uses screw-caps
I buy a bit of scotch, and I have never ever seen any of the single malt brands I buy use a screw cap. Bourbon of the same age, sure. But not scotch.
It's a fact that screw caps and corks behave differently, though. Even plastic corks and natural ones are different, if you don't design them correctly. But they actually do; good plastic corks are deliberately designed to mimic the properties of natural ones. Screw caps, not so much. Even Wikipedia can educate you here. Go forth and read it.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose I need to stick my nose in there a bit more often before opening my big mouth, though my wife might disagree with that.,,
Re: (Score:2)
Both of TFAs say that a similar vial (presumably also with wood shavings) was kept on Earth for comparison. So, apples to apples.
Re: (Score:2)
Try that in re-purposed Iranian centrifuges.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever criticisms one may have of the experiment (or the reporting,) aging the samples differently is not one of them. Both of TFAs say that a similar vial (presumably also with wood shavings) was kept on Earth for comparison. So no, they didn't compare the space-sample to earthbound oak-barrel-aged whisky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I .... *hurps* shhhtill cannot make a dec... desh... deshishon. Needs more *hick* shamplin'.
Re: (Score:2)
And the barrel shavings were in the vial.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it comes from a distillery in Scotland, it's spelled whisky. Generally, whiskey is used for what's made in the US.