Space Whisky!

[pavonis]

Finally, a real use for the International Space Station! The Ardbeg Distillery aged some whisky in space just to see what would happen (pure science at its best). Now they've found out that it tastes noticeably different from terrestrial aged stuff. They kept a control sample in an identical container here on Earth, naturally.

 

Running laps around Earth hasn't been inspiring. What little research conducted on orbit isn't particularly newsworthy. Now this news, though, might actually lead somewhere. Once upon a time, microgravity was thought to be an ideal environment for factories or chemical synthesis. Most of those ideas didn't pan out, because there was no significant difference between the products made on Earth and those in orbit. But if this microgravity-aging whisky research leads somewhere, maybe that'll stimulate real investment in orbital facilities. They wouldn't even need to be manned. Just launch some whisky up for aging, and bring it back down when done.

 

If microgravity whisky tastes different than terrestrial whisky, perhaps low-gravity whisky tastes different yet. Maybe an unmanned aging facility on the moon is in the near future.

 

http://www.ardbeg.com/ardbeg/experiment

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I'm not really a whisky drinker. At all. I can respect the research on astro-booze, though, and this is interesting! But here's the bottom line of that test. To me, it seems "different" doesn't necessarily mean "good" http://www.ardbeg.com/CDN/ardbeg-media/ardbeg/supernova/ARD9109SupernovaWhitePaperA4.pdf :

 

Control Sample

– a.b.v. 58.4%, reduced to 26% for tasting

Aroma – Very woody, hints of cedar wood, sweet smoke and aged balsamic vinegar. Hints of raisins, treacle toffee, vanilla and burnt oranges. Very

reminiscent of an aged Ardbeg style.

Taste – Dry palate, woody/balsamic flavours, sweet smoke and clove oil. A distant fruitiness (prunes/dates), some charcoal and antiseptic notes. The

aftertaste is long, lingering and typically Ardbeg, with flavours of gentle smoke, briar wood, tar and some sweet, creamy fudge.

Analyt

ISS Sample

– a.b.v. 56.0%, reduced to 26% for tasting

Aroma – Intense and rounded, with notes of antiseptic smoke, rubber, smoked fish and a curious, perfumed note , like cassis or violet. Powerful

woody notes, hints of graphite and some vanilla. This then leads into very earthy/soil notes, a savoury, beefy aroma, and then hints of rum & raisin

flavoured ice cream.

Taste – A very focussed flavour profile, with smoked fruits (prunes, raisins, sugared plums and cherries), earthy peat smoke, peppermint, aniseed,

cinnamon and smoked bacon or hickory-smoked ham. The aftertaste is pungent, intense and long, with hints of wood, antiseptic lozenges and rubbery smoke.

 

 

 

 

MMMMMMM! I loves me the taste of antiseptic lozenges and rubbery smoke!

[pavonis]

Yeah, different isn't better. But understanding why it's different is the first step in controlling the process.

 

Better, more interesting whisky through science!

[Carrie Mathison]

The white paper leaves a little to be desired. Basically all it says is that some compounds were at different levels when comparing the control and the space samples, and then a taste test was done. But almost nothing was written about how the taste test was done.

How many participants? Who were they? Were they involved in the study or drawn from a random population? (I suspect the former, given that the paper talks about "when we tested" on pg 5). Was this a blind taste test? Was there some control measure to neutralize flavors in between testing (like drinking water or something)?

Can a human being really distinguish the difference between 31.6 mg/L of sinapaldehyde and 47.7 mg/L? I strongly suspect the placebo effect here. I think this is complete horsesh-t, sorry pav.

 

We see the same thing all the time- take wine tests, where studies have proven that so called experts not only can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine, but can't even tell the difference between red and white wine, when food coloring is added.

[Pong Messiah]

Can a human being really distinguish the difference between 31.6 mg/L of sinapaldehyde and 47.7 mg/L? I strongly suspect the placebo effect here. I think this is complete horsesh-t, sorry pav.

 

Yes, I would suspect so, if only because the sense of taste and smell can be freakishly powerful in some people. I don't care how many studies prove we can't tell the difference -- if I know the brands of whiskey that are on hand, I could tell you which one was used to make a cocktail 95% of the time, easy, and I am far from a connoisseur. But also yes -- a big yes -- to likely placebo affect, too.

 

Would make for a great gimmick, but until the whole taste and style thing is worked out, it's just that -- a great gimmick. And I'm not changing my position until pavonis brings me some.

 

That said, it's a cool gimmick!

[Carrie Mathison]

Ah yes, the whole "I know there are actual studies on this, but I am right and you are wrong!" argument. You know who you sound like? And who you routinely make fun of for doing this? MG.

 

Look pong, different whiskeys I can buy, if only because depending on the whiskey, they are vastly different. Different ingredients, aged in different casks, different distillery method, and so on. Even someone who has never had whiskey in their entire life could tell you a scotch tastes different than an Irish whisky, or a bourbon and so on.

 

But saying different items that are actually different, and telling me they taste different.. it's like, well.. duh. Refried beans does not taste like a popsicle.

 

We're not talking about different things here though pong. We're talking about the same brand of whiskey, aged in the same wooden cask, the difference being one was in space. Which caused a difference in some random compound to the tune of 16 milligrams. And you're saying people actually can tell? Bullsh-t. This 'experiment' is a lot more similar to the studies I posted, the ones where people in a blind taste test can't tell different qualities of wine, and can't even tell white wine from red when you color it and put it in a red wine bottle. The people here said it tasted different because they got a bottle of space whiskey and wanted to pretend like they had some sophisticated palate. It's bullsh-t and you know it.

[Pong Messiah]

And you're saying people actually can tell?

Yes. As I said: I suspect there are people who can actually tell extremely minute differences. Also, as I said: I think there is a placebo affect at work here with the whiskey.

 

[pavonis]

Honestly, I just hoped a topic on whisky would draw you out, CM, and I am pleased I was right. I had also hoped to draw out Mara on the topic of the ISS (once upon a time she was a staunch defender of the value of space exploration). Failed on that one.

 

Obviously the tasters were small in number because the volume of whisky aged in space was too small to split among a larger, statistically significant population without sacrificing volume. How small a volume is large enough to get the full flavor of a whisky? And of course I'd expect the Ardbeg employees to take first crack at it. Would those tasters describe the same stuff in the same way on different days, or if they were feeling different? Probably not. Clearly wine ratings are influenced more by the state of mind of the taster than the actual product's composition. Is the same true of whisky? I've not looked up any studies on that yet but would expect it to hold. Taste is subjective, and strongly influenced by mood and expectations. Still, something to discuss! How often do space topics and booze topics intersect?

 

I'm not a biochemist, but I do understand diffusion. Theoretically gravity shouldn't have any effect on the diffusion of chemicals from the wood chips into the alcohol, because the scale is too small. Molecules don't "feel" gravity at that scale. Yet conceivably there could be weak circulation currents in the fluids while in gravity that might lead to a greater extraction of terpenes. The currents would be different in microgravity. The radiation in space could lead to a change in the flavor, too, through reactions in the wood and/or alcohol.

 

It's no peer-reviewed journal article, and the results aren't solid. Yet, what if there is an effect, and it can be identified, quantified and controlled? Might then there be a real, profitable reason to launch **** into space?

[Destiny Skywalker]

So I drink a lot of wine, because I have children. And I can tell you that my palette just says, "This one is good, this one is gross."

 

Ok, in all seriousness, we used to do a lot of wine tasting, and you do learn how to compare qualities in a wine. My husband is much better at it than I am, but I think if all you're tasting is 2 different version of the same, it's a lot easier to pick out differences. At a lot of these wine tasting events, they'd do a flight or a ladder so you could see how a wine changes year to year. Same grapes, same recipe, but older or younger. You could tell differences. And I am not a professional wine taster, I certainly do not have the right palette. But there are people out there with very refined palettes, and a wine maker or whiskey distiller has to have a well-developed palette to pick up on the nuances.

 

Is it a hard science? Certainly not. But I do think it is possible for certain people to pick up on the differences.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Yeah, different isn't better. But understanding why it's different is the first step in controlling the process.

 

Better, more interesting whisky through science!

I grant you that I am sure through trial and error, a good astro whisky could be developed. And It is actually kind of cool they are trying to do it, even if it is mostly for PR. Good find.

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

Whoops! How did you let the big asteroid hit the planet? Didn't you see it coming?

 

No, we were too busy brewing whiskey

[The Kurgan]

Damn it people. It's whiskey. Not whisky.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Yeah, sure. Maybe in Canada it is.....

[Pong Messiah]

I was taught that in Canada, it's "whisky," because there is no E in Canada. Is that wrong?

 

i.e.

 

If it is produced by a country that has an E in its name -- like the United States -- it is Whiskey

 

If it is produced by a country without an E in its name -- like Canada, or in this case, Scotland -- it is Whisky

 

Wrong?

[Destiny Skywalker]

Are you suggesting that countries without an e in their name do not realize the letter e exists?

[Guest]

Those countries hate the letter E because it reminds them that they are, in fact, English.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Are you suggesting that countries without an e in their name do not realize the letter e exists?

Actually, he's telling the truth, at least about the rule of thumb: the producers in United States and Ireland spell it whiskey, and producers in Scotland and Canada spell it whisky, but either spelling is technically correct. People just say if the country has an "e" in it, then it's spelled whiskey, as a way to remember which spelling to use. It's basically like the ketchup/catsup thing. I was just having fun with Kurgan (because I intentionally had it backwards), and I think he was actually having fun with the spelling himself.

[Guest]

And I was just having fun being a jerk.

[Pong Messiah]

pffffft Fozzie doesn't have fun

[The Kurgan]

I thought it was "whiskey" and that's just how it was. I had no idea the spelling varied by country.

[Guest]

pffffft Fozzie doesn't have fun

Fun = not crying.

[Ryn]

I was taught that in Canada, it's "whisky," because there is no E in Canada. Is that wrong?

It's pretty much just a marketing distinction.

[Pong Messiah]

Seagram's blended whiskey is Canadian whisky.

 

It doesn't even make any sense!!!