PDA

View Full Version : Water on the moon


dagger0824
14 November 2009, 00:20
Splash! NASA moon crash struck lots of water
By ALICIA CHANG (AP) – 3 hours ago

LOS ANGELES — Suddenly, the moon looks exciting again. It has lots of water, scientists said Friday — a thrilling discovery that sent a ripple of hope for a future astronaut outpost in a place that has always seemed barren and inhospitable.
Experts have long suspected there was water on the moon. Confirmation came from data churned up by two NASA spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.
"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, lead scientist for the mission, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.
The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.
Some space policy experts say that makes the moon attractive for exploration again. Having an abundance of water would make it easier to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying drinking water and a key ingredient for rocket fuel.
"Having definitive evidence that there is substantial water is a significant step forward in making the moon an interesting place to go," said George Washington University space policy scholar John Logsdon.
Even so, members of the blue-ribbon panel reviewing NASA's future plans said it doesn't change their conclusion that the program needs more money to get beyond near-Earth orbit. The panel wants NASA to look at other potential destinations like asteroids and Mars.
"This new and terrific result reassures us about lunar resources, but ... the challenges currently facing the human spaceflight program remain," Chris Chyba, a Princeton astrophysicist who is on the panel, said in an e-mail.
President George W. Bush had proposed a more than $100 billion plan to return astronauts to the moon, then go on to Mars; a test flight of an early version of a new rocket was a success last month. President Barack Obama appointed the special panel to look at the entire moon exploration program. The decision is now up to the White House, and NASA's lunar plans are somewhat on hold until then.
As for unmanned exploration, previous missions had detected the presence of hydrogen in lunar craters near the moon's poles, possible evidence of ice. In September, scientists reported finding tiny amounts of water in the lunar soil all over the moon's surface.
But it was NASA's Oct. 9 mission involving the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, LCROSS, that provided the stunning confirmation announced Friday — water, in the forms of ice and vapor.
"Rather than a dead and unchanging world, it could in fact be a very dynamic and interesting one," said Greg Delory of the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the mission, led by NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif.
The LCROSS spacecraft only hit one spot on the moon and it's unclear how much water there is across the entire moon.
The October mission involved two strikes into a permanently shadowed crater near the south pole. First, an empty rocket hull slammed into the Cabeus crater. Then, a trailing spacecraft recorded the drama live before it also crashed into the same spot four minutes later.
Though scientists were overjoyed with the plethora of data beamed back to Earth, the mission was a public relations dud. Space enthusiasts who stayed up all night to watch the spectacle did not see the promised giant plume of debris.
NASA scientists had predicted the twin impacts would spew six miles of dust into the sunlight. Instead, images revealed only a mile-high plume, and it was not visible to many amateur astronomers peering through telescopes.
Scientists spent a month analyzing data from the spacecraft's spectrometers, instruments that can detect strong signals of water molecules in the plume.
"We've had hints that there is water. This was almost like tasting it," said Peter Schultz, professor of geological sciences at Brown University and a co-investigator on the LCROSS mission.
Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who in 1969 made his historic Apollo 11 moonwalk with Neil Armstrong, was pleased to hear the latest discovery, but still believes the U.S. should focus on colonizing Mars.
"People will overreact to this news and say, `Let's have a water rush to the moon,'" Aldrin said. "It doesn't justify that."
Mission scientists said it would take more time to tease out what else was kicked up in the moon dust.

I think that's very impressive, and will eventually lead up to being a space outpost on the moon. I do agree with Aldrin about colonizing Mars though- that would be interesting.

cryptodan
14 November 2009, 00:37
It doesn't look like the POTUS is going to go to bat for more money for NASA and their next planned manned mission to the moon. They are grossly underfunded right now...

McNamara
14 November 2009, 01:41
It may be wise to attempt a Moon colony as a rehearsal for Mars, and the water there will simplify logistics. True, the current POTUS thinks he has too much on his plate to fund something along those lines, but he may change his mind or the next president may give it the go-ahead. Best to plan for the most scientifically feasible plan in any case. I'd like to see something new achieved in my life along the same lines as what was achieved in my parents' lives.

sfmedicw9
14 November 2009, 08:40
wonder what bottled moon water is going to cost at walmart?

Scotty
14 November 2009, 10:09
Considering as soon as you find it, it would all spew away into space steamed off, probably a lot!

Scotty

ET1/ss nuke
14 November 2009, 10:24
Water ice on the moon? Doesn't matter.

Still pointless to try to colonize useless rocks with no proven resources that aren't available here at a millionth of the cost, all in an environment that is instantly toxic to anyone with the tiniest of leaks in their suit/ship/house, at distances that are hostile to unscheduled resupply in the event of emergencies or malfunctions.

We haven't even figured out how to affordably colonize the arctic islands of Canada for extraction of more resources than have ever been found on the moon or Mars. A moon base reeks of throwing tax money at a boondoggle designed to keep civil servants and contractors employed for no good reason.

ichabod1515
15 November 2009, 17:35
I know some researchers are working on an Earth to Moon space elevator, sounds crazy I know but it's true. With water being on the moon now I can see more money being thrown on alternative plans to the moon. With in the next 10 years I bet we will start to see some type of colonization on the moon.

nofear
15 November 2009, 17:42
Still pointless to try to colonize useless rocks with no proven resources that aren't available here at a millionth of the cost, all in an environment that is instantly toxic to anyone with the tiniest of leaks in their suit/ship/house, at distances that are hostile to unscheduled resupply in the event of emergencies or malfunctions.

My knowledge in the subject matter is probably less than my knowledge of the female psyche, but isn't the intended goal of a moon colony to assist in further space travel? It will be easier to send off a ship from the Moon than it will ever be from earth.

The supply of equipment to the moon to build this base and any exploration missions obvioualy will always be an issue, but the actual launch of the mission/s would benefit greatly by starting off in space as opposed to starting on earth.

But I could always be wrong...

SOTB
15 November 2009, 17:46
A moon base reeks of throwing tax money at a boondoggle designed to keep civil servants and contractors employed for no good reason.There are two reasons why I disagree with you.

First, these "boondoggles" can generate some amazing technology. Perhaps we find it too expensive to fly up there and do invent an elevator. Perhaps we go half way with the elevator and the other half with flight (or propelled drift -- if you prefer). Perhaps in the search for how to get there we find the ability to harness energy from space and figure out how to get it back down to us on earth. Etc., etc., etc.

Second, great people should do great things. If for no other reason than to demonstrate to those that aren't so great -- that they aren't so great. Yeah, I'm serious....

Longrifle
15 November 2009, 19:02
First, these "boondoggles" can generate some amazing technology. . .
Entire books have been written about the myriad "spin-offs" from NASA projects. A lot of stuff we take for granted today came about as a result of the "space race."

NASA's budget for 1966 was 5.5% of the national budget. This year it is 0.55%.

US Dept. of Education's budget is a whole lot bigger, and what do we have to show for any of that?

Interesting graph here. (http://www.federalbudget.com/)

KSM
15 November 2009, 19:06
[QUOTE=nofear;1224922]but isn't the intended goal of a moon colony to assist in further space travel? [QUOTE]

That's how I look at it. Travel and colonization of other planets, moons, etc. isn't just a fancy idea, it's actually necessary for the long-term survival of our species. Even if you ignore all the doomsday scenarios regarding killer asteroids, nuclear war, ice ages, etc., someday the sun is going to explode and take our solar system with it. Granted, that's a long ways off (so the scientists say), but it will happen, it's a scientific fact. You have to start somewhere.

Terminator2
16 November 2009, 01:17
There needs to be some kind of terraforming technology that could be used on a very large, if not planet wide scale, first, if colonization is to be possible. The question is, also, how long would doing so take? Could we speed up a process that took 6 billion years to only take a few years? Could they, in just a few generations turn Mars, or a moon of Saturn or Jupiter into a world like Earth?

GreenMeany 5
16 November 2009, 01:24
There needs to be some kind of terraforming technology that could be used on a very large, if not planet wide scale, first, if colonization is to be possible. The question is, also, how long would doing so take? Could we speed up a process that took 6 billion years to only take a few years? Could they, in just a few generations turn Mars, or a moon of Saturn or Jupiter into a world like Earth?

Should they?

ET1/ss nuke
16 November 2009, 22:56
There needs to be some kind of terraforming technology that could be used on a very large, if not planet wide scale, first, if colonization is to be possible. The question is, also, how long would doing so take? Could we speed up a process that took 6 billion years to only take a few years? Could they, in just a few generations turn Mars, or a moon of Saturn or Jupiter into a world like Earth?

Wouldn't it make more sense, if we had any such technology, to use it to make Antarctica, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and Siberia into farmland with accessible resources? Why go into outer space in search of what is right under our noses in conditions more feasible to sustaining life and profits?