Slashdot Log In
NASA's $73 Million Water-Finding Trick
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:25 PM
from the quite-a-jump-shot dept.
from the quite-a-jump-shot dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The folks at NASA, obviously looking for new ways to explore the universe, are planning to crash a two-ton probe into the moon. The goal? To find water." From the article: "NASA plans a series of robotic precursor missions including the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, which will plow into the crater, and the mapper, called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. When LCROSS strikes the crater, it is expected to create a hole 16 feet deep and send up a 2.2 million-pound (998,000-kg) plume of debris for sensors and cameras stationed on a second spacecraft to monitor. Dozens of ground-based telescopes, as well as possibly space observatories, such as the Hubble telescope, will be trained on the plume as well."
Related Stories
[+]
NASA Begins Work on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 238 comments
soldeed writes "Space.com is reporting the beginning of construction on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Which is scheduled for launch in late fall of 2008. It will orbit the moon at fifty kilometers and image the entire surface at high resolution. A far Ultraviolet instrument will enable it to see into areas permanently in shadow and see if there is indeed ice there. LRO will count craters and image American and Soviet landing sites."
[+]
Book Reviews: Return to the Moon 197 comments
apsmith writes "No matter what the subject, one has to admire a book written by an astronaut and former US senator, illustrated with photos of the author at work on the Moon. When the subject is one as potentially important to the future of our civilization as the energy resources geologist Harrison ("Jack") Schmitt sees buried in the lunar surface, along with our future in space, it becomes all the more daunting to take issue with it. Unfortunately Schmitt's potentially inspiring commercial justification in Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space rests on a shaky foundation." Read the rest of Arthur's review.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
That's no moon (Score:5, Funny)
Splash! (Score:5, Funny)
Which reminds me... Why not send a witch? If she drowns then you know there's water.
Re:Splash! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Splash! (Score:3, Informative)
Mission Objective (Score:4, Funny)
THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:5, Interesting)
"WHAT IF WE DESTROY THE MOON!?"
It won't. A good anaology would be crashing the empire state building into Wyoming. It would look sorta cool, but that's about it.
"WHAT ABOUT DESTROYING NATURE!?"
Well, the moon in a dead chunk of former Earth material which has no atmosphere and certainly no ecology. And as stated previously, the explosion won't be all that neat on a planetary scale. The Moon has taken much much worse hits from meteors and what not.
So basically, break out your telescopes in '08 and enjoy the show.
Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:5, Funny)
Moon: "Mom, finally my acne has started to clear up after four billion years."
Ffffffuump!
Moon: "Oh shit! Just before my big date with Titan!"
Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also something about wondering if we smash enough things into the moon if we'll lower the Earth's gravity and make the Moon heavier. For extra bonus points ask
Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:3, Informative)
Good question. Unfortunately, the dust around those craters ar
Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Revival of an old strategy (Score:5, Informative)
They used to crash the upper stages of the Saturn 5 to gain scientific data from the Moon. Learned a lot that way.
Hard to say if this will work though. The theoretical plume size has a lot of unknowns involved. To date, they have never directly observed water on the Moon, but have only identified a certain amount of hydrogen, which would correspond to a certain amount of water, if that hydrogen was bound in water molecules. If the hydrogen is hydrated minerals, that plume will be much, much smaller than projected.
Mars landers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mars landers (Score:2)
NASA astronauts (Score:5, Funny)
FTA: NASA astronauts visited the moon during the late 1960s and early 1970s under the Apollo program but have not returned.
I think it's a little late, now, to think of sending up missions to bring them back to earth.<grin>
Environmental Impact Study Needed! (Score:3, Funny)
Have they no respect for the environment?
Property damage... (Score:3, Funny)
They better not hit the sites of any of my future summer homes! [lunarregistry.com]
;)
Accuracy through unit conversions (Score:5, Informative)
I think they're most likely ballpark figures for a 5 metre deep crater, and 1000 tonnes of debris. Convert these to imperial measurements and back again without thinking too much, and you gain many significant figures of accuracy!
Hubble (Score:4, Insightful)
It does not look like Hubble will be around long enough. Without shuttle-based repairs, it is not expected to last more than a few more years unless it gets luckier than the Mars rovers.
This collision mission sounds similar to the comet-crash mission last 4th of July, Deep Impact [wikipedia.org].
They're the experts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They're the experts (Score:3, Informative)
But.... but.... (Score:4, Funny)
Klingon Probe Technology (Score:2)
The best part of Star Trek: The Motion Picture [imdb.com] was when the Klingons probed an alien phenomenon in a similar way.
Let's hope NASA's probe has different results!
Scary idea (Score:3, Funny)
In space there's hardly any gravity. I've seen pictures of ordinary humans being able to perform great feats of strength in space, like upside down pushups with the tip of their finger while wearing an orange jumpsuit and gobbling floating blobs of water like a chameleon. I've also seen astronauts on the moon take great flying leaps that no human could do on Earth. If an ordinary human can do those things in space, then obviously a 2 ton weight should be able to do unimaginable damage. It's likely that the moon will either crack into 2 pieces, or possibly fly off into space where it will be gobbled up by Jupiter or become a tenth planet. I can't imagine what these "scientists" are thinking. We seriously need to put a stop to this now.
Moon Missions (Score:3, Insightful)
News article from the future... (Score:5, Funny)
~Philly
I've got to wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm glad that banging stuff together when bored and frustrated is still an accepted practice.
Now to take care of some coworkers...
Will this be visible to the naked eye? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do I ask? I was watching some show on Discovery or History Channel several years ago. They said that in the 1600's or so some monks prayed for a sign, then they looked up at the sky and saw the moon on
Re:Will this be visible to the naked eye? (Score:5, Informative)
There is also a very old historical account that could also be explained by a meteor hitting the Moon. This was recorded by Gervase of Canterbury who, in 1178, along with five other monks, saw a very bright flash on the Moon:
"There was a bright New Moon, and as usual in that phase its horns were tilted towards the east. Suddenly, the upper horn split in two. From the midpoint of the division, a flaming torch sprang up, spewing out fire, hot coals and sparks."
Some astronomers believe that the crater Bruno, one of the youngest on the lunar surface, may have been formed in this event.
More information in this [nasa.gov] article. Hope this helps.
more details.... (Score:5, Funny)
how to ensure Success..? (Score:4, Funny)
To ensure the probe actually crashes I suggest we use MS Windows.
COuldn't resist
Heh... (Score:4, Funny)
That's so sad... (Score:3, Funny)
Those astronauts, who sacrificed so willingly, sitting up there all alone on the Moon for thirty years...
The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:5, Funny)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next
time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment
rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough
to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when
they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the
address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed
at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night?
Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent
nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that
particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear
reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting
trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members
of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the
country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
(Hey, I've seen enough people plagiarize this piece over the years, I thought I might as well post it myself for old time's sake.)
Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:3)
Re:Couldn't they just.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Couldn't they just.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only $72 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only $72 million? (Score:2)
but it's not likely there is appreciable water in the moon.
The expediture is relative, and possibly just as moot.
Re:Only $72 million? (Score:2)
Re:Woot! (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the cost per pound for GEO lift? (this will need at least that much), and how much does this highly scientific bullet weigh?
Certainly a fleet of mars style rovers (which have proven their mettle) would cost no more to lift and produce tons
Re:Woot! (Score:3, Funny)
Has the vehicle dev team talked with the launch team about whether they are using imperial tons or metric tonnes?
I can see it now: Lauch team: metric, Vehicle team: imperial.
"Sir, we don't seem to ahve enough fuel to reach the moon, be
Re:Woot! (Score:2)
It would cost a heck of a lot more to design, develop, build, test, launch, and staff a fleet of rovers than it would to do this mission.
Re:Two funny comments (Score:4, Funny)
That's one way to describe the mating process I guess.......
One precidence (earlier than Deep Impact) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Water quality? (Score:3, Funny)
Somehow, I suspect that's the only kind of cooties you need to worry about.
Re:2.2 million pounds (Score:5, Funny)
Pound Sterling. Converting to US dollars would roughly double the size of the plume, and using Lira would create a dust cloud that encircles the solar system.
KISS (Score:3, Insightful)
But it would be 5 times as expensive, and 10 times more likely to fail. NASA can't afford either of those at this time. You also get to point way more instrumentation at the re
Re:see... (Score:3, Funny)
comments like this are why science just isn't that impressed with you