Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 294 +-   NASA's $73 Million Water-Finding Trick on Monday April 10 2006, @10:25PM

Posted by Zonk on Monday April 10 2006, @10:25PM
from the quite-a-jump-shot dept.
moon
space
nasa
science
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."
story

Related Stories

News: Return to the Moon 197 comments
This discussion has been archived.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.

NASA's $73 Million Water-Finding Trick 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • That's no moon (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2006, @10:26PM (#15103395)
    That's no moon, it's a.... ... pinata?

    • Splash! (Score:5, Funny)

      by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Monday April 10 2006, @11:38PM (#15103690)
      Some of these NASA experiments sound a bit like the Monty Python skit where they try to determine is a woman is a witch or not...

      Which reminds me... Why not send a witch? If she drowns then you know there's water.

      • Re:Splash! (Score:4, Funny)

        by andersa (687550) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:39AM (#15104023)
        I say we nuke the entire site from orbit.. It's the only way to be sure..
      • Silly peasant. Witches burn, and what also burns? Wood. Wood also floats (along with very small rocks). So, if she drowns, then she isn't made of wood, and wouldn't burn, thus isn't a witch.

  • Mission Objective (Score:4, Funny)

    by Shifty Jim (862102) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:27PM (#15103400) Homepage
    Now if they'd just started making this one of the secondary objectives in every mission, there would hardly ever be any failed missions. It's a Win/Win situation.

  • THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EGSonikku (519478) <petersen@mobile.gmail@com> on Monday April 10 2006, @10:34PM (#15103423)
    Since i'm positive someone will post it, i'll debunk it ahead of time.

    "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)

      by Tablizer (95088) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:51PM (#15103508) Homepage Journal
      The Moon has taken much much worse hits from meteors and what not.

      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!"
             
    • "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." This is perhaps the worst analogy designed to combat irrational fears ever.
    • Close; I believe the usual question is actually "WHAT IF WE CHANGE THE MOON'S ORBIT?", actually.

      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 if someday (presumably "someday" in the near-enough future that the question actually concerns the asker) that will cause the Earth and Moon to collide.

      For double extra bonus points, be worried about the possible effect on the Earth's climate all these mas
      • I'm more curious of why they want to do it at all. Isn't the moon covered with craters? Many of which are a lot more than 16 ft deep? Can't they observe the dust and debris around those craters?

        Good question. Unfortunately, the dust around those craters aren't glowing from heat, allowing you to use emission spectroscopy [wikipedia.org]. The article doesn't say that's what they're doing, but that's the only thing I can imagine they'd be doing it for.

        It would probably be satisfactory if a normal asteroid would be polite enou

      • Re:THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by scotch (102596) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:50AM (#15103915) Homepage
        Wow, send a letter to NASA, they obviously haven't thought this through. If even an uneducated arm-chair space-exploration critic like yourself can point out the many flaws in their mission after having thought about it for scant minutes and knowing very little about anything, then the mission is clearly deeply flawed. Thank you sir, your efforts could very well save those NASA scoundrels from wasting another $73million! Don't be surprised if you get called up to provide your valuable insights on all future NASA missions!
          • Yes certainly NASA should come around your house every time they want to plan a mission or spend some money and take time to explain it all to you v e r y s l o w l y indeed so you'll understand and be in a position to to give the yea or nay to whether or not they can go ahead with their plans.

            Of course if you weren't so stupid and could read all the information NASA provides for yourself without the massive expense involved in having NASA come and talk to you specially we'd all be a lot better off.

  • Revival of an old strategy (Score:5, Informative)

    by rijrunner (263757) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:35PM (#15103433)

        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)

    by HermanAB (661181) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:36PM (#15103438)
    I guess NASA did learn something from all the Mars impacts after all... ;)
    • Since Murphy works in space as well as earth, this time there will be a metric to english units conversion problem and they will miss the moon altogether.

  • NASA astronauts (Score:5, Funny)

    by martyb (196687) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:37PM (#15103440)

    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)

    by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:37PM (#15103444) Journal
    Shouldn't they study the ecological effects before maring the pristine surface of our neighbor?

    Have they no respect for the environment?

  • Property damage... (Score:3, Funny)

    by andytrevino (943397) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:38PM (#15103448) Homepage

    They better not hit the sites of any of my future summer homes! [lunarregistry.com]

    ;)

  • Accuracy through unit conversions (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ford Prefect (8777) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:39PM (#15103449) Homepage
    "... it is expected to create a hole 16 feet deep and send up a 2.2 million-pound (998,000-kg) plume of debris"

    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)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:39PM (#15103453) Homepage Journal
    Dozens of ground-based telescopes, as well as possibly space observatories, such as the Hubble telescope, will be trained on the plume as well.

    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)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday April 10 2006, @10:39PM (#15103454)
    When you need to crash a spacecraft, NASA are the go to guys.

  • But.... but.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wbren (682133) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:40PM (#15103462) Homepage
    But... But... The Enterprise doesn't smash a Class 1 Probe into planets when it wants to scan for water, so why does NASA have to? Or maybe this is another instance where I'm inappropriately placing elements of Star Trek technology into contemporary science problems? I'm so confused...

  • Scary idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2006, @10:41PM (#15103468)
    Good Lord,
    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)

    by biocute (936687) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:43PM (#15103478) Homepage
    One thing I like about Moon missions is we can see the results pretty much immediately, we can even see the mission via a telescope!
  • "NASA's mission to crash a probe into the moon came to an unfortunate end today as the probe suffered a glitch and settled into a stable orbit around the Moon instead of the planned death-dive. Officials said they believe the cause of the problem was engineers mistakenly using the metric system in a system where imperial measures should have been used."

    ~Philly
  • Is this really necessary?

    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)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Monday April 10 2006, @11:01PM (#15103547)
    Okay, I admit, I'm a bit of a bumpkin when it comes to understanding the scale of all this. I was just curious: Would this be visible to the naked eye?

    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 ... of all things... fire. There was a theory that a large meteor struck the moon and put on a light show. I was just curious if a.) Anybody knows about the story I'm referring to and can point me at the right search terms to find it and b.) if there's an off-shoot chance that Nasa's going to pull a stunt that'll result in some group of people suddenly dropping to their knees and praying.

    • Re:Will this be visible to the naked eye? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday April 10 2006, @11:20PM (#15103622)
      Is this [bbc.co.uk] maybe what you're referring to? From the linked article:

      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)

    by revery (456516) * <charles@@@cac2...net> on Monday April 10 2006, @11:15PM (#15103596) Homepage
    The project, called "Deep Orbital Water Sensing Emitter" or DOWSE, is NASA's most ambitious project in years. Current plans call for the capital-Y-shaped vessel to be finished and ready for launch in early 2007 and while the execution may be complex, the basic idea is simple. Engines in the craft's stems will propel it toward the moon, while the actual navigational commands will be issued from the hollow body of the vessel. "What will be in that half-mile long tude issuing these complex water-seeking commands," you ask? As much of the US's growing psychic population as NASA can cram in, comes the almost predictable answer. And while the psychics will certainly be killed on lunar impact, NASA feels that this will more than offset the cost of what is almost certain to be a failed mission.

  • how to ensure Success..? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dartarrow (930250) on Monday April 10 2006, @11:18PM (#15103616) Homepage
    ...planning to crash a two-ton probe into the moon."

    To ensure the probe actually crashes I suggest we use MS Windows.

    :D
    COuldn't resist

  • Heh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wolf369T (951405) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:12AM (#15103809) Homepage
    An they will *accidentally* crash the probe on the Apollo 11 landing site. Then listen to the conspirationists...

  • That's so sad... (Score:3, Funny)

    by RMB2 (936187) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:19AM (#15103836)
    From TFA: NASA astronauts visited the moon during the late 1960s and early 1970s under the Apollo program but have not returned.

    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)

    by cje (33931) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @12:45AM (#15103899) Homepage
    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    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.)

    • And if you had said W, you have been modeed up to a 5 for sure.

    • Re:Couldn't they just.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't get it. What does the shuttle have to do with the moon, or finding water on the moon? If you were clever, you could say that Kennedy and a young lady could pilot the next spacecraft to the moon, or make a comment how under a dual-purpose mission strategy Kennedy and a young female astronaut have been selected by Bush for the Moon/Mars initiative.

      You see, Son, that is the thing about political humor. You can't just go sticking it in all willy-nilly where it doesn't fit.

      And the guy who responde

    • Re:Only $72 million? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NitsujTPU (19263) on Monday April 10 2006, @10:37PM (#15103445)
      You know what would be amazing? If we could talk about technology on Slashdot again, and leave Bush out of the conversation. Seriously. What prompted you to say that? Was it political, or about technology (and the troll who tells me that technology is political should lay off)?
    • The knowledge that oil is available is known,
      but it's not likely there is appreciable water in the moon.

      The expediture is relative, and possibly just as moot.
    • Yes, but:

      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 more science?

      Just a thought.
      -nB
      • Bah, I forgot to ask:
        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, best we can do is put the bullet in a LEO and wait for someone who we really want to shoot to come by."

        -nB
      • You don't need a lot of mass for the impactor because you get a lot of kinetic energy out of that v-squared term.

        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)

      by CRC'99 (96526) on Monday April 10 2006, @11:15PM (#15103595) Homepage
      1) One has to wonder if the excitement generated by Deep Impact is just going to spawn a whole series of experiments involving slamming large impactors onto heavenly bodies... if only for the publicity of smashing a heavenly body.

      That's one way to describe the mating process I guess.......

    • One precidence (earlier than Deep Impact) (Score:5, Informative)

      by helioquake (841463) * on Monday April 10 2006, @11:18PM (#15103611) Journal
      NASA tried this impact project with Lunar Prospector in 1999. But it did not lead to any substantial ejection of water vapor off the impact point. No water vapor was observed with the Hubble/STIS (spectrograph). I believe (have not RFTA) that NASA wants to do it right with a proper impactor at this time.
    • Couldn't a nice drill be constructed and landed gently to dig down 16 feet?

      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 result, and almost the entire technology is already tested with the 'deep impact' probe.

      As for 'trashing' the moon, that's rather like saying that a mosquito is trashing my arm -- except that my arm has had far fewer mosquitos.

    • See, things like this are why I am just not that impressed with science...

      comments like this are why science just isn't that impressed with you
Search
The husband who doesn't tell his wife everything probably reasons that what she doesn't know won't hurt him. -- Leo J. Burke

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.