Hot Comments
- About time! (5 points, Informative) by sackvillian on Tuesday February 09, @09:50AM attached to Call For Scientific Research Code To Be Released
- Re:Be careful using the P2V tool. (5 points, Informative) by klocwerk on Tuesday February 09, @03:41PM attached to The Hidden Treasures of Sysinternals
- W.A.G. (5 points, Insightful) by ipb on Tuesday February 09, @01:17PM attached to How Do You Accurately Estimate Programming Time?
- Re:Surprise (5 points, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09, @04:38PM attached to Microsoft Says Windows 7 Not Killing Batteries
- No problem (5 points, Insightful) by rastoboy29 on Wednesday February 10, @05:27AM attached to Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obscenity Standards
6989916
story
Comments: 177 +- Science: NASA's LCROSS Mission Proves Lunar Ice Suspicions on Friday November 13, @02:30PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnasa.gif); width:74px; height:67px;
nasa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoon.gif); width:46px; height:51px;
moon
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
NASA is reporting that preliminary data from the LCROSS mission indicates that there really is water in one of the permanently shadowed lunar craters, just as they suspected back in September. "'We are ecstatic,' said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS project scientist and principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. 'Multiple lines of evidence show water was present in both the high angle vapor plume and the ejecta curtain created by the LCROSS Centaur impact. The concentration and distribution of water and other substances requires further analysis, but it is safe to say Cabeus holds water.'"
Related Stories
NASA's LCROSS Spacecraft Discovers Life On Earth 171 comments
Unambiguous Evidence of Water On the Moon 251 comments
LCROSS Team Changes Target Crater For Impact 39 comments
Because I don't need to worry about finances I can ignore Microsoft
and take over the (computing) world from the grassroots.
-- Linus Torvalds
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Whats the hold up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The hold up? Probably the part where a base on the moon is pointless and exceedingly expensive? I mean, sure, it'd be cool... but let's be reasonable, here: there is *nothing* on the moon worth getting (and before you He3-fusion wankers chime in, go read this [bautforum.com]).
Re:Whats the hold up (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Whats the hold up (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if it does require half a million tons of equipment, that equipment can be made on the Moon rather than launched from Earth at $40k or even $4k per ton. Also it's worth noting that current GDP contribution from natural gas and electricity in the US is somewhere around $200 billion dollars. If you can get the overall fusion power infra
Re:Whats the hold up (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a pretty ignorant post on He3 mining due to the exaggerated cost estimate, lack of local manufacture, and ignorance of other materials found in lunar regolith.
Given that the moon is composed of largely the same minerals as those on earth, you'd have to massively deplete our terrestrial resources before mining the moon became even *remotely* cost effective.
Even if it does require half a million tons of equipment, that equipment can be made on the Moon rather than launched from Earth at $40k or even $4k per ton.
Uh... from what, exactly? Or do you plan to bootstrap and entire manufacturing sector on the moon and *then* start mining He3?
If you can get the overall fusion power infrastructure including lunar mining to under say, a couple of trillion dollars, then you could switch over the US electricity and heating infrastructure completely to lunar-fueled fusion power. My view is that this mining infrastructure could probably be made and deployed for hundreds of billions of dollars *or less* once manufacture is established on the Moon.
Wait wait... let me get this straight. *If* you can build a fusion power infrastructure *and* lunar mining, including an *entire manufacturing base on the moon*, for under a *couple of trillion dollars*, a moonbase is suddenly worthwhile?
Wow. That's a really convincing argument, there. ::rollseyes::
Or we could just get Hydrogen-Boron fusion working, which runs at lower temperatures, and uses materials easily available on earth.
But you're right. I'm sure your idea is much better.
All of these would be byproducts of such a vast mining operation. Revenue from this operation would be more than just He3.
None of which is worth the cost of retrieval. All are exceedingly common, save for helium, which, conveniently, is a by-product of H-H fusion, and so if we ever did manage to develop controlled fusion, we could just make it ourselves.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or we could just get Hydrogen-Boron fusion working, which runs at lower temperatures, and uses materials easily available on earth.
This is a killer and one of the big problems now for anything coming from space. Namely, why go to space to get something, if there's a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The moon is NOT "composed of largely the same minerals as those on earth". It's got far less metals and useful stuff than earth. As far as we can tell, the moon is the splashed-off surface of the earth, after an impact with another body.
The heavy, useful stuff like metal didn't really make it to the moon in any good quantity - it's mostly the lighter silica that the upper crust is made up of. Recall that most of our metals come from mines - those holes which go deep into the ground.
If you w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your point about the composition of the moon makes sense, but your citing mines going deep doesn't.
The deepest mine is about 4km, and compared to the Earth's diameter of 12.7k km, that's not very deep. To scrape enough mass off the surface of the Earth to make the moon, you'd probably be going deeper than most mines.
However, I suspect that while there are rich veins of metal in the surface of the Earth, most of the metal is below the surface, in the mantle and the core. But none of our mines go anywhere n
Re:Whats the hold up (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that the reason to have a moon base is to build a libertarian utopia [wikipedia.org].
Some actual serious reasons:
1. We'd get off this rock for more than a quick visit. If you're looking at major achievements of humanity, I'd think that would definitely rank somewhere significant.
2. Because we'd be off this rock, we'd have a good environment to test handling that sort of thing from an engineering standpoint, with the possibility of a much more manageable return if something were to go wrong. Important questions like "how do we handle the issue of solar radiation", "Can we grow enough plants in controlled environments to sustain an off-Earth colony", and so forth.
3. Heck, I'd pay good money to walk on the moon.
In short, this sort of thing isn't about making cash, it's about taking yet another small step for mankind. Yes, that requires looking past your lifetime, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Water is good news. I'm sure there's going to be lots of water reclamation equipment for any base we do end up building, but having external sources of water is a definite plus.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's better for us as a society to try new things than to be paralyzed in debate over cost/benefit analysis.
A base on the moon is a good interim step, learning to crawl before we walk, and while it may not have any known payoffs in material gains, the increased knowledge will be priceless. Further, it's a lot easier to resupply and make significant changes on the moon than on a distant planet.
There's a reason we test designs on earth as much as possible before we launch them, and it's the same reason we sh
Re:Whats the hold up (Score:4, Interesting)
Your statement may prove similar, to Bill Gates' famous predictions regarding 640k memory... How do you know, for the Moon does not have expensive commodities to mine? It is hardly explored — up until recently, we didn't even know, there is water on its surface!
You are lacking imagination... How about vacation-destination for those, who want to experience five times lower gravity? How about retirement homes for people, too frail to move on their own on Earth — they may be able to dance on the Moon? Technics may appear exploiting the low gravity for therapies for, say, spine-injuries (such as when a person needs to re-learn, how to walk). Barring major world-conflicts, we might be able to have all or some of that within 40-60 years.
Lower gravity may also allow for some new manufacturing methods... You name it...
So, medicine, novelty, mining, manufacturing, what else? Oh, science! What will the scientists, able to dig a space body literally under their feet, be able to find out about Space in general, and Solar System in particular? What discoveries — some of them even with prompt practical applications — await?
Parent
Re:Whats the hold up (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Cheaper mission costs if shuttles can be assembled on the moon and then launched from there with low orbit?
Yes, because that's *so* much cheaper than just building them in orbit. Yes, let's ferry all those materials hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon and then sink them in another gravity well... that'll be *so* much better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't we use materials that exist on the moon instead of sending them from Earth? We could probably dig some tunnels there and live under the ground, safe from the radiation. Solar panels, lights, plants, water, air. We could bring microchips, perhaps some plastics from earth, get the metals and fuel from the Moon. Also having a colony there wouldn't hurt human kind.
It's hard to imagine any kind of mining operation on the moon being economically viable at this point in time. For what we'd have to pay (and you can think of this as a cost of "money" or of "energy" - the two concepts are equivalent to some degree) to send work crews (robotic or human) to the moon, provide them with necessary supplies, maintain them... extract the raw materials, refine them, turn them into a useful form... Sending rockets up periodically to resupply them... At the present time it would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Even if you figure in the cost of launching that built equipment from Earth instead of from the Moon, the benefits of not stretching our supply chain to (or beyond) practical limits during the preparatory phase of an interplanetary expedition make up for any extra cost of launching from Earth."
Personally, I'm not all that interested in an "interplanetary expedition" just yet.
One of the big questions is, "Why should we have a manned space program--or any space program at all? Why send men when we can send robots cheaper, easier, and safer?" Now we all have our etherial answers about the good of mankind and science and propagating the species and yadda yadda yadda. And all that is well and good. But I think it would far better serve our purpose to get some people living and doing work in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Space 2099
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the hold up?
Sadly, it is the elephant in the room; Mineral Rights.
Capitalism, will eventually rear its ugly head on this one. We know there's water, as well as salts, metals, He3.... With the amount of clout Corporations have, and the number of 'elected representative' they've put into office, we won't be going to the moon until the powers that be have sorted it all out in the back room. Altruism, and space exploration for the benefit of mankind is on the down swing. Economics, by way of profits, has
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm more afraid of being scrooched by Gidney and Cloyd.
Though we may be safe as long as NASA never get their hands on the Mooseberry fudge cake recipe.
Drill baby drill! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And they couldn't see the vast majority of the plume.
Life and death (Score:2)
Okay seriously, this is pretty big news. Kudos to NASA for another successful mission!
Moonshine (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Moonshine (Score:4, Funny)
Greetings, Sir or Madam.
I have managed, through sources connected to major aerospace corporation, to collect a small sample of the water of moon and I can assuring you it is both refreshingly also delicious.
Do not listen to the naysayers who undoubtedly assure that such a beverage must be much expensive for the average person can afford! It is most assuredly not that way!
I have decided to assist them in the funding of their next expedition to moon by selling some of water that was returned from the last expedition. The aerospace company is located in small country in southern Africa, so you must comprehend there are bribes and other politics involved extracting an amount for your purchase and enjoyment.
However, I can assure you that the water is pure and safe, ready to drink, and unaltered. Through amazing coincidence, it contains all of the same chemicals found in most spring water, so it is most assuredly beneficial to your consumption use.
If you are interested in such opportunity, please reply soonest and I will arrange to have a sample sent to you. I may need small amount sent in cash, and if sample is of proven quality to you we may further discuss additional quantities.
I await eagerly your reply.
Parent
What's the point? (Score:2, Funny)
It's all gone now. (Score:2, Funny)
, but it is safe to say Cabeus holds water
Or, maybe it did hold water... until the impact.
Mining (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just clarify something? (Score:2)
When they say ice and water, are they talking about the stuff you can fill up your canteen and go, or is there something else in it that would make it undrinkable?
I ask because Mars has its ice caps, but as I understand it's just dry-ice (frozen CO2) that would make for an awesome Halloween party effect, but obviously won't sustain any sort of life.
Re: (Score:2)
"When they say ice and water, are they talking about the stuff you can fill up your canteen and go, or is there something else in it that would make it undrinkable?"
Plenty. Probably, heavy metals and other inorganic contaminants.
But it should be easy to filter them. Even if you have to break down water to hydrogen and oxygen, it'll still be cheaper than hauling water all the way from the Earth.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"but obviously won't sustain any sort of life."
You clearly have never been to Berlin.
Re:Can we just clarify something? (Score:4, Interesting)
They have found water, as in H2O, not CO2.
It may or may not be mixed with anything narsty (I'd lean toward "almost certainly does"), and it may or may not exist in sufficient quantities to be useful.
However, this is still a potentially significant discovery. If a future expedition discovers that there's enough water up there, it could make lunar bases easier to build. After all, water is probably the single heaviest thing you'd have to carry up for a lunar base. If a ready supply is already there, that's a big start, even if you have to develop some technologies to scrub the nasties out of it before you can drink it. It's also an important building component if you want to use local materials to, say, build protective walls over your delicate settlement. Lunar adobe brick made of local dirt and local water, for example. Then you wouldn't care what contaminants are in it, as long as it could be used to solidify bricks.
Parent
Re:Can we just clarify something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better yet... H2O has a great O element... and you can breathe it!
So, suppose you could drill down and hit a well of ice. A bit of solar energy pumped into that frozen mass yields liquid water, a bit more gives hydrogen and oxygen. Now you have fuel (fire) and air and water. Earth will be the tough element to obtain. I don't imagine that moon soil is all that good for planting, and most plants need nitrogen that may not be easy to come by on the moon.
Either way... water far more valuable when you realize that its not just water but O and H too.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oxygen is cheap on the moon if you can get a good energy source (ie. nuclear reactor). The moon is mostly silicon / iron / calcium oxide.
Obligatory Futurama (Score:5, Funny)
Sing to the tune of "We're Whalers on the Moon":
There's water on the Moon
We found it with big boom
For the probe crashed down
Impacted the ground
There's water in the plume!
Sailor Moon (Score:2)
Now she has water to sail on....
Next up, Whalers on the Moon.
Obligatory NASA link (Score:3, Funny)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc_big.jpg
Because I Said So, That's Why! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've no background and little education in this area but I do have an off the wall question. I have some understanding of the theory describing the initial impact from which the moon is thought to have come, and, the attendant theory that the formation of the moon may have been one of the first, big contingent happenings that drove the development of life on earth. My question centres on the material that made up the body that smashed into the early earth, added much to the earth's "girth" and gave us the present moon. Is it possible the impacting body was composed of a lot of water? There's questions surrounding how earth came to have so much water. If the impacting body that gave us the moon contained a great amount of water, the impact, formation of the moon, water on earth and the early evolution of life comes into focus as a "just so" story.
just my loose change
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or are you a creationist troll ?
I'm a deeply confirmed atheist, so much so that I can't imagine trolls at all, other than as pejorative labels for creationists. This linked article [nasa.gov] was the first handy bit I could find that speaks directly to my post. /. has run a few stories about the problems with the earth's amount of water and it's origins. If you want a more lore based recounting, Captain Jean Luc Picard narrated a pbs special, titled, IIRC, "Moon's Origins". Picard's aka Patrick Stewart's pronunciation of a French name in a truculent
Model Predicts Lots More Water (Score:5, Informative)
The dominant paradigm since the Apollo Missions was that the Moon was as dry as a bone.
However, a paper was put out recently (before the discovery of water a month ago) proposing a model for water and other volatiles venting out of the interior of the Moon. One of the predictions of this model is that there should be significant subsurface water primarily near the poles. The results from Chandrayaan-1 and LCROSS today confirms that this is true--there is significant subsurface water near the poles. The claims that the water is solely on the surface and due to cometary deposition or solar wind interactions are now blown "out of the water".
This model predicts a lot more water under the surface for potential use in human exploration. w00t!
Check out the paper here: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0909.3832 [lanl.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alright... (Score:5, Funny)
cue the aliens on the Moon, landing there and using the water to mix with the scotch and other lame ass jokes.
The aliens have set themselves up with a nice little night-club on the moon...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oblig (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wait? (Score:5, Funny)
It refuses to account for its location on both November 22, 1963, and on September 11, 2001.
Parent
Re:Wait? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent