Unambiguous Evidence of Water On the Moon

Nethemas the Great writes "Information has leaked ahead of the scheduled NASA press conference tomorrow that we have found unambiguous evidence for water on the moon. From the article, 'Since man first touched the moon and brought pieces of it back to Earth, scientists have thought that the lunar surface was bone dry. But new observations from three different spacecraft have put this notion to rest with what has been called "unambiguous evidence" of water across the surface of the moon.'"

Not enough

[MichaelSmith]

The water these missions have found is present in very small quantities. Extracting it would require a lot of energy. The hope with polar water is that there might be masses of the stuff in some craters so that you could at least get a kilo of water from 20 or so kilos of regolith. Water in those quantities would be of use to humans. But we haven't seen it yet.

BREAKING NEWS!

[Spit]

Stable substance composed of two of the most common and reactive elements in universe, common in the universe! News at 11.

Re:BREAKING NEWS!

[venicebeach]

Clearly not common enough to assume that it was present in this particular location without direct evidence.

Re:BREAKING NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Er.. (polite cough) By volume, precisely nothing is common in the universe.

Re:Not enough

[Keeper Of Keys]

Erm, we haven't actually run out yet. You see there's this big glowy thing in the middle of our solar system bombarding the Earth with fresh energy every day.

Re:BREAKING NEWS!

[CarpetShark]

Whether it is common enough to assume presence is not clear at all. What's clear is that we didn't assume it.

Re:No surprise

[andre_pl]

Didn't the mythbuster's determine that the moon landing was entirely plausible? They disproved the myth about the lighting not being possible without multiple sources.

ChandraYaan ....

[CalcuttaWala]

Chandrayaan, the moon probe sent by the Indian Space Research Organisation, carried the NASA-built Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) that finally located water. This is a big boost to the Indian space program

Re:It was the Indians who helped NASA find water

[TheRaven64]

The subject of the grandparent's post (which, by the way, you copied in yours) was 'It was the Indians who helped NASA find water.' Note the word 'helped.' Note that he explicitly credited 'NASA' (which, for those watching at home, is American). When the grandparent gives credit to both of the nations involved and draws attention to the fact that it was a collaborative venture, cries of nationalism are a little hollow.

Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks

[mcgrew]

He's modded funny, but he's right (well, maybe not he part about "immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles" even though we are indeed immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles; that is, after all, what matter and energy are).

We live in primitive times. The 1800s are considered by us to be primitive, but to a man getting off of a train and sending a telegraph to someone hundreds of miles away, it was amazingly high tech, almost magic. To someone watching Star Trek in the 1960s, their cellphones, flat screen computers, self-opening doors, space shuttles, sick bay monitors, etc were all impossible fantasy. But we have them now, as well as microwave ovens, VCRs, DVDs, CDs, the internet, PCs, tasers, LASIK, heart stents, viagra, and much more that people in the sixties never dreamed of.

Yesterday's science fiction is today's ho-hum mormalcy. Today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality (although never exactly as the science fiction writers envision it).

Sometime after we're all dead our descendants will have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks

[elrous0]

Considering the incredibly harsh environment of every other body in the solar system, I'd say that transportation is one of the least of our problems in trying to colonize them. We haven't even colonized the vast majority of *this* planet, and just about any spot on it is way more hospitable than anywhere on Mars.

Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks

[mdwh2]

So to clarify, aside from all the things he got wrong, such as "based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles", and "Soon", he's right?

This guy sounds amazing! He gets everything right (except the things he gets wrong).

Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks

[cgenman]

And I guarantee you that their teenagers will probably all still rebel, they'll still groggily and grumpily get up for work in the morning, and they'll still grow old wishing that they hadn't fritted their youth away.

We're more or less still living like we lived 5,000 years ago, from a macro perspective. Somehow I don't see that changing any time soon (unless, of course, we all die).

Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks

[cgenman]

Not to sound too blase' about progress, but you still wake up at 6 in the morning and poop. You just don't have to go outside to do it now. You still have to wash your clothes, you just don't really have to iron them. Replacing Kerosine in the lamps has been switched to replacing the bulbs in the lights that hang in exactly the same spot.

Our both daily and macro lifecycle is still far more recognizably human than anything else. Again, I don't want to be too dismissive of the major improvements in medical technology or convenience. But we've more or less evolved our society in a way that closely resembles how humanity has behaved for millenia. Check out the Babylonian mortgage crisis for perspective. Sure, it's *nicer* now. But it definitely is an extension of the same system.