NASA Estimates 600 Million Metric Tons of Water Ice At Moon's North Pole 271
After analyzing data from a radar device aboard last year's Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission to the Moon, NASA scientists have found what they estimate to be 600 million metric tons of water ice in craters around the Moon's north pole.
"Numerous craters near the poles of the Moon have interiors that are in permanent sun shadow. These areas are very cold and water ice is stable there essentially indefinitely. Fresh craters show high degrees of surface roughness (high circular polarization ratio) both inside and outside the crater rim, caused by sharp rocks and block fields that are distributed over the entire crater area. However, Mini-SAR has found craters near the north pole that have high CPR inside, but not outside their rims. This relation suggests that the high CPR is not caused by roughness, but by some material that is restricted within the interiors of these craters. We interpret this relation as consistent with water ice present in these craters. The ice must be relatively pure and at least a couple of meters thick to give this signature."
Earth (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like a lot until you realize there the amount on earth is measured as a few 10^18 metric tons. More than a couple orders of magnitude difference.
Re:Send up some miners (Score:4, Insightful)
Water is one of the key things you'd need to run a settlement for other purposes -- a great deal of it is required to maintain an ecosystem (remember, you want plants for both food and air), it's extremely expensive to lift out of the gravity well, and it can be trivially broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are useful on their own. No, ice is worth far more up there than down here; why would you ship it down (at least, without first producing a useful product out of it, thus increasing its value)?
Slandering Heinlein... *shakes head*.
Re:Don't mine all of them (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a big rock floating through vacuum. What is there to preserve? There's no ecosystem, no history, no emotional attachment. The only reason I can think of not to use it is that once it's used up, then it's gone, and if you think of an even better way to use it later then it's too late.
Re:Send up some miners (Score:3, Insightful)
The moon is, more or less, as inhospitable as Mars. The point of settling on the moon would be to learn how to settle other planets, except that the stakes and upfront cost are far smaller.
Re:Earth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a start (Score:2, Insightful)
Way more than on the moon--and it's got free oxygen, survivable atmospheric pressure, and survivable levels of solar radiation to boot. It's also a helluva lot easier to get to the than the moon.
Sure, the moon will prove less attractive than Antarctica to any rational human settlers, but who DOESN'T want to settle in Antarctica right? Anyone?
Re:Send up some miners (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do people measure water as weight? (Score:3, Insightful)
What other purposes? (Score:4, Insightful)
What other purposes? I've never seen any convincing rationale for wanting to settle the moon. But let's dispose of some rejoinders right up front, shall we?
Look, I read all the Heinlein books too. They were great. And colonizing space would be really cool. But there has to be some kind of economically feasible way to do it, and there just isn't.
Re:Send up some miners (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottled moon water. :)
Re:Don't mine all of them (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a big rock floating through vacuum. What is there to preserve? There's no ecosystem, no history, no emotional attachment.
There's no ecosystem at the time scale which we're accustomed to using to look at things. That doesn't mean there's no ecosystem.
Just sayin'.
Re:It's a start (Score:3, Insightful)
No, just pointing out the lack of a rush to colonize Antarctica as well as the lack of any rational reason for doing so. (Other than national virtual penis enlargement.)