Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA's LCROSS Mission Proves Lunar Ice Suspicions

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the water-is-wet dept.

NASA 177

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.'"

cancel ×

177 comments

Alright... (0)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090628)

cue the aliens on the Moon, landing there and using the water to mix with the scotch and other lame ass jokes.

Wait ... I'm the one who does that. Never mind.

Continue.

Re:Alright... (1, Insightful)

Alcohol Fueled (603402) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090652)

I, for one, welcome our new drunken Moon landing alien overlords. :)?

Re:Alright... (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091472)

I, for one, welcome our new drunken Moon landing alien overlords. :)?

From someone who slashdot nick is Alcohol Fueled. Should have been modded insightful or interesting.

Mod me offtopic

Re:Alright... (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090742)

Man... I wanted the scotch joke.

You nerdy killjoy you....

Re:Alright... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090820)

Everyone wanted that joke, including the uptight wussies with all the "-1, Overrated" mod points today. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that when we all heard "water" we all thought "Goddammit, it's Friday, where's my scotch?"

Re:Alright... (2, Funny)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091042)

If nothing else this will provide continued employment for that Adam Sandler fellow. "Water Boy II: Over The Moon!".

Re:Alright... (1)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090898)

Everybody knows that you have to use the same water as the distillery is using to avoid ruining the taste.

Whats the hold up (5, Insightful)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090632)

Base on the moon! Lets go fuckers!

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

nexxuz (895394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090896)

Sorry, All your base are belong to the Mooninites!

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Funny)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091976)

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.

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090906)

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 (3, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091028)

the view of earth

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091314)

from the darkside?

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091508)

I still say the far side of the moon would be the best place to have a base that we Earthlings would not be able to see.

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Funny)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091596)

Plus i MIGHT not be able to hear my neighbor's trunk thundering my house with bass from there

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Funny)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091992)

Moon base, Earth bass; what's the difference?

Re:Whats the hold up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30092652)

earth bass could probably go in a big enough moon base. maybe with lemon and tartar sauce

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092104)

Whoa hey man, keep your voice down.

Re:Whats the hold up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091100)

Funny? Insightful probably?

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091578)

What about Cheaper mission costs if shuttles can be assembled on the moon and then launched from there with low orbit?

I mean, by your logic, the ISS is a complete waste of time and money, yet we still did it. Why would we back down from terrible Ideas NOW?

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091960)

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:Whats the hold up (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092012)

Supposedly it would be - or thats what people on /. have said before (though thats hardly a reliable source). Because the Moon's Gravity is so much lower than Earth's, it'd be SO much cheaper to launch a LONG RANGE shuttle from there (say, one past mars), that the cost of sending a simple cargo run to the moon is less than the amount you'd save.

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092722)

Let's see:
  1. Haul the Long Range shuttle from Earth into orbit.
  2. Lower it down to the moon
  3. Haul the food/water/oxygen/science payloads into orbit
  4. Lower them down to the moon
  5. Haul the fuel into orbit
  6. Lower it down to the moon
  7. Load the shuttle
  8. Launch everything back into orbit
  9. Be on your merry way
  1. Haul the Long Range shuttle from Earth into orbit.
  2. Haul the food/water/oxygen/science payloads into orbit
  3. Haul the fuel into orbit
  4. Load the shuttle
  5. Be on your merry way

See, the thing is, in order to launch something from the Moon, that thing has to get to the Moon first.

Re:Whats the hold up (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30092344)

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.

If a small nuclear reactor has a mass of 100 tonnes, a spaceship has a mass of 50 tonnes, and the fuel required to launch from the Moon to Mars weighs 500 tonnes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to land a reactor on the Moon, launch the spaceship from Earth, land it (empty) on the Moon, and fuel it there.

If you're doing going to Mars from earth orbit, you've gotta haul 5000 tonnes of fuel out of Earth's gravity well for every flight.

If you're launching from Luna, you pay the 5000-tonne penalty once from Earth orbit to Luna, but the rest of the fuel's effectively free, and you're burning it in 500-tonne increments, not 5000-tonne increments.

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091678)

Pointless? That's pretty much the reason you don't design interplanetary vehicles. :) Go and look at the space shuttle. Now look at the space shuttle compared to the size of the fuel tanks needed to lift it into orbit. I'll wait. Hell I'll even give you a link. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/multimedia/photos/sts-79/79p-065.jpg [nasa.gov] Notice anything? The space shuttle is pretty small compared to all the fuel required to break orbit isn't it? The fuel required to leave moon orbit is astronomically smaller than the fuel required to leave earth orbit. Setting up a manned moon base would be the first step into real interplanetary travel. Your quip that it is "exceedingly expensive" is laughable when you look at how much money the US wastes daily on war and other negative influences to humanity.

Re:Whats the hold up (4, Insightful)

whois_drek (829212) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091712)

There's nothing worth "getting" at the Lagrange points, or geosynchronous orbit, or any number of places. That doesn't mean it's not worth going there.

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Informative)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091728)

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.

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 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.

Finally other materials than merely He3 are present. You'd have platinum group metals which would in the presence of significant lunar launch infrastructure be worth exporting to Earth. Rare earths of high enough value might be present in sufficient quantity to extract. Any activity off of Earth would be closer to the Moon in terms of delta v than Earth. So it'd start making sense to launch common materials like glass, iron, oxygen, aluminum, titanium, etc from the Moon rather than from Earth. From this site [moonminer.com] , it estimates:

Since about 100 million tons of regolith must be heated to about 1400 deg. F to get one ton of helium 3; 4000 tons of hydrogen; 2800 tons of helium 4; 10,000 tons of nitrogen; 20,000 tons of carbon and 54,000 tons of sulfur will also be obtained.

All of these would be byproducts of such a vast mining operation. Revenue from this operation would be more than just He3.

Re:Whats the hold up (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092038)

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.

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092470)

I didn't consider any of your other points interesting. If I build hundreds of billions of dollars in lunar infrastructure, then it's a safe bet that I'll develop considerable lunar manufacture. And I wouldn't make such an investment unless corresponding Earth sources either were depleted or didn't exist (as in the case of Helium 3) in adequate quantities in the first place.

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 an easier, cheaper Earthside solution? I was under the impression that proton-boron fusion was harder than helium3-helium3 fusion, but that doesn't turn out [askmar.com] to be the case (an interview with Richard Nebel on the Polywell fusion prototype project which he heads).

Question: Assuming a Polywell demonstrator works in say 3-10 years, would a developed reactor be able to burn 3He/3He, or does Polywell's performance "max out" with p/11B?

Answer: We looked at 3He/3He and concluded that the fusion reactivity was just too low. (The characteristics of 3He/3He (cross section, reactivity, Lawson criterion) are at least an order of magnitude below those for p/11B.)

You still have deuterium-helium3 which is easier (in terms of temperature and Lawson criterion), but that's less aneutronic than hydrogen-boron (due to the presence of deuterium-deuterium fusion which generates a neutron 50% of the time it occurs).

Re:Whats the hold up (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091756)

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.

Re:Whats the hold up (2, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092000)

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 should be testing designs for human habitation on the moon before we try them elsewhere.

Unless you think there's no point in exploration period, which ignores the entirety of human history and a good portion of its technological advances.

Re:Whats the hold up (0)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092138)

Unless you think there's no point in exploration period, which ignores the entirety of human history and a good portion of its technological advances.

I think *you've* missed the point of exploration. Humanity has *never* explored just 'cuz it'd be cool. Exploration has always been in the search of new resources to exploit and new riches to acquire. Hell, the entire reason the old world conquered the new was to find new resources, be it gold, spices, drugs, slaves, etc.

Re:Whats the hold up (3, Interesting)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092214)

there is *nothing* on the moon worth getting

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?

Re:Whats the hold up (3, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092234)

It's a far better staging point for interplanetary launches than Earth is. Not as good as high orbit, but a large moon base may be arguably more practical and economical than a large orbital base.

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

Snarkalicious (1589343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092560)

The value of experience and exploration is not judged from the present, holmes. We build the first one on the moon so we learn as many of the painful lessons up front as we can, in a location that's relatively easy to access. In an emergency, we might get there in time to save staff or salvage something. Even in the event of a toal loss, gathering evidence of cause is a crap load easier than it would be if we built elsewhere. Water or no, the moon may be a worthless rock. But it's a close worthless rock we can make good use of.

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090984)

Space 2099

Re:Whats the hold up (0, Offtopic)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091012)

I'm too busy playing Modern Warfare 2. *pew* *pew* *pew*

And don't call me fucker.

Re:Whats the hold up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091226)

And once we have a base on the moon, it's time to conquer Earth by sending monsters down (one at a time of course) and making them giants with a large magic wand.

Re:Whats the hold up (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091238)

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 been god for a while now, and isn't going to falter into that dark abyss anytime soon.

The adventurer in me, wants and knows we should be up there traipsing on the moon as I type. The realist in me knows it won't happen for at least a decade, regardless of what else is discovered.

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092638)

China has something to prove, so they'll probably be next.

The space race was always politics. When the cold war ended, there was no more tech race. There never was any altruism, except on the part of the scientists, astronauts/cosmonauts.

Re:Whats the hold up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091694)

Base on the moon!

Uh, no, Lego building blocks on the moon!

Lets go fuckers!

Tsk, we don't even know you. What do you take us for? Tramps?

Re:Whats the hold up (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091886)

Yeah! Don't first ask what the actual point is! Go!
We can always make up a reason for it, when we're there.

</sarcasm>

Oblig (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090634)

Glad they're not treading water anymore. I wonder who won the "pool"? I hope these results really make a splash.

Re:Oblig (4, Funny)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090660)

My humor tastes are too dry for your water puns.

Re:Oblig (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092484)

My humor tastes are too dry for your water puns.

Agreed. Lunatics, all of them.

Re:Oblig (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090756)

r-u a-bot?

Re:Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091180)

Breaking news: NASA is planning to liquidate their ass[et]s.

(posting as AC for obvious reasons)

Wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090636)

How is the Lunar water suspicious?

Re:Wait? (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090696)

It refuses to account for its location on both November 22, 1963, and on September 11, 2001.

Re:Wait? (5, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091154)

Nor has it publicly denied that it raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Re:Wait? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091494)

Meh. It probably just means we know its momentum really well.

Drill baby drill! (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090680)

So now we need to get up there with some drilling equipment and figure out if there's actually water beneath the surface or if the only water on the moon is trace amounts leftover from the occasional comet impact.

Re:Drill baby drill! (1)

ianmkz (1533955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090868)

This is clearly a non-renewable resource - the paltry accumulation of billions of years of comet strikes. I'm sure you'll agree that it should be declared a protected area. I'm sure...

Re:Drill baby drill! (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091178)

Yea, yea. The exploitation of this water must be protected. That only makes sense.

Re:Drill baby drill! (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092756)

If you do the math, there's not much water there. A crater ~80 feet by ~13 feet, and the plume only showed evidence for about 25 gallons of water. That's ~150ppm. Better than the ppb quantities that were previously known, mind you...

Life and death (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090688)

Where there is water there is life...and death! Death to all who disturb the moon water guardians.

Okay seriously, this is pretty big news. Kudos to NASA for another successful mission!

Moonshine (2, Interesting)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090712)

Anyone else really want to use this water to make liquor? Even if coke just bottled it, I'd drink some moon water.

Re:Moonshine (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090798)

The only downside would be the absurdly high price... Imagine a 750ml bottle of Scotch made from Lunar Water(tm), with a price tag of $5.2 Million USD... $500k per ounce... $5k per drop... But I'd bet it'd sell like hotcakes!

Re:Moonshine (2, Funny)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090874)

Given the opportunity, I'd brew a batch of beer with it. Boiling point on the moon is a lot lower though, hop utilization is going horrible. Definitely going to need a pressurized dome for this to work.

Re:Moonshine (3, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090980)

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.

Re:Moonshine (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091294)

I'm guessing it tastes like . . . . water.

Don't get me wrong I'm sure there would be a hell of a market for the stuff, but despite having tried vodka or bottled water made from glacial water, stream water, tap water, magic water, or any other water you might think of, they all tasted pretty much the same.

The only reason I buy bottled water these days is that it's already conveniently packaged. I go to the gym sometimes (ok, I admit I went every day for the first month after I signed up and more recently have been making it in once or twice per month :D) and it's easy to just grab a bottle of water out the trunk of the car and take it in. The stuff I buy is dirt cheap from Big Lots though. Tastes . . . like water ;).

Re:Moonshine (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091454)

Moon Whiskey would have its own distinct taste to the refined palate. A Scotch connoisseur can tell you what region of Scotland a Scoth comes by the taste. A lot of the the taste comes from the local water used in the distillation process giving Scotches from certain regions distinct tastes.

Re:Moonshine (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091496)

Which I'll believe as much as a $500 ethernet cable brings out the "subtle nuances" in an MP3 file ;).

What's the point? (2, Funny)

Pro923 (1447307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090722)

I mean will Lunar Springs really be able to compete in the bottled water sector? Will I be able to choose between filtered and "Some Regolith"?

Futurama (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090878)

Whales live in water.
There is water on the moon.
Therefor it is reasonable to assume there are whales on the moon.
The lunar whales are likely to be hunted by whalers.
Proving that Futurama is 100% correct and there are whalers on the moon.
They probably carry harpoons.

Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30090894)

The prophecy will be fulfilled.

There will be whalers on the moon.

It's all gone now. (2, Funny)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090908)

, but it is safe to say Cabeus holds water

Or, maybe it did hold water... until the impact.

Mining (5, Funny)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090924)

Finally! Something we can mine the Moon for. This will spur space competition to get this valuable resource. I can't wait for my first sip of $10000 Evian Moon Mineral Water.

Re:Mining (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091008)

10,000?

Keep dreaming.

At least add another zero per litre on top of that.

Re:Mining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091126)

Maybe it's $10000 per sip.

Re:Mining (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091134)

Who said anything about liters? That was a $10,000 sip. It'll probably come in a gold-plated ochoko (sake cup).

Re:Mining (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092054)

Man, someone's going to be *pissed* when they find out their "moon water" actually comes from a tap somewhere in Jersey.

Can we just clarify something? (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090930)

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:Can we just clarify something? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091088)

"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:Can we just clarify something? (2, Funny)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091104)

"but obviously won't sustain any sort of life."

You clearly have never been to Berlin.

Re:Can we just clarify something? (3, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091124)

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.

Re:Can we just clarify something? (4, Insightful)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091802)

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.

Re:Can we just clarify something? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092124)

Good point.

I'm not so sure about the "fire" bit, since burning Hydrogen for fuel requires recombination with Oxygen, so you're back to square one with less energy than you started with in solar energy to start with...

But it is efficient storage, so you could H2 and O2 tanks to fuel your vehicles, for example, and only have to have one mother of a huge solar array to collect the energy necessary to make it...

Re:Can we just clarify something? (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092778)

Actually thats exactly what I was thinking... sure you need to supply O to the equation to burn the H... but thats exactly what they do in rockets to get things into space in the first place.

If they can use solar energy on the moon to create liquid H and O to refuel spacecraft it could provide a much needed boost into the outer solar system. Using solar energy directly doesn't yet give a lot of thrust (as far as I understand it) so it can take a long time for a spacecraft to accelerate.

Not to mention storing energy for further surface exploration, heating and cooling during extreme temp situations, etc.

Perhaps they could even build structures from the water by melting it into panel molds, and then assembling the panels, finally sealing seams with sprays of liquid water... it would make an airtight structure that may be habitable.

Re:Can we just clarify something? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091144)

They don't mean dry ice, obviously because they are talking about water.

Re:Can we just clarify something? (1)

Loomismeister (1589505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091192)

They are talking about water ice specifically, as in H2O. There are also a number of other compounds that they found as well.

Re:Can we just clarify something? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091318)

It'd require a bit of work before being drinkable, but as other posters have pointed out, water is a specific compound. If they'd said ICE then that is very ambiguous, but the word "water" is quite specific.

Obligatory Futurama (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30090970)

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!

ahh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091002)

The governments first step in indtroducing the reality that alien life is extremely prevalent in our universe. Of course people in the government and illuminatist groups with Cosmic top secret clearance have known this for at least 70 years.

Yes there is water on the moon, yes there is life on the moon, and yes there are bases on the moon.

I highly reccomend everyone watch Moon Rising by Jose Escamilla with an open mind and accept the reality of what is going on at the moon.

Sailor Moon (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091014)

Now she has water to sail on....

Next up, Whalers on the Moon.

Re:Sailor Moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091182)

Next up, Whalers on the Moon.

Now we know where all the missing pirates are... it's a trap!

MACROSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091026)

Am I the only one who read that as NASA's MACROSS Mission?

Obligatory NASA link (3, Funny)

kvap (454189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091092)

They already found water on Mars a few years ago and posted on their website:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc_big.jpg

Re:Obligatory NASA link (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091148)

Someone at NASA has an actual sense of humor. Who knew?

Oh, right, it's probably the same one who came up with naming a treadmill the "C.O.L.B.E.R.T."

Further Analysis (1)

CDR1313 (151522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091110)

"The concentration and distribution of water and other substances requires further analysis..."

Translation: More Explosions.

$10000 Evian Moon Mineral Water: A little bit of NASA in every drop.

Re:Further Analysis (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091252)

"The concentration and distribution of water and other substances requires further analysis..."

Translation: More Explosions.

This time let's make them bigger explosions. Maybe give the man a mustache or make his left eye more pronounced.

Re:Further Analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30092188)

http://rlv.zcache.com/chairface_moon_sticker-p217483163803015319qjcl_400.jpg

The real source of the water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091206)

As Zort sat looking at the stars a shiny object grew larger. From the shade of the crater he sipped from his water bottle wondering what to growing object was? Slowly he could make out the letters L-C-R-O-S-S on it's metal surface.

Because I Said So, That's Why! (2, Interesting)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091208)

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:Because I Said So, That's Why! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30091512)

By God, you're right! They used a water balloon as the probe! Those numbskulls!

Re:Because I Said So, That's Why! (1)

vekrander (1400525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091546)

It's possible that, for the sake of the earth impact moon creation theory, that the object contained water. On the other hand, it's very likely that the earth already had some, if not most of the water that it has in it's current state. Water is not hard to come by in our solar system by any means (see: Mars, Europa, Charon). Being that there is little we can conclude about the formation of the moon, I believe there's little reason to think that the Earth's present amount of water came from outside sources. Occam's razor would suggest that Earth's water formed from the large amount of hydrogen and oxygen present during the early stages of its formation.

Re:Because I Said So, That's Why! (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091574)

The moons creation may have added some more elements to the mix, but as oxygen is the 3rd most plentiful gas in the universe (after hydrogen and helium), there's pretty likely to be lots of water everywhere. Having an atmosphere and a magnetic field make it easier for it to stick around in puddles on earth.

Or are you a creationist troll ?

Model Predicts Lots More Water (4, Informative)

GreenPhreak (60944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091444)

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]

Outgassing (1)

Ritorix (668826) | more than 4 years ago | (#30091968)

Interesting paper. After seeing page 39 I now have an image of moon farts locked in my mind. "Transient
Lunar Phenomena" indeed.

It seems like they are saying 'find the largest sources of outgassing and you will find the highest concentrations of water' (at the poles), caused by vapor phase changing to subsurface ice.

"other intriguing substances"? I'm intrigued. (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30092264)

FTFA: "Along with the water in Cabeus, there are hints of other intriguing substances."

Hydrocarbons?

Amino acids?

Radium?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...