Beta
×

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 Says Moon Has More Water Than Great Lakes

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the water-and-cheese dept.

NASA 255

jerryjamesstone writes "The US Great Lakes have some competition: the moon. Yes, that old thing in the sky may hold more than all of the water contained in the Great Lakes, according to a NASA-funded study. From the article: 'Scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory in Washington, along with other scientists across the nation, determined that the water was likely present very early in the moon's formation history as hot magma started to cool and crystallize. This finding means water is native to the moon.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So wait... (4, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599498)

There ARE whales?

Re:So wait... (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599930)

There _were_ whales. The whalers on the moon hunted them to extinction.

Re:So wait... (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600202)

Now we know why they call Japanese moonspeak.

Re:So wait... (3, Funny)

DMorritt (923396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600356)

I think he meant "We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon. But there aint no whales so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune." http://theinfosphere.org/The_Series_Has_Landed [theinfosphere.org]

Potentially (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600174)

Thankfully there's no evidence of whalers, infinitely increasing the possibility.

Re:So wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600232)

Actually from what I read there is no water but hydroxyls.
But that is good news, hydroxyls are alcohols.

No water but you could open a cocktail bar. The moon just became more interesting for rich millionaires who want to get drunk in a really decadent way.

Re:So wait... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600260)

How do we get some hookers up there?

but then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599504)

where is water?

Re:but then... (2, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599572)

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE
"NASA-funded scientists estimate from recent research that the volume of water molecules locked inside minerals in the moon’s interior could exceed the amount of water in the Great Lakes here on Earth. "

I'm not entirely sure what significance this has on us. I guess it might make establishing a moon base a little more feasible, but there really isn't any point of doing such a thing. Transporting anything from the moon to the earth is so expensive that it likely isn't worth mining. And you have the initial cost of establishing a mining outpost on the moon which, although probably mostly robotic, would still require some amount of human intervention. Either way, it would require such a hideously large initial investment that it's not likely to happen any time in the future.

Re:but then... (5, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599728)

Transporting anything from the moon to the earth is so expensive that it likely isn't worth mining.

Earth to the moon is really flippin' expensive, to be sure.

Moon to the earth? It's called a GRAVITY WELL. Give things a kick, they come down on their own; all you need is enough casing to survive reentry. I'm not saying it's a solved problem, but it's a much, much easier one.

Then again, I've read too much Heinlein. *grin*

Re:but then... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599788)

Then again, I've read too much Heinlein. *grin*

Compare the last five minutes of the Apollo 11 landing [nasa.gov] with the lunar landing sequence in Rocketship Galileo. They had similar dramas. If anything Heinlein's crew handled operations better, while Armstrong got himself into a mess by working too much of Aldrins job.

Re:but then... (4, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599860)

"Moon to the earth? It's called a GRAVITY WELL. Give things a kick, they come down on their own; all you need is enough casing to survive reentry. I'm not saying it's a solved problem, but it's a much, much easier one."

You clearly don't know how this actually works. You can't just go straight down to earth, you have to aim quite precisely to make sure that you don't completely burn up. You also have to not land in the middle of times square or in the middle of an incredibly dangerous part of the ocean. Hauling a container (which I guess you think is really easy to build) full of some minerals (probably quite heavy due to size of container and density of anything worth mining) in the middle of 40 foot waves is a suicide mission.

Of course, you still have to get this magic container up to the moon. The heavier it is, the more expensive it is. And as for "giving it a kick", well, you have to transport the boot up there too. Then you have to assemble, test, power, and use this boot. How do you expect to do that cheaply?

Re:but then... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600146)

He doesn't expect to do it cheaply - he specifically said getting everything up there (which would presumably include people to make the whole building and returning stuff to earth problem simpler - but by no means simple) would be expensive, but that the return journey would not be as expensive (even though it would be logistically very complicated). Assuming you could drop it reliably in a part of the ocean where you could retrieve it, maybe the simple solution would be to embed whatever you're mining in chunks of moon rock and use them as your container. Either way it's a pipe dream right now but that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the research for the future (we'll never solve the problems of going there and getting stuff back if we don't first establish the reasons for going there).

Re:but then... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600010)

Give things a kick, they come down on their own

Hmmm... i've always thought the moon would be much more useful if it was down here on Earth. How much of a kick do you think we would need to accomplish that?

(and where would we put it?)

Re:but then... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600024)

(and where would we put it?)

Pump the water out of the Pacific Ocean?

A big vatch? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600062)

> How much of a kick do you think we would need to accomplish that?

Just handle a vatch to send a rock to the dark side?

Re:but then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600076)

We could park it in the oil leak, beats using golf balls and shredded car tyres!

Re:but then... (1)

dkh2 (29130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600556)

One of the prevailing moon origin ideas is that it's the result of a massive object impacting Earth. That could certainly go a long way toward explaining the presence of water in lunar material.

Of course it would be extremely costly to consolidate any meaningful quantity of lunar water. Imagine the task of extracting a kilogram of extremely fine gold dust that has been dispersed semi-homogeneously throughout 1000 cubic yards of sand.

Re:but then... (1)

mach1980 (1114097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600334)

I have to admit, the moon is a harsh mistress. Especially if she is comming down on you like a ton of bricks...

Re:but then... (2, Interesting)

strack (1051390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599774)

if only there was some way to "make stuff" with the "minerals" that were "mined" there. so we wouldnt have to fly lots of stuff there.

Re:but then... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599970)

If you want to assemble that stuff locally, do you know how large the factories we use to build our tools are? You'd still have to ferry hundreds of tons of gear there and that's expensive.

Re:but then... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600170)

If you want to assemble that stuff locally, do you know how large the factories we use to build our tools are? You'd still have to ferry hundreds of tons of gear there and that's expensive.

Just a question of energy availability (and some time... and some human presence) to actually build those factories straight there.
Probably dropping some small Rickovers [wikipedia.org] will cost less for a starter - the kind flown to the McMurdo station some time ago.

I guess I read too much Kim Stanley Robinson

Re:but then... (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600194)

Transporting anything from the moon to the earth is so expensive that it likely isn't worth mining.

Building/launching from moon some space factories (or whatever needed) to mine the asteroids would be an investment that will pay for sure.

Re:but then... (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600762)

I'm not entirely sure what significance this has on us. I guess it might make establishing a moon base a little more feasible, but there really isn't any point of doing such a thing.

Similarly, there's no point in having babies, going to work, reading a book, sleeping in a house, eating dinner, watching movies, or putting up wallpaper.

Re:but then... (0)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600956)

Similarly, there's no point in having babies, going to work, reading a book, sleeping in a house, eating dinner, watching movies, or putting up wallpaper.

Generally, people go to work so they can buy food and other things needed to live. If you grew your own food, you would need money for land (also requiring you to work). If you tried to sell food for money (to buy land), that would be your job (work). So there is definitely a point to going to work.

Re:but then... (2, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600964)

Space Elevator. Now.

Yea, it will require a large initial investment, but then moving stuff in and out of Earth's gravity well becomes really cheap. So cheap, in fact, that asteroid mining operations may become feasible.

I honestly don't know why there isn't a lot more effort in this direction already. Some lucky country on the equator could be in for some boom times!

Lakes on the darkside (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600326)

It turns out that there are giant frozen lakes on the darkside - where we can't see them. And because it's dark, probes have never seen it and it's ice so it doesn't evaporate into space.

So there you go.

Oh, and they found out that there are Amazon women up there who skate on that ice.

Re:Lakes on the darkside (3, Informative)

dkh2 (29130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600570)

It's not called the dark side because it's dark. It's "dark" because that side never faces Earth. Thus, during a solar eclipse the "dark" side is completely illuminated by the sun.

Yes (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599506)

And more cheese than Wisconsin!

Re:Yes (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599690)

How much Wisconsin does the moon have?

Re:Yes (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599874)

About a quart, if you measure on Tuesdays

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599922)

I believe the moon is composed entirely out of Wisconsin.

Can we drink it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599510)

Only real thing I'd like to know honestly. Maybe with some purification or whatever, but if we can't drink it or at least give it to our plants, ehh?

Re:Can we drink it? (3, Funny)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600208)

[...] or at least give it to our plants, ehh?

There's no indication of whether it has electrolytes. That's what plants crave.

Re:Can we drink it? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600668)

You'd probably want to filter first(lunar regolith isn't, to the best of my knowledge, chemically much scarier than garden-variety sand; but no weathering= thousands and thousands of tiny sharp edges= silicosis ahoy!); but that would probably be about the extent of the difficulty.

More problematic would be collecting the stuff. "More water than the Great Lakes" sounds like a lot, and is, compared to "parched airless rock"; but per square kilometer it isn't very much at all. Unless the distribution is highly uneven, lunar water extraction would be an arduous process of digging through vast quantities of highly abrasive grit and micrometeorite slag, separating out a material that will just sublime and head for space unless contained. Even in 1/6th earth gravity, that isn't going to be gigantic amounts of fun.

Re:Can we drink it? (3, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600870)

More importantly: Can you go sailing on it? Swim in it? Fish salmon, trout, and invasive asian carp from it? Ride a scooter along hundreds and hundreds of miles of it? [toddverbeek.com]

If not, I'll stay here in Michigan, the Great Lakes State.

We're Bi-peninsular and Proud.

Yes! Michigan!

(This message has been a public service announcement, brought to you in cooperation with the Michigan tourism office and my summer travel plans.)

libraries of congress... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599522)

how many libraries of congress would one unit of great lakes flood?

Re:libraries of congress... (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599554)

What I want to know is: if you flooded the moon with as many great lakes as there are books in the LoC, to what depth would the flood waters rise?

Re:libraries of congress... (1)

chromas (1085949) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599752)

7.

Re:libraries of congress... (1)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600304)

What I want to know is: if you flooded the moon with as many great lakes as there are books in the LoC, to what depth would the flood waters rise?

7.

You seem to be off by a factor of 6.

Re:libraries of congress... (3, Interesting)

martyb (196687) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600558)

What I want to know is: if you flooded the moon with as many great lakes as there are books in the LoC, to what depth would the flood waters rise?

Preposterous, but now I'm curious! (Caution: I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning, so please check my math!)

Depth of covering the moon with the contents of the Great Lakes, just once:

(GreatLakesVolume) / (SurfaceAreaOfMoon) =
(2.256 x 10E4)/(3.793 x 10E7) =>
.0005947798 km =>
.597 m

So, approximately 0.6 meters (just under 2 feet)!

If we use BooksInLoC of Great Lakes, that works out to:

(29 x 10E6)(0.6 m) =>
17.4 x 10E6 m

So, to answer the original question: 17,400 Km (or approx. 10,800 miles) deep!

P.S. This was a fun exercise... I knew the Great Lakes were "big", and I knew the Moon was "big", but to think the Great Lakes alone could cover the entire Moon to a depth of about 2 feet... Just. Plain. Wow!

Extra Credit Question: If the moon were entirely covered by the water from the Great Lakes, how much brighter would it make a Full Moon seem on earth? Bonus: how bright is that compared to the Sun at noon?

Cheating Moon (4, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599524)

Whereas the lakes are, well, lakes... the moon is a sort of kinda planet. Planets tend to be bigger than lakes, and therefore I call this cheating.

Obviously, there are planets that are also a giant lake... the earth itself for example is quite wet. But those lakes we shall call oceans. So, oceans can compete with planets, but lakes can't. Ok?

-- wait, that's no moon!

Re:Cheating Moon (3, Interesting)

Atreide (16473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599550)

and Neptune has more water than Great Lakes.

Re:Cheating Moon (3, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599576)

Dude, people are still getting over the whole "Pluto not a real planet" thing and here you are promoting Luna to the status of a planet! Have you no SHAME, sir?

Re:Cheating Moon (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599824)

When "Dude" was last in vogue, Pluto was still a planet.

Re:Cheating Moon (2, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599932)

In my defense, I promoted Luna to a "sort of kinda planet"... and as far as I am concerned, Pluto is allowed to compete with the great lakes as much as it wants.

Actually, I think this is more complicated than it seems. Planets, moons, oceans and lakes. And then the water may be solid, liquid, gaseous. Bloody hell! We should install a committee to investigate the matter! It will report its findings around March 2017.

-- All your water are belong to us.

Don't they know that already? (4, Funny)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599526)

In all seriousity, I thought they would have discovered this when they la-

Oh wait, that's right, they never did.

Units (4, Funny)

tomalpha (746163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599528)

How much is that in terms of the size of a more standard unit of measurement [bbc.co.uk] ?

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599538)

About 200 Libraries of Congress

Re:Units (1)

dark grep (766587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599562)

But how much is that in terms of Elephants?

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599776)

An elephant weighs about 5000kg. Assuming it have a density similar to water that's a volume of 5m^3. The great lakes have volume 22,560km^3=22,560,000,000,000m^3. So that's 4,512,000,000,000 elephants.

Re:Units (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600600)

African or Indian?

Re:Units (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599722)

I thought the article you linked was a bit tongue-in-cheek until I read the Highland Council website [highland.gov.uk] , which does indeed use the 'Wales' and the 'Belgium'. It also introduces the 'Luxembourg'.

I'm not entirely convinced of the usefulness of the 'Wales' though, seeing as it doesn't exist [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Units (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600230)

It's Belgium [zapatopi.net] that doesn't exist.

Re:Units (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600046)

Bah! You know why the Brits ain't a superpower no more? Because they gave up Imperial units and went to the crappy metric system! Stand with America, tell the continent where they can put their crappy measurements and bring back feet and gallons! You just know anything supported by the French can't be good!

As for TFA, it could have a center of buttered biscuits for all the good it will do us. Until we can build something better than chemical rockets the costs for mining will never be worth the initial outlay. That is why it is good we killed the turkey shuttle, that never did get the numbers it was supposed to, and look to be sticking to unmanned probes for the time being. Let private enterprise sink their money into LEO rockets, we need something better if we are ever gonna get off this rock in an affordable manner.

The US great lakes? (5, Insightful)

VoiceOfRaisin (554019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599542)

And here I thought the great lakes were in Canada as well.

Re:The US great lakes? (3, Funny)

Rheostatik (1628895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599612)

Well, we are the 51st state, according to douchebags.

Re:The US great lakes? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600100)

Don't worry, if that pesky global warming thing turns out to be true, you will become the 51st state after we "liberate" you! BTW, didn't we hear you guys got plenty of oil up there? I smell WMDs!

Re:The US great lakes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600498)

Please dontcha know we already tried to liberate Canada and failed.

Re:The US great lakes? (1)

Twiceblessedman (590621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599676)

Americans fail at geography quite a bit.

Re:The US great lakes? (3, Informative)

NEW22 (137070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599892)

Well, they got a border on all of them... except Lake Michigan! USA!

Re:The US great lakes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600392)

So, there's not as much water on the moon?

"US" Great Lakes? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599548)

I'm sorry, the "US" Great Lakes? Did you guys annex them or something? Did you forget you actually SHARE 4 out of 5 of those lakes? You know what one of them is called? LAKE ONTARIO!

Re:"US" Great Lakes? (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599866)

"The largest lake entirely within Canada is the Great Bear Lake. None of the Great Lakes are entirely in Canada, so none of them count. The deepest lake in Canada is Lake Manitou, which has an island inside it, and in that island there is a lake. That makes it the largest lake that's in an island that's in a lake in the world."

Though, I would expect people living next door to the US to be used to its "US is the world" attitude by now.

Yo dawg (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599964)

I herd you like lakes

Re:Yo dawg (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600026)

Only the ones with mudkips.

Re:"US" Great Lakes? (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599880)

I'm sorry, the "US" Great Lakes? Did you guys annex them or something? Did you forget you actually SHARE 4 out of 5 of those lakes?

Perhaps it refers to a lesser volume, just the water in the US portion of the Great Lakes. Might be clearer if they just used some sort of volume measure. I'm not sure how much water is in the Great lakes, Canadian portion, American portion, or the two combined, anyway.

The next lot can pack their swimming trunks then (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599556)

Well Armstrong playing golf has to be outdone somehow.

Re:The next lot can pack their swimming trunks the (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599654)

That was Alan Shepard on Apollo 14, loserboy.

Re:The next lot can pack their swimming trunks the (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600612)

same person. NASA was saving money.

Additional finding not mentioned in article (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599560)

Something else they found, but wasn't mentioned in the article: a frozen, damaged wellhead at the bottom of the lake and a large plume of oil suspended in it. No ideas yet as to how that got there.

Yes but... (2, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599566)

The stuff on Earth is cheaper to get to (for now)

Re:Yes but... (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599862)

not if your on the moon. also, duh.

This is nothing (1)

Rheostatik (1628895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599582)

This is child's play. The bigger news is that apparently the US owns the entire Great Lakes.

Desert Southwest (1)

njhunter (613589) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599616)

Good, let the desert southwest get their water from the moon!

Re:Desert Southwest (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599806)

Good, let the desert southwest get their water from the moon!

The way NASA reckons it (the volume of water molecules locked inside minerals in the moon's interior), I bet the Southwest has a much higher "specific humidity" than the moon.

The resource that may start a war in space? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599634)

Water is precious to humans. Would it be strange to think it might be precious to other intelligent life out in space? I'm just saying "what ifs" but it sounds like it would make a neat video game or movie. Aliens invade Earth, the moon, and any nearby planet/moon that may have water and humans must fight them off because as we expand our need for it will be greater. I'd play that..

Re:The resource that may start a war in space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599702)

nah, it'd be spice that will start a war in space. because unless it flows ...

Re:The resource that may start a war in space? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599910)

That's fairly close to the plot of the original V mini-series... until you get to the twist(s) at least.

but... (1)

rarel (697734) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599656)

How many libraries of congress of water is that?

Well this gives a sensible answer to one question (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599660)

Never again will we be stumped by atheists when they ask where did all the water go after the flood. We can now tell them that it went to the moon, and scientists have proved it.

Obligatory Brockman (0)

Okonomiyaki (662220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599780)

And I, for one, welcome our new moon water overlords.

But seriously, if you want anyone to get interested in the moon, you need to find out how much light sweet crude is up there.

Putting things to scale... (4, Informative)

art6217 (757847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599842)

Volume of the Great Lakes ~22.5 *10^3 km^3 Volume of the Moon ~21.9 *10^9 km^3 So, the Moon contains even more than one teaspoon of water in 5 tonnes of rock.

Re:Putting things to scale... (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600910)

This is what troubled me about the finding: Yeah, the Moon may have more water than the Great Lakes, but it is likely that most of that is very diffuse. So, you'd have to strip-mine cubic kilometers of regolith to get enough water for, say, a trip to Mars. Does that make it advantageous compared to Earth water, which despite being at the bottom of a relatively deep gravity well, has the advantage of being readily available?

So doing the math... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599846)

to get 1 cubic meter of water, you would need to process 970744.67 cubic meters of the moon (assuming the water is evenly distributed which they'd better hope it's not).

The moon is only .000103013699 % water.

Great Lakes Mention (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599886)

I did read the fine article and saw no mention of any lakes, let alone Earth's Great Lakes. Where did that come from or did subby take some liberties when composing this ... umm ... composition?

Re:Great Lakes Mention (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32599968)

I did read the fine article and saw no mention of any lakes, let alone Earth's Great Lakes. Where did that come from or did subby take some liberties when composing this ... umm ... composition?

First paragraph?

NASA-funded scientists estimate from recent research that the volume of water molecules locked inside minerals in the moon's interior could exceed the amount of water in the Great Lakes here on Earth.

Mantra pushpam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599960)

Chandramaava apaam pushpam,
pusupavaan prajaavaan pasumaan bhavati. ..

Chandramaava apaam ayatanam
ayatanavaan bhavati
Yas chandramasa aayatanam veda
ayatanavaan bhavati
Aapovai chandramasa aaya tanam
ayatanavaan bhavati

Water is the flower of the moon...

Water originates from the moon and moon from water,,,

  - Yajur veda... 3000 BCE.

NASA DOES NOT SAY THAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32599972)

Research Suggests Water Content of Moon's Interior Underestimated

jerryjamesstone and samzenpus are douchebags

I always wondered... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600034)

I always wondered about this.

The moon is essentially "dead", right? No seismic activity to speak of (other then from gravitational forces), no molten core (am I right?) and is pretty much a large rock.

Wouldn't all of the heavy metals, during the course of the moon's existence, have gravitated towards the core leaving the core with a high concentration of heavy metals that would be relatively easy to mine? Big, deep holes drilled straight down to the good stuff?

Power all the tech needed with solar, crack the water for breathable O2 and usable hydrogen?

Re:I always wondered... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600156)

The most we've dug down on Earth is 12.2 kilometers [wikipedia.org] . It would be easier on the moon since there's not as much gravity and the moon is much more inert but drilling down 1738 kilometers is hard.

Re:I always wondered... (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600508)

This was a drilled borehole, a long pipe drilled through by another long rotating pipe. We've only gone 12.2 km because the rock gets wicked warm. Warm enough that it is difficult to use water as coolant (although there is water trapped in the rock). Warm enough that the tools start to have problems. On Earth, eventually you can reach a depth when the rock becomes soft and gooey. The deepest mines are 3.6, 3.7, and 3.9 km. At that depth the rock walls are 140 degF.

More than the Great Lakes? [citation needed] (2, Informative)

talcite (1258586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600086)

The article does not mention anywhere that the amount of water on is more than the great lakes system.

Firstly, the water is in the form of hydroxyl and the mineral apartite (article didn't go into more detail). Secondly, TFA states the amount of water is under 5ppm. Yes, parts per million. I can't see how anyone could arrive at the great lakes value unless they took the volume of the moon and took 5ppm of that, which is ridiculous.

Firstly, the moon's not a uniform material. Secondly, to get anywhere close to this amount of water, you'd need to mine and refine the majority of the moon. It's like saying we have 300 quintillion gallons of water on earth while neglecting to mention that 97% of it is salt water and some more of it in the ice caps.

The real takeaway from the article is that the previously estimated amount of water was 1 ppb and now it's around 5 ppm.

Re:More than the Great Lakes? [citation needed] (1)

talcite (1258586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600096)

I just re-read the first line of the article.

NASA-funded scientists estimate from recent research that the volume of water molecules locked inside minerals in the moon's interior could exceed the amount of water in the Great Lakes here on Earth.

Epic fail.

Sorry guys.

Guess the other nations (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600092)

who are actually going to go to the moon will be pleased. I guess we can still look down on others in smug superiority after we convinced ourselves going back wasn't the best investment of our money. Too bad it was Bush who proposed us going there again

Kinda makes you go hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600272)

I never knew they were competing.

DK

1/3 of the fishes die, & the sea turns red (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600282)

we're not big on prognostication, but some of the current event text matches predictions from several manuals. saw some maps (predictions & gov't., close match, again) yesterday that put the east, west & southern coasts, & several central states, under water. great stuff to not discuss no matter what?

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Of Course! (2, Funny)

fabioalcor (1663783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600490)

That's because cheese contains water!

See you on the moon (1)

al3 (1285708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32600638)

I think the Great Lake Swimmers were on to this a long time ago with their song See You On the Moon [apple.com] .

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32600714)

Another blow for Michigan.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?