Bombing the Moon for Water

s20451 writes "In 1998, NASA scientists deliberately crashed the Lunar Prospector into the Moon, in a failed attempt to detect traces of water allegedly hiding in deep craters at the lunar south pole. Now the BBC is reporting a new proposal to attack the lunar poles with "Bunker Buster" missiles to liberate a detectable amount of water. Called Polar Night, the mission is being proposed as part of the "Discovery" series of probes."

Comments

Yeah, but why?

[EdgeShadow]

I fail to see the benefits of exposing trace amounts of water from the moon at the cost of destroying a small portion of it. The fact that we've already detected it proves it's there.

Re:Yeah, but why?

[inertia187]

From the BBC article:

• What is the nature of the deposit?
  
• What is the source of the water?
  
• Are other ices besides water ice present?
  
• Is the hydrogen actually in the form of water ice, or is
• it hydrogen from the solar wind?
  

So, we want to know more. And this is one way to do it.

Re:Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose for looking for water on the moon is that it would be nice to have if a permanent base is to be built there.

Re:hmm

[nate1138]

Did you even read the article? There aren't going to be any explosives at all on these missions (if approved). They use the PENETRATION technology of "Bunker Busters" to bury sensors under the moon's surface, and those sensors look for water/life/whatever and send the data home.

And by the way, bombs don't generally need atmospheric oxygen, the oxidizer is part of the explosive compound.

Re:The Time Machine?

[RatBastard]

Too bad they screwed that all up. The moon is drifting away from the Earth and there is nothing we can ever do about it. Ever.

Re:Damn�

[HalfStarted]

Ok... string me up for not reading my own linked article through... its not the best description... an air blast weapon gets most of it's explosive power by dispersing a fine mist of a highly reactive agent over a large area using the oxygen in the surrounding atmosphere as the oxidant. Thus... no air... no boom, in all reality I would bet that most if not all conventional explosives would fail to detonate in space due to the lack of atmospherically supplied oxygen... any demolitions experts here that can answer this?

Re:Do we really need more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that over 90% of that water is (almost) completely useless salt water.

Fresh water isn't as abundant as you'd like to think.

Plus, if water is found on the moon, it would be easier to build an operate a moon base. (hauling water in space is DAMN expensive)

Re:It won't explode.. stupid mission.

[Wee]

Please say that you're kidding. You honestly don't know how explosives work, do you?

Or did you read and article and just happen to miss this part:

"The probes are based on bunker-buster penetrators, but instead of explosives, would carry sophisticated scientific instruments hardened against the shock of striking the lunar surface."

You might want to refrain from commenting on anyone else's stupidity or engineering skills.

-B

A show of hands..

[gblues]

How many people read the writeup and saw the lame Iraq jokes coming a mile away?

Yeah, I thought so.

Nathan

Re:Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

"By using missiles to release the water, we blow up any life we may have found, just a thought...."

RTFA. THEY ARE NOT USING ANY EXPLOSIVES!!!!!!

They are using TECHNOLOGY derived from "bunker buster" bombs to have the sensors penetrate several meters into the surface.