Slashdot Mirror


Lunar Polar Ice Not Present

pclark999 writes "The New Scientist reports that radar probes of the lunar polar region has disproved earlier theories regarding large sheets of polar ice in craters permanently in the shade. "

27 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. No ice on the moon??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can we put Vanilla Ice there?

  2. Time for plan B by tekiegreg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Granted there is no water on the moon, we'll have to bring it there ourselves I guess, presumably we're either importing from Earth, or how about nudging a comet towards the moon once the technology is feasible? As long as your aim is good (for the love of god don't miss and hit Earth), we could have a large supply of water available for long term moon usage indefinitely (when we run out, just nudge another comet, but control the landing of the comet if there's already people there).

    --
    ...in bed
    1. Re:Time for plan B by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Informative
      Also Earth is pretty much a sealed ecosystem

      Say WHAT?

      (although we get tonnes of stuff from space every day)...

      Yeah, like, uh, sunlight?

      You know... that bright stuff without which 99.9% of this ecosystem could not exist?

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
  3. Shoot. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    That means no brewery on the moon. So much for my dreams of being a drunken astronaut.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Shoot. by SirLantos · · Score: 5, Funny

      You could always join the Russian space program.

      --
      The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
  4. Out of ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Right, no ice for beer on the moon, everyone off to mars...

  5. No polar ice on Earth, either, by Tex+Bravado · · Score: 4, Funny

    before long :-)

  6. An outrage! by DarkHand · · Score: 4, Funny

    This means that my great grand childrens' lunar snow cones bought at LunarDisney(tm) will cost 10 times as much! We shouldn't stand for this highway robbery!

  7. This guy is everywhere! by fitten · · Score: 4, Funny

    Team leader Bruce Campbell

    Did he vanquish the Mooninites, too?

  8. Re:Make up your minds... by jgabby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Skiing on the moon would be no fun at all....no wind blowing in your face, a very slow speed...perhaps the only enjoyable thing would be ski jumps with REALLY long slopes to build up speed, then jump over a canyon or something.

  9. Aw, crap by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I'll never be able to unload www.luxury-moon-ice-cubes.com.

  10. Little Off Topic by pvt_medic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was just surfing the web and came across this Nova article about one of the possible theories over the creation of the moon. Its says that the moon is a result of a asteroid crashing into the earth and was formed by the pieces that were blasted off the earth. Here is a video animation they have on it.

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
  11. Well, more accurately by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    it said there was no sheets of ice at the poles. There could still be grains. The previous survey showed a lot of hydrogen up there, and the best guess for how you get lots of hydrogen to stick around is as ice.

    Not sure why you couldn't have methane mind...

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Well, more accurately by vslashg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not sure why you couldn't have methane mind...

      Because every time you got a good idea, you'd be distracted and say "That smell again! What's that smell?"

  12. Not necessarily... by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative
    The BBC News site has been carrying a summary of a Nature article on this since yesterday. The telling quote is "The observations, from the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, do not rule out ice". The conclusion seems to have been that the ice might still be present, but rather than being thick sheets can only be in small grains or thin sheets. There is also the possiblity of sub-surface ice since the probes can only reach to a depth of several meters into the surface dust.

    Roll on the ESA's Smart 1 probe next year which will hopefully resolve the issue.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  13. Actually, you are dead wrong. by mindstrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are areas in the polar region where the bottoms of craters are in eternal shade, and that is precisely what these studies are talking about.

    And when we say "The dark side of the moon".. we are referring to either a Pink Floyd album, or the side of the moon that is currently in darkness.. so the dark side of the moon is indeed always dark.. just like the dark side of the earth.

  14. Re:No such thing as permanent shade by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is a common misunderstanding of the moon. No place on the moon is ever permanently in the shade (excepting something like a cave of course). This comes from the mishandled use of the phrase "dark side of the moon".

    This is a common misunderstanding of what is meant by permanent shading on the moon. Note the phrase "polar ice" is key here.

    In the polar regions, the sun is very low in the sky and there are places in deep craters where the sunlight, at any point in the Lunar day, never reaches.

    It's the same as on the Earth. The bottom of a deep canyon near the south pole would never receive direct sunlight. The sun never moves above a certain altitude in the sky. Heck, the tilt of the Earth's axis give the poles permanent night (well, twilight) for six months. Not sure what the Moon's tilt is offhand, but that's a side issue.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  15. Well maybe it WAS there... by iworm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's get this clear: they used a really really really really powerful radar, and then found that the ice "wasn't there". Uh huh. But now the moon does have strange clouds of water vapour... Whoops.

  16. Polar ice isn't the only myth here... by goldspider · · Score: 3, Funny

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  17. Re:No such thing as permanent shade by jap · · Score: 3, Informative
    No place on the moon is ever permanently in the shade

    Unfortunately for you, there is such a place. Maybe even more of them, dunno, I left my lunar map in my spacecraft, and I'm not in the mood to fetch it.

    The place is called the Shackleton crater - which is a crater at the Lunar South Pole. Because of it location, the bottom of that crater is expected not to be exposed to sunlight ever.

    As a coincidence, this is exactly the place where the Clementine mission observed radiation patterns indicating hydrogen presence - and which the referenced article also discusses.

  18. Hydrogen is more important than water by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although finding water would be nice, the real issue is finding a long-term source of hydrogen on the moon. The moon offers plenty of long-term sources of oxygen as a byproduct of processing moon rocks. But hydrogen may be scarer, unless there really is a concentration of either water or hydrated rock at the poles. Without hydrogen, life gets much harder. Perhaps the moon really is a harsh mistress.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  19. Well sweet goddamn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are you doing here on slashdot? Better get yourself down there and edumicate some so-called scientists. Shit, if they were so daft to overlook this simple "fact", they don't deserve to call themselves scientists.

    1. Re:Well sweet goddamn. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What are you doing here on slashdot? Better get yourself down there and edumicate some so-called scientists. Shit, if they were so daft to overlook this simple "fact", they don't deserve to call themselves scientists.


      Thank you. It's too bad you posted as an AC, because your post deserves wider exposure than it's probably going to get. My kingdom for some mod points!

      It seems like every story about any scientific controversy on /. brings out a bunch of trolls -- who don't even realize they're trolls -- who feel compelled to roll out some half-remembered fact from 8th-grade science class to "prove" that what these scientists are doing is clearly ridiculous and doomed to failure. Um ... guess what, guys, the people working on the project in question already thought of your objection a looong time ago. For whatever reason, they've dismissed that objection -- and you can be sure that they had good reasons for doing so.

      And even that lends too much credence to objections like the grandparent poster's. Saying, "there's no ice on the moon because it would have evaporated a long time ago" to a planetary scientist studying the possibility of lunar ice is roughly akin to someone with an elementary-school grasp of mathematics saying, "there's no such thing as the square root of a negative number, so what's with all these idiot mathematicians talking about i ?"
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  20. Re:Disproved?? by Bendebecker · · Score: 3, Informative

    A theory is an explanation of a particular phenonmen often based on supporting evidence. A hypothesis is a conclusion derived from an understanding of the theory that is often the focus of the experiment. The hypothesis is tested, and depending on its results, a theory is either disporving or it is supported by the hypothesis. It is nearly impossible to prove a theory.

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  21. Not complete refutation by amightywind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The radar astronomers admit that they were not able to probe Shackleton crater where Clementine got it positive reading. In any event, I doubt we are talking about much more than frost in the regolith. This is bad news for those who prattle on about stipmining the lunar south pole in order to manufacture rocket fuel.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  22. Wrong by JahToasted · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Russian space programme is a very professional organisation, and I know for a FACT that there absolutely no drunken astronauts there. For shame! They are drunken cosmonauts, not astronauts.

  23. Shadows by Autonomous+Crowhard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I read this and I have a question... How can they be using Arecibo to detect into the bottoms of those craters? Given Arecibo's location (18.3) and Luna's orbital inclination (5 degrees) and the fact that they are looking at Luna's poles then the angle of incedence would be pretty low (4.13 degrees) for the south pole. From the article it sounds like they are only checking the sides of the craters and not the bottom. Not sure what good that does.

    Also, so what if it takes a lot of processing to get the water out of the soil. It's not like you don't have a great source of energy just over the crater wall.