Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Zooms In On Moon Minerals

DIY News writes "Lunar scientists have already returned to the moon, using the Hubble Space Telescope and old Apollo Program rock samples to begin prospecting for useful ores. Locating ores rich in oxygen and metals is seen as the first step in making the next decade's human return to the moon more self sufficient and cost effective. Some wavelengths of UV are filtered out by Earth's atmosphere, which is why Hubble can do the job better than a ground-based telescope."

37 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Hollywood basement ? by bushboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So how about a hires shot of the flag and footprints so we can all say "I TOLD YOU SO !"

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:Hollywood basement ? by boldtbanan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because it's impossible to fake a digital image =P

    2. Re:Hollywood basement ? by cloudmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they should fax it, since faxes are legally binding and therefore must not be alterable. :/

    3. Re:Hollywood basement ? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 3, Funny

      weird, i try to zoom in to see the footsteps, but the surface its showing looks nothing like the hollywood soundstage?

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    4. Re:Hollywood basement ? by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The highest resolution Hubble is capable of is 0.0072 arc-seconds.

      An arc-second is defined such that a 1 meter object will appear as 1 arc-second at a distance of 206,256 meters.

      The distance from Hubble (~600km orbit) to the moon (~384,400km) is ... well, about 383,800 km

      So if Hubble produced an image with 1 pixel-per-arcsecond resolution, a pixel would be 1.86 kilometers. But the highest resolution is 0.0072 arc-seconds, or about 140 times better than that.

      So the smallest object Hubble can see on the moon is 13 meters wide.

      Neither the lander module or the rover are that big. Not even close. Good luck finding something that's less than a pixel wide!
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:Hollywood basement ? by Mente · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, this is incorrect. Not the math, just the application. For example, a 1 meter resolution image such as the ones on GoogleMaps can see lines painted in a parking lot. But the lines are't 1 meter wide. Not even close. However, the level of contrast between that line and the surroundings are enough for the lines to appear on the image.

      Given enough contrast with its surroundings, an object could be as small at 4 meters wide and still be visible at .0072 arc-seconds resolution. However, given the fairly neutral grey background of the moon, it is highly unlikely that something left behind would shift the contrast balance enough to color the pixel.

  2. Thank goodness by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I sure am glad that such a waste of valuable resources like the Hubble is going to be scrapped soon. The sooner we stop doing such useless things with it like valuable research that will directly result in more efficient space travel, the better.

  3. Time to set up a mining colony by EmperorKagato · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We require more minerals"

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    1. Re:Time to set up a mining colony by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 4, Funny

      SCV good to go, Sir!

    2. Re:Time to set up a mining colony by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 2, Funny

      as long as we have enough ion cannons for the evitable 'zerg rush

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  4. Article was light on images... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    here's some more.

  5. Zoom by mboverload · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wasn't aware Hubble could focus to so close of an object. Anyone have details about this?

    1. Re:Zoom by RapidEye · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Define close???
      The Hubble orbits 350 miles above the earth and the average distance to the moon is 238,857 miles.

      I'd hardly consider 238,500 (apprx) miles very close =-)

      --
      "Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
    2. Re:Zoom by twiddlingbits · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked on HST software but it was years ago so I may be a bit off base but here is what I recall.

      The Cameras on the Hubble don't really focus like we think of with a 35mm camera. They take exposures of various durations and with certain filters in place. Then the raw data is postprocessed on the ground and based on the raw data, the wavelength filters, etc. then "image" is constructed.

      With the UV "camera" what they would be doing is taking a (TBD time) open shutter picture of the moon with the filters set to only let UV wavelengths pass to the detectors. The detectors will record the intensity of the light hitting each "pixel" of the camera ("binning") and send that data to the ground for processing. If you go to NASAwatch.com there is an article about this that actually links to the experiment definitions, process, etc that was submitted by the researcher in order to get the (very limited) time with the Instrument.

    3. Re:Zoom by WhiteBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Define close???
      The Hubble orbits 350 miles above the earth and the average distance to the moon is 238,857 miles.

      I'd hardly consider 238,500 (apprx) miles very close =-)


      Considering the Hubble routinely examines objects hundred of millions to billions of light years away from Earth (See the See the Hubble Deep Field survey), I'd consider ~239K miles to be right the fuck on top of. ;)

  6. The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Funny


    I've always liked Hubble, not only for pushing back the bounds of our knowledge (and more importantly our ignorance, its made us realise there is much more we don't understand) but also for the very very cool pictures that get people interested in science.

    This is a very useful and productive use of Hubble... but will it help it get more funding? I'm not sure that the chaps in the Whitehouse will get excited about finding rocks on the Moon unless they can claim that THIS was where Saddam had is WMDs.

    Rock A - No oxygen
    Rock B - No oxygen
    Rock C - No oxygen
    Rock D - A bit of metal
    Rock E - A bit of oxygen
    Rock F - No oxygen

    When they find something the photo is going to be rubbish, even worse than when scientists try and get people excited about red dust on Mars.

    I suggest that they do the colouring job on the Moon that they always do on the star systems, and make it look way cooler...

    "Rock X not only has a large amount of gold, shown in gold, and oxygen, shown in blue, but also various other minerals, show in pretty rainbow colours and is resting on a mauve background which represents the futility of mans existance and the desire to expand our knowledge"

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by SengirV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you going to complain about when W is not longer in the whitehouse?

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  7. Re:A little OT but... by everphilski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While we're up there, how about we start work on power satellites?

    If you can get the math to work and sweet talk some venture capitalists then by all means do so. Believe me, people are trying. The numbers just don't work out well. Oil, or any other energy source, is cheap by comparison. The launch costs and inefficiencies in the energy transfer back to earth just don't correlate into profit.

    Winds up being the same story with the rail gun. Good idea, in principle, but the devil is in the details.

    -everphilski-

  8. Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear god man, no! Didn't you see what happened in 1999 when there was an explosion and the moon was torn out of earths orbit and flung into outer space!

    http://www.space1999.org/

  9. Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by fizzup · · Score: 5, Informative

    The HST does not have sufficient resolution for this. The biggest thing that astronauts left on the moon is on the order of 1m, and the moon is 4e8 meters away, for an angular size of about 2.5e-9 radians. To resolve this at a wavelength of 800nm, you need a circular mirror with a diameter of 390m = 1.22 * 8e-7 / 2.5e-9. It would be cheaper to go and look, rather than to build a mirror that big.

  10. Re:Sarcasm appreciated. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Funny

    they would have to bring ... troups

    There's going to be a circus?

    Sign me up!

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  11. Re:A little OT but... by Create+an+Account · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did you just call me disgustingly ignorant? Not that I necessarily disagree, I just think it was premature.

  12. Re:Mine asteroids instead by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's kinda like running around in a large field hunting rabbits with a stone club, while there's a large flock of sheep walking around in your back yard.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  13. Re:Sarcasm appreciated. by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's going to be a circus?

    gives a new meaning to "Moon Bounce". And it makes the trapese child's play.

  14. Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by Cheapy · · Score: 5, Funny

    You sir, need to find a wife.

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  15. The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by goldspider · · Score: 5, 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
  16. Re:Obligatory Dan Quayle Quote: by lowrydr310 · · Score: 2, Funny
    I never paid much attention to Quayle quotes when they were originally made, but he's almost as good as W. I like these:

    "It isn't pollution that is hurting the environment, it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

    "If we don't succeed we run the risk of failure."

    "It's time for the human race to enter the solar system!"

    Since it's almost Halloween, I figured I'd go ahead and post a warning I found while searching for the exact Quayle quote:

    "Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly." -Batman costume warning label
  17. Re:A little OT but... by DougWebb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When/if oil (and coal, and natural gas) get too expensive, we'll shift our electricity generation away from those fuels and towards nuclear. Between direct use of electricty, and the generation of hydrogen for a portable fuel source, we can do/build everything we need.

    Of course, these commodities aren't just used as fuels; oil provides lubrication, plastics, and lots of other refined products. Most of those can be obtained through recycling though, especially if there is plenty of electricty. Also, when the reserves got low, we'd stop using the stuff as fuel and conserve what's left for these other uses.

  18. Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your uber knowledge of napkin math makes me feel stupid :(

    I'm not worthy...I'm not worthy...I'm not worthy!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  19. Re:A little OT but... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which is why we should be building nuclear reactors to produce cheap hydrogen *now*, not 10 years from now. Maybe small ones on boats, that could also distill potable drinking water, as well as produce electricity for local consumption. and so why not hydrogen for non-local (fuel) use, too?

    Interested? more information here

  20. I remember... by Anonym1ty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What happened? I remember when we were told that aiming Hubble at the Moon or the Earth would destroy it's sensitive instruments.

    1. Re:I remember... by faxafloi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happened? I remember when we were told that aiming Hubble at the Moon or the Earth would destroy it's sensitive instruments.

      Hubble can do short images of the moon with no problem, aside from the challenge of guiding. It does images of the earth all the time. These are called earth calibrations and they serve as the basis of flat fields with which HST images are calibrated. You can't see anything in them, though, because the earth is too close to focus on, and the telescope is moving at ~300 miles/min, so the images are just blurry streaks across cloud tops. That's why they make good flat fields.

      Not long after launch, HST did some "imaging" of the sun. The idea was to point the telescope 180 degrees away from the sun while using a small backwards-pointing light collector on the original WF/PC to pre-flood the CCD with solar ultraviolet. It never got used , though. HST Proposal 1478: WF/PC UV FLOOD GUIDING TECHNIQUE VERIFICATION, if you're interested. Here's an example image.

      So the only major solar system object that HST has never imaged-besides the objects we don't know about-is Mercury. It's too close to the sun. The aperture door will close if we try to point there.

      --
      Exit, pursued by a bear.
  21. Key points from the actual article by Scott7477 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The latest lunar prospecting first required aiming Hubble at Apollo landing sites and looking with special filters that showed only subtle UV signatures reflected by soils there.
    By then comparing the Hubble data to actual laboratory-studied samples that astronauts brought back from the same sites, they were able to get a clear idea just how these same minerals look through Hubble's eye. The Hubble Space Telescope can discriminate very subtle color differences on the surface," said planetary scientist Mark Robinson of Northwestern University. So subtle that Hubble can see mineralogical differences in rocks that look identical in color to the human eye, he said."

    So the Hubble can in fact discern with a usable degree of precision....

    "At Aristarchus, Hubble detected what appeared to be an abundance of the mineral ilmenite, which is good news, said NASA lunar scientist Michael Wargo. By heating or passing an electrical current through ilmenite, it's a simple matter to release oxygen, which can be used for breathing and for rocket fuel, he explained."

    It will be easy to extract at least one useful element....

    Ahhh...I'll just include the rest of the article.

    "In some ways the Hubble prospecting is just the bare beginning of the next phase of lunar exploration, said Garvin. The next step will be taken by the robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is being built to map out the moon's resources in details.

    A second lunar probe is also being planned, all before the planned return of humans to the moon by about 2018, as directed by President George W. Bush's vision for humans in space.

    In a sense, said Robinson, the Hubble prospecting experiment is giving scientists the first taste of how to interpret the deluge of lunar data that will be coming from those spacecraft.

    "It will be a Niagara Falls of data," he said. "This is really going to jump start our ability to understand this data.""

    So this Hubble use is part of what seems to me to be a sound plan for preparing to build a base on the moon.

    --
    "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
  22. Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Honey, I love you, but I'm tired of you talking about this stuff. Why don't you talk to your nerd friends on Slashweb or whatever it's called".

  23. He3 is the key by Dollyknot · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is something worth $40000 an ounce on the moon, read about it here.

    http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/

    and here

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283 056.html?page=1&c=y/

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  24. Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by AndyG314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ya but think of all the other great stuff we could do with a mirror that big!

    --
    If it's dead, you killed it.
  25. Why... by QJimbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why in gods name isn't there a lunar orbiter satellite? Surely it would cost too much to set one up, and we could get some really hi-res images of the surface, I mean we really should have better quality ones by now.