Slashdot Mirror


Moon Rocks Still In Demand After Almost 40 Years

During NASA's Apollo missions to the moon, roughly 842 pounds of rocks were collected from the lunar surface. Scientific demand for the rocks has always been high, and a review board tracks and sends out hundreds of samples each year, even now, decades after the rocks were brought to Earth. They've provided researchers with a wealth of information about the entire solar system. From the NYTimes: "The samples have confirmed that asteroid and meteor impacts, not volcanism, created the vast majority of craters that define the Moon's topography, while a constant barrage of meteorites, micrometeorites and radiation melted and pureed the bedrock to create the blanket of fine-grained soil and dust -- known as regolith -- that now cloaks the lunar surface. And knowing the ages of Moon rocks, which can be computed to within 20 million years, has enabled scientists to establish a baseline that allows them to date geologic features throughout the solar system. The surface of the Earth, one of the solar system's youngest topographies, is constantly changing, as it is faulted, folded, shaped and reshaped by eruptions, earthquakes and erosion. By contrast, the Moon is as old as it gets."

142 comments

  1. If only..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pet rocks had this kind of enduring appeal. Then I could take mine

  2. Mars missions by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait for the first samples from Mars to be returned, though at this rate I'll be a grey old man. I've always loved the description of the planetary landscape in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars , especially his account of how astronauts would have to deal with "fines" (ultra-small dust particles that seep everywhere). Even if I could only see a marsrock in the Smithsonian, it would make me feel so much closer to the Red Planet.

    1. Re:Mars missions by AndGodSed · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That would make for some interesting study. One thing that springs to mind is the possibility of a black market trade for mars rock. Not that I would do something like that.

      No really...

    2. Re:Mars missions by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even if I could only see a marsrock in the Smithsonian, it would make me feel so much closer to the Red Planet.

      No idea about the Smithsonian, but I've already seen Mars rock - at the Natural History Museum in London.

      Bits blasted off Mars in some titanic collision aeons in the past, which have drifted through space before falling to Earth as meteorites. Bit of a roundabout route, but it works!

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:Mars missions by spoonist · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have touched Mars. Repeatedly.

      Tucked away in a tiny corner of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, ignored by most visitors, is a small display of a tiny rock.

      You can touch this rock.

      The description of the rock states that it is a meteorite from Mars that was collected in Antarctica.

    4. Re:Mars missions by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have touched Mars. Repeatedly.

      Stop doing that.
      You'll go blind.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have touched Mars. Repeatedly.

      Stop doing that. You'll go blind.

      -

      Or gain superpowers!

    6. Re:Mars missions by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately, it's not going to happen if the "No manned space program!" supporters get their way. Those supporters keep telling us that all science can be achieved without a manned space program. Yet we have yet to see a probe provide as much useful material, data, and support infrastructure for return missions as the manned space program. Can we send a probe to drill for soil? Sure.

      Can we send a probe that will collect samples from all over the area, collect rocks in their original condition, and respond to scientists on the ground who get to review each sample before it is collected? Maybe. But it's a LONG way from having been proven yet. And there's still the aspect that Astronauts are able to return a significantly larger quantity for study.

      Then there's the situation of the Hubble Telescope. That telescope would still be a floating piece of space junk if not for the repairs carried out by the manned space program.

      "I can say unequivocally, that if it weren't for the human space program, Hubble would be a piece of orbiting space junk." --Ed Weiler, Chief Scientist, Hubble

      At the end of the day, humans are more adaptable to situations, and can do the job better than automated systems. That's not to deprecate the role of robots in space, but the two are incredibly complementary. So please tell your favorite political candidate, we want the Constellation Project! :-)

    7. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't work. Believe me, I tried so many times I lost count.

    8. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory Chappelle quote:
      "Let's focus on space nigga, the United States of Space! Cuz I ain't stoppin at the moon! Write this down, M-A-R-S, Mars bitches, that is where we're going. Red rocks! Yayee yaah!!"

    9. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Rocks from mars have been available for a while:
      http://rocksfrommars.com/

    10. Re:Mars missions by CougMerrik · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can we send a probe to drill for soil? Sure.

      No Blood For Soil!

    11. Re:Mars missions by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Bits blasted off Mars in some titanic collision aeons in the past, which have drifted through space before falling to Earth as meteorites. Bit of a roundabout route, but it works!

      There's also some like that from the moon. I wonder if they are studied as much as Apollo rocks.
           

    12. Re:Mars missions by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the first samples from Mars to be returned

      I find it a bit scary. We could be infected with a new lifeform for which we have no natural immunities. Sure, the chances are small of this being the case, but it still could be a human-ending gamble. I'd suggest we build a moonbase with good labs and isolate the lab workers from Earth for a while.
             

    13. Re:Mars missions by DeadDecoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno. Most of the science that we can do and should do, do not currently require manned expeditions to mars. Those include developing a sustainable living environment (which we have trouble doing here on earth) and faster modes of transportation (otherwise your asking for people to spend up to 10 years in space with minimal human contact). Like all good science, before we start performing experiments involving humans, we should perform our initial studies using lesser organisms or no organisms if at all possible. This will end up yielding similar results with less risk to the humans or financial stability of the program. I'm sure the "No manned space program!" supporters are only saying that because it will lead to more practical and attainable advances without leaving the space program subject to shifts in the political landscape.

    14. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have ridden the mighty moon worm!

    15. Re:Mars missions by sadgoblin · · Score: 0

      And he'll name himself Seizure Man!

    16. Re:Mars missions by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Or gain superpowers!

      Touching it probably wouldn't be enough. But if there were an experiment being conducted in the next room which involved high levels of bertold radiation (normally deadly, but not in this case for some reason) at the same time he was touching the Mars rock...

      Mars, God of War! (dramatic theme music as he proceeds immediately to invade Iran, episode ends with him giving the thumbs up and saying "Mission Accomplished").

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    17. Re:Mars missions by meeya · · Score: 1

      now that's a good one :)

    18. Re:Mars missions by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have touched Mars. Repeatedly.

      That's nothing! I have eaten Mars. Repeatedly.

    19. Re:Mars missions by Cuppa+'Joe'+Black · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or get your moon rocks off.

      The moon.

      --
      Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
    20. Re:Mars missions by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That ain't the same. Those rocks first of all were subject to a heavy inpact collision, then traveled for years or millenia and finally had a fiery entrance into our atmosphere, only to survive another hard impact.

      That's a bit like saying you saw an original Tin Lizzy when you just saw one that spent the last century on a scrapyard after it had a crash totalling it.

      Yay for car analogies!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Mars missions by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then there's the situation of the Hubble Telescope. That telescope would still be a floating piece of space junk if not for the repairs carried out by the manned space program.

      "I can say unequivocally, that if it weren't for the human space program, Hubble would be a piece of orbiting space junk." --Ed Weiler, Chief Scientist, Hubble

      Hubble cost about $2.5 billion to build and launch.
      The Shuttle costs $1.3 billion per launch at the rate of ~7 launches a year.

      If there were no manned space program, NASA could've easily afforded to build and put a dozen HSTs in orbit.

      At the end of the day, humans are more adaptable to situations, and can do the job better than automated systems.

      The question isn't what can do the job better, the question is what can do the job most efficiently: i.e. effectiveness / cost. An unmanned Mars mission designed to return samples would probably also need to return a hundred kg in support equipment. A manned Mars mission would probably need to return several tons of equipment, people, and active life support equipment. Fuel requirements scale proportionately to payload weight so you've just increased the mission cost by one if not two orders of magnitude. Sure a person could do the job better, but is it really worth paying 10x-100x more for something a little better?

      At this point in time, putting people in space is mostly a symbolic gesture, meant to inspire the population (or at least give them a sense of superiority over other nations). As much as we want the romantic notion of people traveling to the other planets, the technology just isn't there yet. Should we continue pouring most of our money into inflated mission costs just so we can say we have people up there? Or should we concentrate our money on cost-effectively experimenting and improving technology which could eventually be used to get people out to the planets and stars?

      Nobody wants to kill off manned space travel. The goal of even an unmanned space program is to pave the way for people eventually going out there. What the anti-manned program people want is an increased emphasis on cost-effective research and experimental technology, and less on symbolic gestures. IMHO there is substantial PR value in having some sort of manned space program. A lot of people working in astronautics and the space program today wouldn't be there if there hadn't been a manned program that inspired them as a kid. But the NASA budget currently 3:1 in favor of manned space travel needs to swing the other way if we're really serious about developing space travel technology.

    22. Re:Mars missions by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention the by-products.

      Sure, robot explorers are cheaper. But think back to the 60s. Think of all the incredible discoveries that were made because of the hardships to get man into space! A ton of inventions are, directly or indirectly, a product of the space race.

      Now, why would human space travel spur innovation? Because we're (drumroll) humans! An innovation for human space flight has to serve some human need. Robot technology, while at least putting some innovation behind robotics and other electronic appliances, cannot produce anything close to it.

      We should start looking beyond the immediate usefulness of research. If we didn't have quantum physics, we wouldn't have lasers, and thus no DVDs. That's not what it was researched for, but that's something anyone is able to understand and consider useful.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Mars missions by able1234au · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure it will be cheaper and easier to do manned space travel in 100 years time but i will be long dead by then.

      I think that sort of thinking is why people want to see it now, rather than leaving it for our grandchildren's children.

    24. Re:Mars missions by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Man if you ignored the Iran bit that would make for a great superhero comic.

    25. Re:Mars missions by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Man if you ignored the Iran bit that would make for a great superhero comic.

      Hey, even the neocons need their superheroes. Given their tendency towards fantasy, I'm surprised they haven't come up with something like that already.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    26. Re:Mars missions by qazsedcft · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fuel requirements scale proportionately to payload weight

      No, actually it does not scale proportionately. The fuel requirements grow exponentially with the mass of the payload for all self-propelled spacecraft due to the rocket equation. For the rate of growth to be linear the energy for the propulsion would have to come from outside the system (e.g. ground-based).

    27. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people think this already happened. This is what panspermia is all about.

    28. Re:Mars missions by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Most of the science that we can do and should do, do not currently require manned expeditions to mars. Those include developing a sustainable living environment (which we have trouble doing here on earth) and faster modes of transportation (otherwise your asking for people to spend up to 10 years in space with minimal human contact).

      I think the sustainable living environment is the biggest hurdle. We're still a long way from being able to develop the reliable, sustainable systems that will be necessary for long-term human space travel.

      The ISS experience has given us some insight into just how difficult this problem is. On a long-term mission, something as simple as a failure in the toilet system could start a cascade of events that end in disaster.

      From what I've seen so far, I seriously doubt that we're anywhere close to being able to build the complex systems that are required for long-term human space travel with anything like the level of sustainability necessary for operation without any kind of re-supply capability.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    29. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't agree with you. Most of the no manned space program arguments I've seen seem to include comments about not having solved all our problems here on earth yet. People who say that always seem to be in favor of canceling all space activity until we have poverty, etc, "solved" to whatever their definition is. Since this is flatly impossible (no matter how many people and how wealthy they are, there will always be a bottom 10%) they're really in favor of stopping all space exploration, they just aren't quite willing to say so.

    30. Re:Mars missions by mdwh2 · · Score: 0

      Think of all the incredible discoveries that were made because of the hardships to get man into space! A ton of inventions are, directly or indirectly, a product of the space race.

      Such as?

      We should start looking beyond the immediate usefulness of research. If we didn't have quantum physics, we wouldn't have lasers, and thus no DVDs.

      That's irrelevant to this issue. "Research would be more cost-effective if we did it using unmanned systems" does not equate to "We shouldn't do research at all".

      Furthermore, the "look beyond immediate usefulness of research" argument is an argument against manned space travel. It is the pro-manned people who want immediate results - getting a man on Mars, and that's that. It is those who argue against them that want long term plans that start with unmanned travel, until it is more appropriate to send people.

    31. Re:Mars missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree. As someone working in the space industry, I can tell all of Slashdot this with certainty: We have the technology and knowledge to get to the moon and stay there. We do not, however, have the money.

      I'm not talking about just throwing money at the problem... solutions exist to all of the foreseeable problems. It just takes plenty of launch mass to solve them all, and launch mass is expensive (though getting cheaper over time).

    32. Re:Mars missions by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, it's not going to happen if the "No manned space program!" supporters get their way. Those supporters keep telling us that all science can be achieved without a manned space program. Yet we have yet to see a probe provide as much useful material, data, and support infrastructure for return missions as the manned space program"

      There WILL be a sample return mision long before a manned mission to mars. We we need to perfect the technology needed to lift off mars and return to Earth before we send people.

      Actually getting people to mars is not so hard what's hard is (1) Launching the Mars to Earth mission. and (2) Figuring out how to keep people alive and healthy for 2.5 years in deep space.

      It is a kind of race as I see it. It will take 25 or more years to solve the two big above problems but in 25 years machine will become much smarter and more capable. Even when people do go back to the moon and to Mars most work on the surface will be done by remote control. There is the problem of "total lifetime radiation dosage" so time outside must be rationed.

      Lot's of automated equipment will have to be built, sent and tested ahead of people. Right now half of what is sent to mars fails. We will want better odds before we send people.

    33. Re:Mars missions by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I agree its one possibility, but without knowing for sure what's on what we put ourselves at risk. We have zilch experience with known lifeforms on other planets and how they relate to and interact with Earth life.

    34. Re:Mars missions by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "Hubble cost about $2.5 billion to build and launch [wikipedia.org].
      The Shuttle costs $1.3 billion per launch [wikipedia.org] at the rate of ~7 launches a year."

      You are correct about this. It would have been cheaper to launch multiple copies of Hubble than to service it. Note that all major telescopes after Hubble are designed NOT to be serviced. Seems the folks at NASA learned something. Launching a replacement is cheaper then service but more than that. Hubble had to be placed in a very non-optimal orbit so that it could be reached by the Shuttle.

      There is another problem with manned missions. The lead time is very, very long. It takes roughtly 20 years from concept to flight for a new manned vehicle. Not just space craft. Look at the B2 bomer and so on. They are very complex systems and you have to design and build not just the vehicle. The vehicle is the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the work is the support infra structure that stays on the ground. Training up 1,000 technicians, the mission control and ground stations. Assembly building and repair depots and then the long supply chain of smaller contractors. For a small platform like Phoenix (that is on Mars now) all of this is small but for hugly complex system all of this is a 20 year project.

      Notice that the Space Shuttle is basically 1970's technology. A mission to Mars on 2030 would use 2010 technology. I think a manned Mars mission will have to wait until about 2050 or so.

    35. Re:Mars missions by Solandri · · Score: 1

      No, actually it does not scale proportionately. The fuel requirements grow exponentially with the mass of the payload for all self-propelled spacecraft due to the rocket equation.

      I double-checked the rocket equation before I posted. It says fuel requirement grows exponentially with desired delta-v, but is proportional to payload mass (approximation when fuel mass >> payload mass).

    36. Re:Mars missions by spoonist · · Score: 1

      Ironically I have both gone blind and gained super-powers!

    37. Re:Mars missions by spoonist · · Score: 1

      Mars was a dude, don't you mean Venus?

    38. Re:Mars missions by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      But this isn't a question about reducing poverty. I'm simply pointing out that if we cannot develop a sustainable environment, then the mission will be burdened with the need to continually supply resources. This becomes prohibitively expensive as you expand further into space because you'll need to send a continuous stream of ships just to maintain the mission. A machine doesn't have the need for human contact, food, water, or respiratory gases. Consequently, you don't have to continually provide supplies and you can plan for one way observation trips.
      We don't need to solve poverty, but developing an environment where the human astronaut can provide for their own needs would go a long way to making extensive space trips feasible.

    39. Re:Mars missions by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Mars was also the god of farmers.

      Stop making fun of my gods, you insensitive clod!

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    40. Re:Mars missions by fyoder · · Score: 1

      From a superhero perspective, "Mars, God of Farmers" may leave something to be desired.

      "Don't worry about this drought, gentle farmers! I shall fly about the world gathering storm clouds to bring water to your fields!"

      Well, could be popular with farmers, I guess.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
  3. Too bad by sokoban · · Score: 5, Funny

    Too bad they're all fakes picked up from the driveway outside a soundstage in southern california. All those so called "scientists" and "NASA" will look so silly once people actually make it to the moon and find that it really is made of cheese. Demand for the gourmet "moon cheese" will cause overmining of the moon and an eventual orbital shift sometime in 2012 which will cause all female mammals on earth to have a massively synchronized ovulatory cycle which will end with the death of all the males.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    1. Re:Too bad by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Troll? Mods with a sense of humour failure again...

    2. Re:Too bad by jjinco33 · · Score: 1

      I think the mod that did that didn't even bother to read the entire post, just the first line.

      --
      Meh.
    3. Re:Too bad by abstract+daddy · · Score: 0, Troll

      News at 11: Slashdot moderators still clueless retards.

    4. Re:Too bad by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      all female mammals on earth to have a massively synchronized ovulatory cycle which will end with the death of all the males.

      I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly that is going to cause the males to die.
      Does it involve all of us getting laid?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Too bad by link15672 · · Score: 1

      Death.... by SNUSNU!!!!!

    6. Re:Too bad by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is always my big objection to major conspiracy theories that involve the faking of an event observed by millions.

      Even if only a few dozen or hundred people would have to be involved in faking something like the lunar landing or 9-11, the population of experts closely observing the events in question is enormous. Many of them could secure protection from governments or organizations opposed to the US or whatever power is in question. When you begin to total the number of people who would have to keep quiet on something like this, it gets absurd fast. Do we really believe that some shadow government is quietly faking thousands of papers on moon rocks carefully enough to avoid major contradictions over decades of publishing?

      Not that the public isn't deceived all the time. But it happens in ways that are simultaneously more subtle and more blatantly obvious. Inducing apathy with a flood of partially true information works a lot better than engineering specific falsehoods.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    7. Re:Too bad by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In short, the conspiracy would be more complicated than the actual event.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Too bad by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      11. Profit!

    9. Re:Too bad by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Possibly, but by the wrong species.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    10. Re:Too bad by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, as an armchair activist, that kind of belief depresses me. There really are groups of evil powerful people manipulating the world toward their own ends. But when you start to believe that they're a cartoonish parody of villainy capable of controlling virtually every corner of society like it was an army, the response is just resignation. Real abuse of power is far more mundane, and as such, is something we can actually do something about. It's a GOOD thing that there is no Illuminati to contend with.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    11. Re:Too bad by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everybody is always manipulating the world towards their own ends. Good and evil often mean little more than 'agrees with me' and 'doesn't agree with me'. The best, brightest, most decent person you know goes out and makes the world a better place. That is still manipulating it to their own ends.

      Also, is an armchair activist someone who wishes they had principles to stand up for, I don't really understand what that means?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Too bad by uberjack · · Score: 1

      It involves a large femputer and a planet called Amazonia

    13. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is still manipulating it to their own ends.

      But the difference is that the decent person's ends are to the benefit of others instead of benefit to themselves.

    14. Re:Too bad by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Imagine 3 BILLION (pinky-to-mouth) women, all suffering from PMS at the same time.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    15. Re:Too bad by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The distinction is meaningless. Benefiting others makes them feel good or otherwise satisfies some urge of theirs, which is exactly a benefit to themselves.

      It's a reasonable way to sort some good from some evil, but it is very hard to establish pure altruism, it is usually beneficial to the giver.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Too bad by sokoban · · Score: 1

      Oh well, my karma's been maxed out for years now.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    17. Re:Too bad by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      "Does it involve all of us getting laid?"

      Hell's thermometers are reading several thousand degrees Fahrenheit, so no.

    18. Re:Too bad by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      We all know Kyle orchestrated the whole thing.

    19. Re:Too bad by ameline · · Score: 1

      I think the mechanism he alludes to is the globally synchronized PMS that would inevitably precede. Much like a nuclear holocaust, the few unfortunate survivors would envy the dead.

      --
      Ian Ameline
    20. Re:Too bad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Can't be. In Revelations 21:8 it says clearly "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

      A "fiery lake of burning sulfur" means at the very least liquid sulphur, or there is no lake. For sulfur to be liquid, it would require a temperature of no more than 832F.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death! by Snu-Snu

    22. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, it certainly wouldn't be more complicated in this case. supposedly, wernher von braun made a trip to antarctica, to explicitly to collect lunar rock in 1967. if you google antarctica+moon+meteorite you might see the point. call me conspiracy theorist if you want. (ha ha i don't care i'm anonymous coward)

    23. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/science/meteorites.shtml

    24. Re:Too bad by konohitowa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ooh. Wait, wait! I screwed up and got myself back to positive karma. I want to get in on this troll hunting!

      See, my theory is this. My karma is irrelevant. Utterly, completely irrelevant. Seriously - it's just some stupid number on a website. No bearing on me or life in general.

      However, it's nice to have some people go through and mod articles so I don't have to spend time reading everything. Unfortunately, the mod population contains numbers (apparently significant) of people who are utterly unqualified to do so in any reasonable manner.

      That's where we come in. By tossing in some posts like this and the above, we burn mod points (a limited resource) of people who are too stupid to use them for their intended purpose. Thus removing morons from the mod pool, at least where it counts. Otherwise these modtards notice the real posts, and that's not helpful.

      Hint: sometimes it helps to talk about your turd collection.

    25. Re:Too bad by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It's not like any cheese I've ever tasted, Grommit.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    26. Re:Too bad by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be 'pure' altruism, mutualism and commensalism (which I guess is partially altruistic) make more sense. It's parasitic behaviour (which can be considered 'evil' for our purposes) that causes issues here.

      I would argue that the distinction, in terms of overall effect, between the benefits of stealing all your food and getting away with it while you starve to death, and getting warm fuzzies for sharing my surplus food with you, allowing both of us to survive until more food becomes available, is quite meaningful indeed.

    27. Re:Too bad by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Well, that all depends on the pressure, now doesn't it? I'm sure you could get liquid sulphur at a much higher temperature if you crank up the pressure.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    28. Re:Too bad by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 1

      Real abuse of power is far more mundane, and as such, is something we can actually do something about. It's a GOOD thing that there is no Illuminati to contend with.

      Personally, I would prefer if there was an Illuminati to contend with over the manipulations and abuses of power. Even a very-well hidden criminal/illegal organization that subtly manipulated many other organizations to perform counter-productive/destructive/disruptive acts is easier to combat than a large number of scattered small groups performing c-p/d/d acts for their personal gain. That single group controlling all the others will eventually make a slip that exposes them to be chipped away until they fall or smashed outright, leaving all the organizations they controlled without their direction and therefore unable to perform the acts they did before. Even if the large number of small scattered groups working for their own gain only require 1/10th the vigilance and action to take down as the Illuminati-esque subtle manipulator group, there will still be many more than 10 of them, and therefore require much more effort in order to stop them from causing harm. Put more simply, if the controller of a thousand semi-autonomous robots is exposed, it is simpler to take out the controller and render the robots relatively harmless then it is to make an ad-hoc cluster of a million Brazilian wandering spiders equally harmless.

    29. Re:Too bad by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      ...benefits of stealing all someone else's food and getting away with it while they starve to death, sorry.

    30. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U don't think we went to the moon why not tell Louis Armstrong to his face

      xkcd.com/202

    31. Re:Too bad by AI0867 · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      Past the critical point of 1314 K, 20.7 MPa, the liquid and gaseous phases merge.

    32. Re:Too bad by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ye gawds... I was trying to make a JOKE here, ok?

      Geeks and religious fundies have one thing in common, they take fantasy stories WAY too serious.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Too bad by maxume · · Score: 1

      The distinction is meaningless when trying to decide if they are manipulating the world to their own ends.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    34. Re:Too bad by sean.peters · · Score: 1

      All of us except the Slashdot readers.

    35. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all female mammals on earth to have a massively synchronized ovulatory cycle which will end with the death of all the males.

      I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly that is going to cause the males to die.
      Does it involve all of us getting laid?

      -

      Death by Snoo Snoo!

    36. Re:Too bad by Geminii · · Score: 1

      DEATH BY SNU-SNU!

  4. Note to self by AndGodSed · · Score: 3, Informative

    When we go go back: Take a shovel and bucket.

    1. Re:Note to self by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

      When we go go back

      ...and while you're there, bring us back some local dancers!

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Note to self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we go go back: Take a shovel and bucket.

      You mean when you go back to Area 51 ?

  5. Earth's surface Changes? by warrior_s · · Score: 0

    Even though the surface of earth changes, but I dont thing the stuff (rocks etc) just disappear. They still remain on earth. So, why can't they be used to find anything about the universe? Maybe they are used, and I don't know about that. But article makes us believe that due to changes on earth's surface, matter here is not as useful as that on moon.

    1. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by warrior_s · · Score: 0

      errr .i mean "solar system", and not "universe"

    2. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by adnonsense · · Score: 4, Funny

      You might want to look up "plate tectonics".

    3. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by edmac3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But the article makes us believe that due to changes on the earth's surface, matter here is not as useful as that on the moon.

      You need a definite article in front of those nouns. Please learn English properly for the sake of everyone.

    4. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even though the surface of earth changes, but I dont thing the stuff (rocks etc) just disappear. They still remain on earth. So, why can't they be used to find anything about the universe?

      Mainly because bits of the surface are constantly being subducted into the core of the earth and melting into the general magma soup. The entire surface is also constantly subjected to erosion and weathering, which breaks rock down both physically and chemically. They are slow processes, but we're talking about ~4.5 billion years. That is enough time for pretty well the entire surface of the earth to have been destroyed and reformed several times over.

      A sample from the moon is largely an unaltered and uncontaminated record from the moment it first solidified as rock.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by rocketPack · · Score: 2, Informative

      One word: volcanism.

      The Earth has it, the moon does not.

      Elementary geology tell us that the composition and structure of the rocks changes when it undergoes igneous or metamorphic transformations, meaning we can not trust anything that we can reach to be in its "original" state. If nothing we can access on Earth is guaranteed to be "original", then no, it doesn't tell us a whole lot about the origins of the Universe.

      The moon, on the other hand, is pretty much the same as it was when it first formed (save for the changes caused by impacts and radiation), making it a much more reliable record of "how things were."

    6. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by owlnation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You need a definite article in front of those nouns. Please learn English properly for the sake of everyone.

      Even on the Moon the Grammar Nazis will still find you.

      Have you considered that perhaps the OP's native language was, in fact, other than English? The beauty of English is that you can mangle it in every which way and still be perfectly understandable. You understood him fine. Otherwise you'd not be able to "correct" his post. You're just a jerk. I bet you're a wikiadmin in your spare time -- if not, consider it, you'd fit right in.

      If there's ever a one-way spaceship leaving for the Moon, be sure and be on it. Please leave the planet for the sake of everyone.

    7. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by PakProtector · · Score: 2, Funny

      Loonie is perfectly good variant of English, tovarisch.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    8. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A sample from the moon is largely an unaltered and uncontaminated record from the moment it first solidified as rock.

      I dare to challenge that. The moon is subject to constant (with "constant" on a cosmic timescale) bombardment, asteroids hitting it left and right, so I wouldn't say this is unaltered or uncontaminated in any sense. You may argue that those rocks are most likely also as old, or at least "old enough" to keep the sample in a somewhat pure state, but if you really want ancient matter from the dawn of the solar system, I'd guess we should start digging a few miles into the moon's surface.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by edmac3 · · Score: 1
      I didn't consider whether his native language was English or not because it doesn't matter. Everyone should appreciate an opportunity to learn and improve themselves. Hopefully, the original poster learned something from my correction. If I was speaking in Spanish I would love for native speakers to correct me.

      I admit that English is a fluid language, making it awkward to correct authoritatively. Heinlein dropped the use of "the" in the book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. However, this style is non-standard and I think it is jarring for native speakers. Anyone learning English would be advised to learn the proper use of articles.

      You're just a jerk.

      What I wrote was unnecessarily insulting. I don't normally act like this. You can't know I'm a jerk for sure.

    10. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was careful to say "largely" unaltered and uncontaminated. Not just because of impact bombardment, I also had cosmic ray bombardment in mind. A significant impact would melt some rocks in the immediate vicinity, but in general it would only contaminate the surface of most rocks. So you test the rock interiors, and rocks which have been melted like that will clearly test out differently and can be rejected. I think cosmic ray bombardment is the more significant issue to be concerned with, but with care the issue can be accounted for or avoided.

      So "largely an unaltered and uncontaminated record" means there *is* some issue about alteration/contamination, but that it is a small enough issue to gloss over in answering his particular post.

      Getting deep moon rocks, as you suggest, would be indeed be better and would provide more and better results. But we're doing pretty well with what we have.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:Earth's surface Changes? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume everything on the Moon being "of the Moon" as well. You know just how quickly people jump on stories they want to hear. Imagine a dirtball going poof on the moon, we dig it out and the next headline reads "we found water and methane on the Moon!"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    We really should stop outsourcing dirt from other planets to fill out dirt needs. Think of the economy!

    1. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But its the only way the Earth will be able to compete in the Solar economy. But don't worry, someday it will come full circle, and the Martians will be coming here looking for our rocks!

  7. We're whalers on the moon. by owlnation · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not rock... it's fossilized whalebone.

    1. Re:We're whalers on the moon. by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Dude, where did you go to school? Everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:We're whalers on the moon. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      It was, but the gophers ate it.

  8. 842 pounds of fragments of another world rare? by denzacar · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean compared to the 5.9736 × 10^24 kg of Earth?

    Who'da thunk it?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  9. Old as it gets by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 4, Funny

    "By contrast, the Moon is as old as it gets.""

    So true. Even when John McCain was a kid, he could look up in the night sky and see the moon.

    --
    Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    1. Re:Old as it gets by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Of course, back then it wasn't all faded like it is now.

  10. Old news by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    This article is about the rocks we already have being wanted for science. At the moment there are about a half-dozen nations who want the rest of them for construction materials.

  11. Andromeda Strain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I worked in the photo labs at Johnson Space Center (Nasa Houston) back in 1972 and was told that when Apollo 11 returned, Nasa had the Lunar Receiving Laboratory set up like a Fort Dietrich style germ warfare lab. Apparently there was actually concern that the rocks could harbor harmful microbes. This may have all been an urban legend of the time - I'm not sure. In any case, the photo techs thought this was pretty funny, since the boxes that the Hasselblad film cassettes were returned in were full of moon dust and it stuck to everything.

    1. Re:Andromeda Strain? by SgtAaron · · Score: 2, Informative

      I worked in the photo labs at Johnson Space Center (Nasa Houston) back in 1972 and was told that when Apollo 11 returned, Nasa had the Lunar Receiving Laboratory set up like a Fort Dietrich style germ warfare lab.

      I've heard the same. Found this written by a Judy Allton from Lockheed regarding the return of moon rocks:

      In 1965 a committee of the Space Science Board reviewed the need for a lunar sample receiving laboratory and recommended a laboratory of restricted scope. This committee also raised the question of quarantine for lunar samples until they proved to be biologically harmless.

      "But as plans for managing the samples developed, NASA came under pressure from space biologists and the U.S. Public Health Service to protect earth against the introduction of alien microorganisms that might exist in lunar soil. What would have been a small laboratory designed to protect lunar samples against contamination grew into an elaborate, expensive quarantine facility that greatly complicated operations on the early lunar landing missions." (Compton, 1989).

      It seems like paranoia, but despite the expense and pain it's a healthy one, in my opinion. There may come a time when such restraint really does save our asses. Being in my late 30's I wonder if it will be in my lifetime, however :-) Rest of it at:

      http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lnews/lnjul94/hist25.htm

      -Aaron

    2. Re:Andromeda Strain? by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Troll

      But that was no official moon dust and thus not harmful. Didn't you get the memo?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Andromeda Strain? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Indeed, there was a concern - but mostly among the Nervous Nellies, not among serious scientists. The LRL (which indeed was setup more-or-less as you describe, which you could easily verify with a moment of googling) was a fig leaf to cover those concerns.

    4. Re:Andromeda Strain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely true. I addition to the lunar receiving lab was an astronaut quarantine facility. It was a bit more mundane than Wildfire. The Airstream trailers you've probably seen photos of were brought there, and the astronauts transferred. I have an old LIFE issue with an illustration of the quarantine facility.

      BTW, if you kept one of those dusty boxes, good for you...

      As we know now, there was nothing to worry about, and the missions after 11 dispensed with the extended quarantine. Isn't that right, brain slug?

    5. Re:Andromeda Strain? by phr1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is true, the Apollo 11 astronauts were also kept in quarantine for several days after coming back. They may have also done that for Apollo 12. They got rid of the quarantine for the later missions.

  12. Moon rocks are very important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They are the only way that I know of to successfully get the Avatar to Britania and back.

  13. Ebay by utsuprainfra · · Score: 1

    I sell mine on ebay. The ones with a picture of Mary or Jesus fetch a handsome price.

  14. Didn't you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rocks from a California desert movie set still in demand after 40 years?

  15. "...where nothing ever happens..." by solitas · · Score: 1

    "It's hard to wrap your mind around a place where nothing ever happens," Mr. Allen said.

    Okay everybody - use this comment as a jumping-off point to rag on your job/office/co-workers...

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    1. Re:"...where nothing ever happens..." by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      An assemblage of Heads thus spake, and declared it Empyrean.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  16. My dream mission by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see a sample return mission from Titan. The delta-v requirements would be stupendous, but just imagine finding a whole alternative biochemistry based on liquid methane.

  17. McCain's view by bornwaysouth · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but there were fewer craters then.

    Every time a political career fails, a new crater appears on the moon. Of course, most failures are too small to see, even if we think they are important. Local elections generate moon dust. You need a Ceasar undergoing an ambitionectomy to just make it visible. The really big craters probably occurred when there were only a few humans. Say about 4004 BC.

    So now you understand the background behind election talk, the inner message.
    Talk of "Impact".
    Talk of "Give me a ring sometime".
    Talk of "The Crater Good of Mankind".

    It's all covered in the Science lectures in a Political Science course. There are only 3 of those, they all occur 5 pm on a Friday, and don't get examined. Even Political Scientists know that science is irrelevant. But any senator that said that would create a 5mm crater. (Not 5 million miles. This is science. 0.2 inches.)

    1. Re:McCain's view by markswims2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If people were to believe you, many would argue there should be a giant new crater thanks to Bush.

  18. Of course they're still in demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like they're getting any less rare.

  19. That's "science" alright ... by DilutedImage · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "... knowing the ages of Moon rocks, which can be computed to within 20 million years"

    If there's a 20-million-year margin of error, then they certainly do not 'know the ages of moon rocks'. It really is pathetic what society tolerates/accepts when it comes to "science".

    1. Re:That's "science" alright ... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a matter of scale. When you're dealing with 4-5 billion years, what's 20 million years? 0.5% error margin sounds quite good to me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Just don't Google Moon. by antdude · · Score: 1

    As shown in this YouTube video. ;)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  21. slow news day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this just in! breaking news: rare objects still desired!!

  22. The article is actually crap...and by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative

    some of the NYT comments are worse. The guy touted a lunar sample mission by the Russians and they certainly didn't bring any lunar rocks back during the height of the space race and quite honestly I don't think anyone has brought anything back since the astronauts picked them and returned them.

    Some of the other stuff, too, is the claim that 800 lbs of lunar geology is enough to tell the story of the moon. We still get cannot get the earth's story straight, geologically speaking, and we're standing on the samples! There's been no systematic mineral assay, no samples in the mountains, no samples in the big caves thought to be on the moon, no samples from the polar regions and really, not much at all.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:The article is actually crap...and by CraftyJack · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guy touted a lunar sample mission by the Russians and they certainly didn't bring any lunar rocks back during the height of the space race and quite honestly I don't think anyone has brought anything back since the astronauts picked them and returned them.

      Luna 16, 20, and 24 were successful Soviet lunar sample return missions. Luna 24 took place after Apollo 17 (which was the last time an astronaut was on the moon).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_programme
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17

  23. If only by AnotherBrian · · Score: 1

    If only there was a way we could get more of them.

  24. But not for Civilians by hacker · · Score: 2, Informative

    A little-known fact: It is against Federal law for a private citizen to own any piece of a legitimate moon rock. If you own one (or have bought one), you are required by law to contact NASA immediately and hand it over; without delay.

    1. Re:But not for Civilians by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      What if I built my own damn spaceship and flew to the moon and got my own damn rocks...

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:But not for Civilians by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Federal law in how many countries, exactly?

    3. Re:But not for Civilians by hacker · · Score: 1

      If you returned to the US, landed on US soil and kept those rocks, you would be in violation of Federal law. It's cracked-up, but there is a law on the books that prohibits US citizens from owning moon rocks.

  25. It was delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a little meteor!

    (captcha: pathos!)

    +++ It's been 31 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    +++ It's been 37 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

  26. Moon rocks? Big deal. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Fucking rocks, Neil? I don't know if you noticed before you left, but the earth is made of fucking rock. Oh, but this is "moon rock" you say? And this is "earth rock." Did you hear that rock has gone up three points on the market? No, it didn't, because it's fucking rock! We wanted diamonds or sherbet, or a squirrel with a flute, Neil!

    -Eddie Izzard.

  27. All a hoax by john8791 · · Score: 1

    How silly this all is. Everyone knows that the moon landing was filmed at Universal Studios.

  28. I Got To Hold One... by GogglesPisano · · Score: 1

    My wife teaches fifth grade. A few years back, as part of her science curriculum, she was able to get a moon rock on loan from NASA for her classroom. I was amazed at how (seemingly) simple it was - she (and the school) had to sign some papers, and they left it with her for a week. I came in after class one day to see it -- I was pretty amazed to actually be holding a moon rock in my hands. As I recall, it was from one of the later Apollo moon missions, but still very cool.

  29. moon sample by born+2+rule · · Score: 0

    fingers crossed for other planets sample!

  30. Moon rock looks like powdered brownies by neile · · Score: 1

    I saw a piece of moon rock while on vacation this sprint, at the New Mexico Museum of Space History. It looked like a piece of brownie with some icing sugar sprinkled on top. That, coupled with how the website refers to it as "moon rock" (their quotes, not mine), is highly suspicious...

  31. Gosh! by don_oles · · Score: 0

    OMG, I see that there are people still believing this bullshit. It is true that the human stupidity has no limits. I just imagine how in some future (and I hope in a near one) it will be revealed officially that all that 'journey' was a fake to the millions of american sheeple living in a deep democracy. Open your eyes, the government that is closer to your physical body is not necessarily the most honest one ;)

    1. Re:Gosh! by slider3618 · · Score: 1

      Well, you certainly prove human stupidity has no limits. You choose to ignore one of the greatest achievements of mankind in favor of some idiotic conspiracy theory that would be impossible to pull off and keep secret for 40 years.

  32. to have and hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be able to hold in ones hand a piece of the night sky is pretty cool. It allows you to feel as if you really are part of something bigger then Earth.

    And, ... if your having problems feeling like your part of the Earth ... you can always get an Authentic Rocks From Mars