Slashdot Mirror


Unambiguous Evidence of Water On the Moon

Nethemas the Great writes "Information has leaked ahead of the scheduled NASA press conference tomorrow that we have found unambiguous evidence for water on the moon. From the article, 'Since man first touched the moon and brought pieces of it back to Earth, scientists have thought that the lunar surface was bone dry. But new observations from three different spacecraft have put this notion to rest with what has been called "unambiguous evidence" of water across the surface of the moon.'"

52 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. great news by SkyMunky · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll be thirsty after the long ride.

    1. Re:great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      me

    2. Re:great news by RuBLed · · Score: 3, Funny

      You'd be thirsty alright, but that is no moon.

    3. Re:great news by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll be thirsty after the long ride.

      Really?

      What they don't tell you is that the only reason there is water on the Moon is because Neil Armstrong needed a pee.

      --
      Where's the Kaboom?
      There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
    4. Re:great news by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll be thirsty after the long ride.

      Really?

      What they don't tell you is that the only reason there is water on the Moon is because Neil Armstrong needed a pee.

      So that's where the Sea of Tranquility came from.

  2. Not enough by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The water these missions have found is present in very small quantities. Extracting it would require a lot of energy. The hope with polar water is that there might be masses of the stuff in some craters so that you could at least get a kilo of water from 20 or so kilos of regolith. Water in those quantities would be of use to humans. But we haven't seen it yet.

    1. Re:Not enough by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The water these missions have found is present in very small quantities. Extracting it would require a lot of energy.

      Unlimited energy is available on the moon.
      You can run a stirling engine indefinitely based on the temperature differential between sunlight/radioisotopes and shade.
      Alternatively, you could go solar.
      Weight is your only real limit.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Not enough by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's such a shame that responses like yours are likely to be the result of this announcement. "We found evidence that water is widespread on the Moon" in no way invalidates "We found evidence that there is *abundant* water in the permanently shadowed craters at the poles of the Moon".. in fact, it's exactly the opposite. That's where water will be mined on the Moon.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Not enough by derGoldstein · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unlimited energy is available on the moon.

      They said that about earth. And look what happened with that.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    4. Re:Not enough by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe we should accept that the moon is not like the Earth and get on with a manned mission to an asteroid.

    5. Re:Not enough by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Erm, we haven't actually run out yet. You see there's this big glowy thing in the middle of our solar system bombarding the Earth with fresh energy every day.

    6. Re:Not enough by SolitaryMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try to get some sleep than check again.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    7. Re:Not enough by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but good luck running your solar powered lunar water extraction system on a cloudy day.

    8. Re:Not enough by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your fantasies of hidden oceans and "water mining" won't change the fact that earth seems to be the only body in this system with anything more than sparse amounts of water and oxygen.

      Arthur C. Clarke's zombie is shambling over to your house chanting "Europa".

  3. No surprise by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since Apollo expedition brought back petrified wood from the moon, water was abundant there many years ago.

    1. Re:No surprise by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Be quiet or I'l send Buzz around.

    2. Re:No surprise by ciderVisor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Moon landing fake exposed !

      Our US readers might want to familiarise themselves with those alien creatures before replying.

      --
      Squirrel!
    3. Re:No surprise by andre_pl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't the mythbuster's determine that the moon landing was entirely plausible? They disproved the myth about the lighting not being possible without multiple sources.

    4. Re:No surprise by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:Humanity to the Moon by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope that the Indians are able to establish a lunar colony; they certainly have the expertise.

    The casinos might take off, that's a business that will attract customers no matter where you build one. If they've gone and bought Rotary Rocket's intellectual property, the ATV is certainly the right shape too. But there are precious few bison up there...

  5. Re:Humanity to the Moon by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    And here I was looking forward to eating a nice curry on the moon. I had the wrong Indians all along.

  6. Coming soon: by fauxhammer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whalers on the moon!

  7. Heavily rumoured by barath_s · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There have been persistent reports in the Indian press over the last 3 days that Nasa's Moon Minerology Mapper on board India's Chandrayaan-1 had found water, and that the Thursday press conference would reveal it. Glad to have the embargo lifted early. http://www.examiner.com/x-21670-Houston-Space-News-Examiner~y2009m9d22-Did-Chandrayaan1-confirm-ice-on-the-Moon http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1074265

  8. The Future..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Snake Oil/Dietery Supplement salesmen from the future:

    "Lunar Water! Boosts your immune system! Eliminates Earthly toxins! Alleviates impotence, back pain, arthritis, digestive irregularity! Strengthens bones, teeth, and joints! BUT IT NOW! *ONLY* $250,000,000! Operators are standing by!

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  9. Re:BREAKING NEWS! by venicebeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly not common enough to assume that it was present in this particular location without direct evidence.

  10. Mis-Interpretation of the Data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... "While the probe was still active, its NASA-built Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) detected wavelengths of light reflected off the surface that indicated the chemical bond between hydrogen and oxygen" ... ... "At noon, when the sun's rays were strongest, the water feature was lowest, while in the morning, the feature was stronger." ...

    From this they seem to draw the conclusion that the water is moving.

    If they are measuring reflection, that includes such of sunlight and all other incoming light. Including that from the earth (sunlight reflected by the earth to the moon). The part of the light reflected from the earth does not depend on the intensity of the sunlight reaching the moon, but the earth. In other words: With increasing sunlight intensity the background noise of reflections from the earth is reduced.

    I hope they got some backside measurements, and that there really is some water. But what was presented in the article doesn't really convince me.

  11. Re:BREAKING NEWS! by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I actually was under the impression that due to the low gravity and lack of atmosphere, water was thought to be unstable on places like the moon... obviously, given this report, this is not the case, but I thought that was the old line?

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  12. It was the Indians who helped NASA find water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "India's first lunar mission has found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface, The Times newspaper reported on Thursday."

    from http://www.hindustantimes.com/Is-there-water-on-moon-NASA-to-reveal/H1-Article1-457426.aspx

    1. Re:It was the Indians who helped NASA find water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mod parent up please

      Original article is here:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6846639.ece

    2. Re:It was the Indians who helped NASA find water by volcanopele · · Score: 4, Informative

      Using a US-built instrument. Please leave nationalism out of this...

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    3. Re:It was the Indians who helped NASA find water by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The subject of the grandparent's post (which, by the way, you copied in yours) was 'It was the Indians who helped NASA find water.' Note the word 'helped.' Note that he explicitly credited 'NASA' (which, for those watching at home, is American). When the grandparent gives credit to both of the nations involved and draws attention to the fact that it was a collaborative venture, cries of nationalism are a little hollow.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great news indeed. Still, it's depressing to think that we're still using an ancient, dangerous, primitive and very expensive space transportation technology: rocket propulsion. One thing is sure; we'll never colonize the solar system with rockets at the rate we're going.

    But rejoice. Soon, a new form of transportation will arrive, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel. Check it out.

    The Problem With Motion

    1. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by Louis+Savain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? But Rome was not built in one day. Have patience. Inertia can be ignored, even under extremely powerful acceleration, if every atom in the ship and its occupants are accelerated simultaneously and equally.

    2. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Funny

      And then we can have magic flying hamburgers that zoom into your mouth when you give them the secret whistle!

    3. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by Cillian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your views intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

      --
      -- All your booze are belong to us.
    4. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jump off a building. Seriously. Your atoms are not accelerated quite simultaneously and equally due to the slight incline of the gravitational plane, but the difference is almost negligible (ignoring air resistance), and so you don't feel any acceleration (fall into a small black hole and the differences become important and you become spaghetti). You won't be injured until you hit the ground and the atoms in your feet are the only ones being accelerated, with the others being brought to stationary by the electromagnetic force propagating through your body. The same effect can be achieved in mass drivers with ferromagnetic projectiles in a vacuum.

      The grandparent is an idiot who has read too much science fiction, but his ideas are theoretically sound. The practical problems are huge, however, not 'just around the corner'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's modded funny, but he's right (well, maybe not he part about "immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles" even though we are indeed immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles; that is, after all, what matter and energy are).

      We live in primitive times. The 1800s are considered by us to be primitive, but to a man getting off of a train and sending a telegraph to someone hundreds of miles away, it was amazingly high tech, almost magic. To someone watching Star Trek in the 1960s, their cellphones, flat screen computers, self-opening doors, space shuttles, sick bay monitors, etc were all impossible fantasy. But we have them now, as well as microwave ovens, VCRs, DVDs, CDs, the internet, PCs, tasers, LASIK, heart stents, viagra, and much more that people in the sixties never dreamed of.

      Yesterday's science fiction is today's ho-hum mormalcy. Today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality (although never exactly as the science fiction writers envision it).

      Sometime after we're all dead our descendants will have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel.

      There, fixed that for you.

    6. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering the incredibly harsh environment of every other body in the solar system, I'd say that transportation is one of the least of our problems in trying to colonize them. We haven't even colonized the vast majority of *this* planet, and just about any spot on it is way more hospitable than anywhere on Mars.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So to clarify, aside from all the things he got wrong, such as "based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles", and "Soon", he's right?

      This guy sounds amazing! He gets everything right (except the things he gets wrong).

    8. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep I was thinking a gravitational field might get close to what he wants if it's from a relatively large object acting perpendicular to a relatively small, flat and thin surface, but it still wouldn't be perfect. For *very* strong gravitational fields pulling on objects with irregular densities, surely there is still the potential to get seriously mess yourself up :P And does a change in an object's mass have an immediate effect on the rest of the universe, or does the influence propagate at the speed of light?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Informative

      no.

      Rocket propulsion blows.
      Jet propulsion is the one that sucks, of course it also blows.

    10. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I guarantee you that their teenagers will probably all still rebel, they'll still groggily and grumpily get up for work in the morning, and they'll still grow old wishing that they hadn't fritted their youth away.

      We're more or less still living like we lived 5,000 years ago, from a macro perspective. Somehow I don't see that changing any time soon (unless, of course, we all die).

    11. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by wagnerrp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mars has a very thin atmosphere. You wouldn't have any chance of holding a lungful of air, and your now nearly-vacant lungs would strip the remaining oxygen back out of your blood stream. You would pass out in under half a minute, and begin to suffer brain damage not long afterward.

    12. Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to sound too blase' about progress, but you still wake up at 6 in the morning and poop. You just don't have to go outside to do it now. You still have to wash your clothes, you just don't really have to iron them. Replacing Kerosine in the lamps has been switched to replacing the bulbs in the lights that hang in exactly the same spot.

      Our both daily and macro lifecycle is still far more recognizably human than anything else. Again, I don't want to be too dismissive of the major improvements in medical technology or convenience. But we've more or less evolved our society in a way that closely resembles how humanity has behaved for millenia. Check out the Babylonian mortgage crisis for perspective. Sure, it's *nicer* now. But it definitely is an extension of the same system.

  14. Re:BREAKING NEWS! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...and ultraviolet light from the sun which breaks the water molecule down into oxygen and hydrogen. Water is unstable on the surface where it gets exposed to light but it should be stable in shadow on the surface and under ground. The problem is that almost no places on the surface have remained shadowed for hundreds of millions of years (except possibly the polar craters) and shallow subsurface still get rotated to the surface by meteor impacts, while deep places are... deep and hard to reach.

  15. Ice thinning by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess that explains where all our arctic and antarctic ice caps have disappeared to then.

  16. Re:BREAKING NEWS! by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether it is common enough to assume presence is not clear at all. What's clear is that we didn't assume it.

  17. ChandraYaan .... by CalcuttaWala · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chandrayaan, the moon probe sent by the Indian Space Research Organisation, carried the NASA-built Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) that finally located water. This is a big boost to the Indian space program

    --
    Insight into much, Influence over nothing !
  18. Re:Unambiguous? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The scan works by looking for the OH bond, as I recall, which resonates on a particular frequency. I may be talking nonsense now, because it's a few years since I looked at this tech, but it basically works on the same principle as your microwave oven. That emits microwaves that cause the OH bonds to resonate, exciting the molecules and generating heat. This works by causing the OH bonds to resonate (in exactly the same way) and then picking up the IR that they emit as they return to their non-excited state. All that it can conclusively say is that there are molecules containing OH bonds present, but the simplest molecule containing this bond is water and so it's very probable that they've found water. Even if they haven't, they've found something that can be turned into water relatively easily, given sufficient power (e.g. a lunar solar array).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  19. Re:Tritium Mines by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's plenty of solar power on the Moon's surface, and plenty of materials for construction in its crust. The first stage would be launching a small amount of automated fabrication machinery, run by a small crew, to build a solar power plant.

    That plant could supply the energy to power the larger construction of a nuclear plant. Again, using local materials, and a larger crew supported by the larger infrastructure built by the solar power. The nuclear power available would be much larger than even the solar power.

    Along the way, the power, infrastructure and crew would be capable of doing a lot more than building the next phase. Lunar science, other industrial engineering, telescopy, and launching other missions to farther out.

    A solar base should take America no more than 5-8 years to build, if funded intelligently (ie, at the levels at which we love to fund wars for oil, but with a larger and more guaranteed return on investment). A nuclear base should take no more than 10 years to build, with probably 2-3 of those years performed during the 5-8 years building the solar plant. So the nuke plant could be operating somewhere 12-16 years or so from commencement. Since the US is right now deciding the entire roadmap for offplanet development, the clock should start in a year or two. Twenty years until we have sufficient power to explore, industrialize and colonize the nearby solar neighborhood is quite short, especially with lots of material benefits to show sooner along the way.

    As for other countries, that's their problem. Many nuclear capable countries already launch nuke plants in satellites. That's a much more dangerous operation than building one on the Far Side of the Moon. And as usual, the US project will create the science and engineering, as well as working proof of concept, for other countries to do it themselves. We always give away some of the most valuable products of our investments in space, because it makes the world better in which Americans can live (as well as others who take advantage of it).

    The US is going to put more and more nukes in space, even if it's just the CIA and Pentagon getting the monopoly. The more we do it for more peaceful and constructive purposes, the safer we'll be in every way. We could spend the next couple decades doing it. Or arguing why we shouldn't - and watching China, India, Russia, Japan and other global competitors doing it instead - and probably not as well. We can be Spain in this new age of exploration/colonization/industrialization, or we can be Britain. I'd like my grandchildren to keep speaking English.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  20. Re:Unambiguous? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The scan works by looking for the OH bond, as I recall, which resonates on a particular frequency. I may be talking nonsense now, because it's a few years since I looked at this tech, but it basically works on the same principle as your microwave oven. That emits microwaves that cause the OH bonds to resonate, exciting the molecules and generating heat. This works by causing the OH bonds to resonate (in exactly the same way) and then picking up the IR that they emit as they return to their non-excited state. All that it can conclusively say is that there are molecules containing OH bonds present, but the simplest molecule containing this bond is water and so it's very probable that they've found water. Even if they haven't, they've found something that can be turned into water relatively easily, given sufficient power (e.g. a lunar solar array).

    You're pretty much right on. Every molecular bond has several resonant energies for different types of vibrational modes, and a primary way of finding what you have in a sample is irradiating it and measuring at which frequencies it's absorbing energy. The MMM is specifically designed to detect in the range where hydroxy absorption would be detected, unlike previous moon mappers. (Why? I wonder. It seems like that'd be a basic thing they'd want to detect, and my memory of IR spectrometers and spectrophotometers is that it's a massive peak across a wide range of wavelengths.) Anyway, they're detecting sunlight reflected from the surface and measuring the areas in which there has been a lot of absorption to detect what's down there, if I read their description correctly.

    As a side-note, it is (on paper) possible to tell something about what's adjacent to a molecular bond, to distinguish between (in this case) water and sugar, both of which have -OH bonds, because the stuff adjacent will change the frequency at which the bond you're looking at vibrates by adding or removing a bit of electron density from it. However, in the particular case of the -OH bond, as I recall, it's such a broad peak that it's not very informative.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  21. Re:Connection to Mars by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some virus can survive centuries.
    Bacteria mutate fairly easily.
    Prions are still large unknowns.
    And it is possible for life to be something different than what we are looking for.

    Any mission that goes there should be one-way for a LONG time.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.