More Water Out There — Ice Found On an Asteroid

Matt_dk writes "For the first time, astronomers have confirmed that an asteroid contains frozen water on its surface. Analysis of asteroid 24 Themis shows evidence of water ice along with organic compounds widespread across the surface. The scientists say these new findings support the theory that asteroids brought both water and organic compounds to the early Earth, helping lay the foundation for life on the planet."

Comments

Re:Where?

[fyngyrz]

Where did all that water come from originally if we were "seeded" by meteors and such?

Hydrogen and Oxygen. Stellar fusion. Etc. Nothing magical about it; without (yet) knowing the specifics, we can still reasonably intuit the processes at large.

Maybe the Augustine commission is right.

[wisebabo]

The Augustine commission reporting to President Obama recommended that we skip LANDING on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to L1 earth moon point, then perhaps L2 earth sun point, then Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). For example astronauts in Mars orbit could send robotic probes to land on Mars which could be much more effective without the 10 minute time lag to earth. (Can you say telepresence?). Visiting comets and asteroids would be a major goal not just for scientific knowledge (and the knowledge as to how to eventually prevent them from hitting us) but ultimately in-situ resource exploitation.

They feel that this approach would lead to "the most steady cadence of steady improvement." and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving earth orbit for 40 years!). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas (rendezvous with a comet or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter assuming they figure out radiation shielding) to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best (robots on one way trips down a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit). If you can figure out radiation shielding and bone loss from zero-g, we could go just about anywhere in the solar system (with a good ion drive and nuclear power plant). Now with the presence of water confirmed on at least (some) of these smaller bodies, they could stay there for long periods of time.

Re:Maybe the Augustine commission is right.

[mrsquid0]

The critical finding of the Augustine commission was that NASA is severely underfunded for doing manned spaceflight. If the US wants a human presence in space beyond low Earth orbit we need to be willing the pay the real cost of sending people beyond low Earth orbit. Until that happens any visits to a comet or a Legrange point, or anywhere else further away than the ISS are going to remain a pipe dream, unless if you happen to be Chinese.

Re:Where?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It's meteors all the way down . . .

Re:There's a lot of fucking water out there.

[noundi]

You know, I for one have always welcomed our water bear bringer of life to earth from space overlords. They probably even brought the water with them, being water bears and all. Coolest creatures on earth, without a doubt.

What makes you think the Chinese can do it?

[Kupfernigk]

I'm getting rather tired of this "The Chinese can do everything, blah blah blah" - so often used as a justification for spending money on willy-waggling projects. China is a country with a vast population and severe resource limitation. They can produce plenty of engineering and science graduates, they can do cheap manufacturing of increasingly small products, but spaceflight requires huge natural resources - energy and material - and for China to deflect those resources to it will not merely slow the progress of their industrialisation, but raise prices on world markets, making the exercise less affordable.

In his 200X books, Arthur C Clarke suggested that China would do space travel on the cheap. But he always had to imagine a (nonexistent) nuclear drive to overcome the energetic considerations of getting to Mars and beyond.

Re:What makes you think the Chinese can do it?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

While I am not so sure that China will make it to the moon anytime soon, I think the belief that they will comes from a different approach to the problem than we take in America. America is a very risk adverse society in general and this has filtered heavily into our space program. We spend, literally, billions of dollars every year in this country building up infrastructure and bureaucracy within companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Gruman to design and manufacture very complex technical systems (read rockets and spacecraft) which have a 95% + success factor. I have worked on spacecraft design projects and getting a risk analysis with that high of a success rate is incredibly difficult. We are talking about connecting multiple valves, switches, screws, cables, etc. (parts level components) that each come with their own failure/success rating. These get implemented into triple and quad redundant designs so that the risk models can show parallel success paths which is what eventually allows the final massive system to have a 95% + success rating. All of this requires extraordinary amounts of personnel, and, as the number of people working on a project increase, so does the accompanying paperwork and approval meetings and so on. Thus, in order to launch one damn rocket, America literally employs tens of thousands of people at all levels micromanaging every single screw in a system (no, really, I did screw tracking for a summer internship once...Lockheed Martin never loses screws...).

The Chinese culture, currently, allows a different approach to be taken. Primarily, China takes after Russia in its approach to space access. Their motto basically boils down to, "Keep it simple and make 2 just in case." Russia, for instance, has multiple factories capable of literally assembling entire launch vehicle systems rapidly down miles of assembly line. Parts come in by train and are moved down miles of assembly line in huge factories and, basically, a complete rocket is spit out the other side of the factory. Is there as much analysis and modeling of risk and failure potential? No. Do the Russians care? No. If this particular rocket blows up, hell, just use the next one off the assembly line. What about the payload? Well hopefully the customer was smart enough to keep it simple as well and made two. China takes a similar approach. They also trade cost for risk. By not over-designing their systems, they can keep the cost low and produce tangible results faster. However, there is a higher likely-hood that the duct tape holding the vent open will tear and the rocket will explode. Nonetheless, they have backups so they don't worry about it. From an external point of view, however, it appears that they are doing exactly what America is doing at twice the rate twice as well. That's not entirely true, they just take a very different mission approach.

To be complete, just about every culture has its own quirky design methodologies. Russians are pragmatic and get the job done. Americans value safety and low-failure rates. The Japanese spend a lot of time and effort streamlining and optimizing their manufacturing process. Every culture has a different approach because every culture is made up of slightly different values. To use a metaphor, there is more than one way to the top of the mountain. Americans try to chose the safest. It gives off the appearance that they are slow and wasteful (and to some extent we are) when compared to trailblazing 'craizes' like Russia and China. Nonetheless, all paths have their potential benefits and disadvantages. =)

Re:Where?

[MichaelSmith]

Its not hard to see how water can form in free space. If you have a cloud of hydrogen going one way and it collides with a cloud of oxygen going the other way the interface between the two will be a shock wave with significant temperature and pressure. At the interface the hydrogen will combine with the oxygen and you have water.

Re:Where?

[stjobe]

Earth is 70% water or so

No, about 71% of the Earth's surface is covered in water, the total mass of which is about 1.38E18 tons. The Earth weighs about 6E21 tons, so the Earth is about 0.00023% water.

Also:

There are various popular theories as to how the world's oceans were formed over the past 4.6 billion years. Some of the most likely contributing factors to the origin of the Earth's oceans are as follows:

        * The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.
        * Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich meteorites (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the asteroid belt colliding with a pre-historic Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.
        * Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis (guttation, transpiration).
        * Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.
        * Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

Re:Where?

[Sockatume]

That's not how it works. There's the square root of bugger-all oxygen in space, so the odds of an O atom finding an H atom are beyond astronomical. Luckily they're not molecular gases, or there'd be an insurmountable activation barrier to deal with too. However there are aggregates of carbon or silicon atoms in space (grains) which O or H atoms can adhere to for long periods of time and diffuse around on. That greatly increases the chances of a reaction to form an OH, and in the very long term, water. The same's true of all molecules in space, essentially.