Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Next Frontier: Growing Plants On the Moon

An anonymous reader writes in with news about a NASA project that aims to grow plants on the moon in specially made containers. "In 2015, NASA will attempt to make history by growing plants on the Moon. If they are successful, it will be the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body. The Lunar Plant Growth Habitat team, a group of NASA scientists, contractors, students and volunteers, is finally bringing to life an idea that has been discussed and debated for decades. They will try to grow arabidopsis, basil, sunflowers, and turnips in coffee-can-sized aluminum cylinders that will serve as plant habitats. But these are no ordinary containers – they’re packed to the brim with cameras, sensors, and electronics that will allow the team to receive image broadcasts of the plants as they grow. These habitats will have to be able to successfully regulate their own temperature, water intake, and power supply in order to brave the harsh lunar climate."

193 comments

  1. As exciting as... by Schrockwell · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...watching grass grow.

    1. Re:As exciting as... by d3m0nCr4t · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of the R.E.M. song: If you believe, they put a plant on the moon, plant on the moon...

    2. Re:As exciting as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...watching grass grow.

      IN SPACE!!

  2. Awesome by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok this is awesome.

    Its been on my wishlist for unmanned travel that we'd try packaging up Earth plants and sending them to grow on alien worlds in some way. The Moon is a good starting point - Elon Musk got into SpaceX because he wanted to do it on Mars with a Greenhouse.

    Personally I wish we'd just man up and shoot the appropriate organisms into Venus' atmosphere to start the terraforming process.

    1. Re:Awesome by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally I wish we'd just man up and shoot the appropriate organisms into Venus' atmosphere to start the terraforming process.

      I agree.

      And as appropriate organisms, my vote goes for: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, in that order.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest that we put lobbyists before politicians on that list, otherwise we will end up with a brief period where we have lobbyists with no natural target, that could be ugly.

    3. Re:Awesome by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Egads, man, just think what they'll do to poor Venus! It won't be terraforming, it would be terracide!

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    4. Re:Awesome by aurb · · Score: 2

      And then nuke the entire site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.

    5. Re:Awesome by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 2

      What about the phone sanitisers?

      (http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrincham)

    6. Re:Awesome by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

      Awesome is an understatement. Until we actually can be self contained on another hunk of rock. The human race is in jeopardy of extinction.

    7. Re:Awesome by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      How do you terraform a planet which has lost most of its hydrogen to space? The water's got to come from somewhere.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Awesome by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I just wish I were born a little later than I was. I have a feeling that, someday, we'll look back on space farmers as a romantic lot. And if you have space farmers, you need space cowboys. I guess I'd rather be a space cowboy, then. And then when I get a little too old for that, I could retire to space farming. Never whaling, though.

    9. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, nah, nah. Telephone sanitisers and Marketing Executives. Douglas Adams was right on that one.

    10. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not going to lead by example, then?

    11. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot be trusted to follow.

    12. Re:Awesome by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      We don't have any such organisms, Venus suffered a major runaway greenhouse, it has virtually no hydrogen, it's oceans boiled and radiation blew the hydrogen into space over time. It's now deader than Mars, and we don't have the technology to resurrect it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Awesome by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      You collect large amounts of H20 or frozen H2 somewhere in the solar system. Since it's frozen, you only need to give it a bump once to set it on a collision course with the planet, where it will rain down in gigantic torrents.

      Admittedly, I've just made this up and have no clue. Would this work in principle?

    14. Re:Awesome by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Personally I wish we'd just man up and shoot the appropriate organisms into Venus' atmosphere to start the terraforming process.

      I wonder how easy it would be to create a super-thin reflective film at L1 on Venus to drop the sun's contribution below a certain threshold and let some of the atmosphere condense to the ground (hopefully the sulfuric acid part) and drop in pressure in the process. If you can send a few tons of base material and a manufacturing satellite... Of course the Venusians might object to that global cooling.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    15. Re:Awesome by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And as appropriate organisms, my vote goes for: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, in that order.

      They'll need clergy to minister to their spiritual needs...

    16. Re:Awesome by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is not the main problem. From wikipedia: Most planets also rotate on their axis in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise (called "retrograde" rotation) once every 243 Earth daysâ"the slowest rotation period of any planet. A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year.
      Just like our moon, the Venus "day" is very very long and like that is the Venus night. I doubt a planet like this, even with a breathable atmosphere is habitable for humans. (Weather ... storms, climate)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Awesome by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I don't want to start a huge global warming debate, but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life. We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument. Even if it means saving money in just twenty years by switching to renewable fuel sources like wind, solar and tidal power.

      Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.

    18. Re:Awesome by Dthief · · Score: 2

      house on wheels.....slowly moving, and always sunset

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    19. Re:Awesome by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Spiritual needs? I didn't realise there were such things as Mammonite priests.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    20. Re:Awesome by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      Haha, nice. I'd give you a (+1) but no mod points. :(

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    21. Re:Awesome by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

      -1, Elon Musk reference /his 15 min of fame are over

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    22. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We? Space travel is a waste of money with no economic value. With a boondoggle like NASA shut down, it can go far in paying off the enormous debt to China. First pay the bills, then go play Star Trek. We don't even have enough money here in the US to run the government until January 15, much less stay solvent on February 14'th. At least then, the nation will be back on Cruz control.

    23. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Scientology?

    24. Re:Awesome by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I think the trick would be keeping it raining down faster than the existing processes would drive it off into space, although that's probably a given if you want to finish the process in a nongeological timescale anyway.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    25. Re:Awesome by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      It would have to travel 4 miles an hour over every possible type of terrain. Better to just live in orbit.

    26. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 1

      The thing to note here is that humanity's industrial civilization is the most remarkable thing to have happened to Earth since life was first created. Among other things, it allows for three things that have never been possible before: 1) sophisticated mental processes far beyond anything seen on Earth before and the accumulation of external knowledge to the benefit of anything that can learn it, 2) the ability to spread terrestrial life beyond Earth, and 3) breaking the constraints of evolution itself.

      Just because you either don't care or don't have a clue, doesn't mean these aren't tremendous benefits that humanity brings to the table which nothing else can.

    27. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 1

      For some reason, I see that as a feature not a bug.

    28. Re:Awesome by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      No, we have to keep them. Getting rid of the phone sanitisers is what lead to the death of the whole civilization. Rampant infection killed everyone off. Didn't you pay attention when you read the book?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    29. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 1

      but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life.

      Several hundred human generations is only a few thousand years. It's not a particularly long time. Plus, you're exaggerating the first problem. Even worse case calculations indicate that the Venus atmosphere would freeze out in a few centuries.

      Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.

      I see you're doing your part to contribute by hyperventilating about "climate change". Let us not forget the third strategy for "climate change", adaptation.

    30. Re:Awesome by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Dropping one of the larger water-ice bearing rocks onto a dead planet doesn't have to be done slowly at all.

    31. Re:Awesome by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 3, Informative

      It would have to travel 4 miles an hour over every possible type of terrain. Better to just live in orbit.

      Or just skip the terraforming and live in huge floating bubble-cities. An Earth-standard atmosphere turns out to be a lifting gas in Venus's atmosphere, and there's a region of Venus's atmosphere where both pressure and temperature are confortably Earth-like, and it's got nice steady winds to carry your bubble around the planet much faster than the surface rotation -- depends on latitude, but on the order of 100 hours.

      "All" you need is to engineer a nearly-closed biosphere (same as needed for long-term orbiting habitats), and the ability to synthesize the needed inputs from Venusian atmosphere. (In contrast to space habitats, where there's no resources with zero transport costs, but low-energy transfers permit resources from a wide range of places with nearly-uniform transport costs, floating colonies give you access to the upper atmosphere for free, decreasing altitude with increasing cost, the surface with insane difficulty and cost, and orbital (or higher) space at costs similar to those for accessing LEO from Earth's surface.)

    32. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to be the negative one, but space exploration has been a pretty big let down compared to how hyped up it was when I was growing up in the 80's. There's no doubt they've done some really cool things(Mars projects, among others, are awesome!!!), I'm not dismissing those, but I still expected more by now. It's hard for me to get too worked up over something like this. Yes, it is exciting, and I'm glad they're doing it, but I was expecting a small lunar colony by now.

      And I still think one solution to lunar dust problem is paving, or solidifying, parts of the lunar surface that humans intend to primarily reside on or near. Oh, we don't have the technology for that? We will, we just haven't funded it yet!

    33. Re:Awesome by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1
      Several implies more than three, so yes a minimum of 3,000 would fit in there, but I was implying it would take an arbitrarily long time. I don't exactly have the time or resources to work out to the second how much time it would take to terraform a planet. Kudos for making something out of nothing and still proving my point.

      I see you're doing your part to contribute by hyperventilating...

      This is exactly the reason we can't have nice things. I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating. What was one of the first things I said in my post? Oh yeah:

      We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument.

      So thanks again for proving my point.

      Let us not forget the third strategy for "climate change", adaptation.

      You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?
      or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?
      or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?
      How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?
      Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?

      We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.

    34. Re:Awesome by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Well, it completely depends on how brutal you want to be in the case of Venus (Earth is a whole other problem as you point out). A monomolecular film at the right angle could reflect a good portion of the sun. If you make it large enough to covert a sizable portion of the planet, take away 20% of the sunlight, it wouldn't take long. Such films do exist and aren't even hard to manufacture, but how stable would it be, gravitationally, resistance to UV, radiation, cosmic dust, static electricity trying to fold it on itself, solar wind pushing it, etc...? We are in the realm of SF.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    35. Re:Awesome by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      How do you terraform a planet which has lost most of its hydrogen to space? The water's got to come from somewhere.

      Just leave it to Toyota. They'll think of something, really hard.

    36. Re:Awesome by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      Personally I wish we'd just man up and shoot the appropriate organisms into Venus' atmosphere to start the terraforming process.

      Because breathable Earth-normal atmosphere is a lifting gas on Venus, we could make a relatively low budget colony without any terraforming. Just send a big balloon. It could ride the relatively stable upper atmospheric winds on Venus, circling the planet every 4 earth days, and be at standard pressure, so any hull breach would not result in explosive decompression.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    37. Re:Awesome by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You collect large amounts of H20 or frozen H2 somewhere in the solar system. Since it's frozen, you only need to give it a bump once to set it on a collision course with the planet, where it will rain down in gigantic torrents.

      Well, not all sources are frozen. All of our problems would be solved if we could just bump the Sun into Venus. Brilliant!

    38. Re:Awesome by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I was more worried about finding the ice and bringing it to its destination as the rate-limiting step.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    39. Re:Awesome by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but we need to make sure there's no such thing as Venusian life first.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    40. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "resurrect"? Do you know something about Venus we don't?

    41. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The thing is, those space fantasies were nothing more than wide-eyed naive optimism at best, cynical state propaganda at worst. By the '80s it was abundantly clear that the 1960s and '70s visions were completely and utterly wrong. You just grew up with the tail-end of that Space Nuttery.

      For an example of what wide-eyed delirious optimism looks like

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4468317&cid=45482015

      I mean really now. " we could make a relatively low budget colony without any terraforming. Just send a big balloon. It could ride the relatively stable upper atmospheric winds on Venus, circling the planet every 4 earth days, and be at standard pressure, so any hull breach would not result in explosive decompression."

      That's just childish.

    42. Re:Awesome by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Of course the Venusians might object to that global cooling.

      Screw 'em, those damned nasty Venusians want to kill us all anyway.

    43. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 2

      Several implies more than three, so yes a minimum of 3,000 would fit in there, but I was implying it would take an arbitrarily long time.

      Which isn't that long as I noted. A few centuries to millennia and the end result could be a second Earth which sticks around being useful for a few tens of millions of years.

      I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating.

      Because your claim was exaggerated and you followed it with the hyperbole that people would forget how to breathe merely because they don't buy into a belief system that isn't founded on reality.

      You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?

      Something we can do even easier in a few decades than we can do now.

      or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?

      Already been done. Pollution was much worse in the 50s.

      or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?

      Yes, already done.

      How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?

      The place hasn't gone anywhere.

      Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?

      It's being cleaned up as we speak and would continue to be even if we stopped doing anything at all. Dump a bunch of food into the ocean and surprise, it gets eaten.

      We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.

      It's because I understand the stakes at hand. We wouldn't just be using less fossil fuels. We'd be abandoning global infrastructure that helps many billions of people feed themselves and better their lives.

    44. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Venus "day" is very very long and like that is the Venus night. I doubt a planet like this, even with a breathable atmosphere is habitable for humans.

      Two words: shadow squares.

    45. Re:Awesome by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      And as appropriate organisms, my vote goes for: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, in that order.

      They'll need clergy to minister to their spiritual needs...

      They have no souls - we'll have to select the clergy to send based on their own merits.

    46. Re:Awesome by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      Arggh - qualification - The "Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists" have no souls.

    47. Re:Awesome by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      You collect large amounts of H20 or frozen H2 somewhere in the solar system. Since it's frozen, you only need to give it a bump once to set it on a collision course with the planet, where it will rain down in gigantic torrents.

      Admittedly, I've just made this up and have no clue. Would this work in principle?

      In theory, it would work, however once you crunch some numbers, it looks a bit different. I once sat down and did the math in what it would take to move Haley's comet sized objects from the oort cloud to Mars in order to give it an Earth like atmosphere. The rough energy requirements to do such in a decade were on the order of three days total output of energy of the sun, and that was just getting the objects to Mars in that timeframe and letting them collide with Mars. That could be reduced by increasing the time needed to something like a century, but still, I imagine it would be around the scale of more energy than mankind has used in history combined. Basically, to begin a terraforming project, one must first begin a macro scale energy gathering engineering project around the sun.

    48. Re:Awesome by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I was more worried about finding the ice and bringing it to its destination as the rate-limiting step.

      Oort cloud has plenty of ice and due to the energy requirements needed to move it, such a project would take decades if not centuries. Plenty of time to arrange for all the needed components to arrive when desired.

      Although I haven't done the math, an astrophysicist friend of mine once did do the math to see how long Mars would take to lose an Earth-like atmosphere. The time scale was 10,000 years. So, it would require moving the parts into position in at least that short of an amount of time.

    49. Re:Awesome by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You don't understand. This proposal would solve those problems. Venus becomes a giant laboratory. Climatologists get to use it to try out their theories. If we're not slinging virgin comets at Venus before the end of the century, I'm going to be very disappointed.

      Sadly, no matter how stupid humans get, they're unlikely to get stupider than chickens, and chickens still manage to breath. Your hope of finding an evolutionary floor for stupidity is futile.

    50. Re:Awesome by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Is that you Maurice?

    51. Re:Awesome by lennier · · Score: 1

      "All" you need is to engineer a nearly-closed biosphere (same as needed for long-term orbiting habitats), and the ability to synthesize the needed inputs from Venusian atmosphere.

      ... which happens to be mostly carbon dioxide with traces of sulphuric acid rain. Which might be a little problematic to mine. Venus really needs a good source of hydrogen. Hmm... Any way of grabbing some of the solar wind and funnelling it down to the cloud layer?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    52. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because I understand the stakes at hand. We wouldn't just be using less fossil fuels. We'd be abandoning global infrastructure that helps many billions of people feed themselves and better their lives.

      Or perhaps we come up with new ways of doing the same thing without using fossil fuels. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible. dfw

    53. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps we come up with new ways of doing the same thing without using fossil fuels. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible.

      So we'll be saved yet again by the hope-based economy? I'm not exactly counting on it.

    54. Re:Awesome by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      -1, Elon Musk reference /his 15 min of fame are over

      LOL, yeah, right.

      Fool. Oh, user name... Goths and Ecstasy? Yep, a fool. A young fool.

  3. I knew it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it will be the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body.

    So NASA is finally admitting that it never sent life [Astronauts] to another planetary body. Am guessing they may have sent dead ones in order to be able truthfully say yes we sent astronauts to the moon.

    1. Re:I knew it. by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is exactly it. If we ignore the technicality that no life ever touched another planetary body on purpose, you'd be spot on. Spacesuits and shit be damned, let's mangle reality to fit our agenda. Go, go gadget tinfoil hat - DEPLOY!

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:I knew it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moon is not a planet. ...

      Or is it?

    3. Re:I knew it. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they're going to grow them on the moon soil?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:I knew it. by Dthief · · Score: 1

      thats the real "moon landing" conspiracy

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    5. Re:I knew it. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      You know what this means? Buzz Aldrin's secretly a zombie! (Lest one wonder why he punched that moon landing denier instead of feasting on his brains, the denier's brain was just too small to bother with.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:I knew it. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Moon will be a planet once it moves far enough away from Earth that the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is outside of Earth.

  4. Non SI units by mikewilsonuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "coffee can" is a US unit unknown to the rest of the world. We buy our coffee in packets or jars (of differing sizes). How big is a coffee can?

    1. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      American baristas' cans average around 34DD.

    2. Re:Non SI units by ksemlerK · · Score: 1

      6.1875 inches wide, by 7 inches high.

    3. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How big is a coffee can?

      About 1 / 768500 of an Olympic swimming pool for a US coffee can.
      Australian coffee cans are measured in weight and is about 1 / 17500 of an African elephant.

    4. Re:Non SI units by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      169.56 cubic inches.

    5. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "coffee can" is a US unit unknown to the rest of the world. We buy our coffee in packets or jars (of differing sizes). How big is a coffee can?

      Like we have a damn clue anymore. Our coffee is now measured in different units. You might hear it referred to as "Venti", per the Starbucks menu.

    6. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just looked this up - to me "coffee can" meant a 180ml can of liquid coffee (around half the size of a can of coke) that's ready to drink, but apparently this isn't popular outside East Asia. According to Wikipedia, a standard coffee can, also known as a #10 can, has a volume of 13 cups and holds 3 lb of coffee. A cup is a US unit, distinct from the imperial unit of the same name, measuring 16 US tablespoons (again different from imperial tablespoons) or around 237 ml. So a coffee can is not quite 3.1 litres - slightly more than Thanshin's reply of 169.56 cubic inches (which is around 2.8 litres) but slightly less than ksemlerK's reply which comes out as 3.45 litres (unless that's the exterior dimensions?). It also seems kind of weird that the can is so big as it's also called a 3 lb coffee can, which is less than 1.5 kg and coffee is denser than water; perhaps when you open the can it's more than half empty?

    7. Re:Non SI units by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if my memorey serves right the sizes are large, extra-large and bucket.

      but isn't a coffee can something the coffee beans come in? like a can of baked beans?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The "inch" is a US unit unknown to the rest of the world. We buy our length measurements in SI units (of differing sizes). How big is an inch ?

    9. Re:Non SI units by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not liquid coffee, it's ground coffee beans. They're about one third of the density of water.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    10. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      How big is an inch ?

      0.1mm for genital measurement, 25.4mm for everything else.

    11. Re:Non SI units by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      You wish. Starbucks ain't Hooters.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    12. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too difficult to even read the headline on the link, huh?

    13. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked this up too, you're right. I already knew that US coffee cans contained coffee powder rather than liquid, but for some reason I thought the coffee powder sunk in water (in my defence, when I make instant coffee I put the powder in first and it dissolves before there's an opportunity to properly observe it).

    14. Re:Non SI units by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

      To my knowledge drinkable coffee is actually forbidden in the united states. Something to do with temperature and the danger of spilling it.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    15. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the length of your penis

    16. Re:Non SI units by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suspect the actual grains are more dense than water, but the powder packs inefficiently. (Instant coffee? You're a monster.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    17. Re:Non SI units by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Here in the US some cans have coffee beans that you bring home to grind; the rest are coffee grounds ready for brewing. Refill packs can be bought in order to reuse the cans

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    18. Re:Non SI units by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      A bean is wood and most wood floats.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    19. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      witches you say

    20. Re:Non SI units by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Approximately 15cm diameter and 18cm tall can that holds about 1kg of coffee. How are they going to get a sunflower to grow in a coffee can sized space?

    21. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smaller than a Football Field or a Library of Congress.

    22. Re:Non SI units by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      True, but it hasn't been calcined and ground. To the high-precision balance!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    23. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very small stones?!?

      Cherries?

      Churches?!?

      Lead?

      A Duck!!

    24. Re:Non SI units by Narnie · · Score: 1

      It is about the size of a Honda Civic muffler after the car has been converted into a rice rocket.

      --
      greed@All_Evils:~#
    25. Re:Non SI units by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Contents may have settled somewhat during shipment. It's never so full as one hopes.

    26. Re:Non SI units by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      especially when the "pots" are "full to the brim" with "monitoring equipment"

    27. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American baristas' cans average around 34DD.

      No, you're thinking of a rack. The can is on the other end.

    28. Re:Non SI units by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I thought it was filled to the rim with Brim

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWoVpY2aczo

    29. Re:Non SI units by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, a standard coffee can, also known as a #10 can, has a volume of 13 cups and holds 3 lb of coffee.

      Wikipedia is wrong. A "standard" coffee can is between 13 oz and 1 lb (convert it yourself). However, there hasn't really been a "standard" coffee can in years. They used to be made of steel and were all the same shapes and sizes and held a pound of grounds. These days they're cardboard (and look like the old kind) or weirdly shaped plastic cans.

      A coffee can holds between 2 and 3 litres of liquid (eyeballed, not measured).

  5. How much will it cost me? by ls671 · · Score: 1

    How much will it cost me if I want to buy one of those turnip?

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:How much will it cost me? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Not as much as you'd think, but it's collect only.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:How much will it cost me? by tgeek · · Score: 1

      Pretty cheap since the first thing they'll do after delivering the plants is apply for farm subsidies . . .

  6. Careful what you ask for by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Those majestic plants 'braving the harsh lunar climate'.

    You just might end up with something like this.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Re:how to piss off an alien/human hybrid by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    Please seek psychiatric help. At the very least, read some books on sceptical/scientific/critical thinking and actively debate the idea that you might be experiencing delusions.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  8. unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body," the author implies, misleading the reader into thinking that humans will be going on a manned mission to the Moon.

    "Whoever ends up winning will likely fly with this special payload on board," the author implies, again misleading the reader into thinking that humans will be going on a manned mission to the Moon.

    No one is going to the Moon, are they? This is an unmanned robotic mission.

    The article is a horribly written fluff piece about democratizingly innvovational crowdysourcing, because accumulating social media followers matters so much more than journalistic integrity.

    1. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2

      It's also flat-out wrong on the first point. No, it is not the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body, even if by life you read an implication that they mean non-human life.

      We've brought all manner of microscopic life with us -- much of it inside or on the surface of us -- when we were on the moon previously. Doubtless at least some amount has been sent as microscopic residue even on unmanned missions. OK, the vast majority of the lunar passengers also came back with us, and it's unlikely any of what we've unintentionally brought along has survived, but to say that we've never brought life to another planetary body? Demonstrably not true.

    2. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Apollo 12 retrieved some equipment, a camera from Surveyor 3, from the moon and they found that some bacterium (streptococcus miti) had apparently survived (according to some liberal definition of "survived", in spore form). Nowadays they have planetary protection officers like Catharine A. Conley to make sure that spacecraft do not contaminate other celestial bodies.

      Incidentally, the planetary protection office is also responsible at NASA for the protection of earth against alien invasions, although it is unlikely they would play a major role int he decision process if that occured - for the US, United States Space Command would take over and, in case of a war, be swiftly destroyed by kinetic energy weapons.

    3. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it's unlikely any of what we've unintentionally brought along has survived...

      Also demonstrably not true. Your space education has been sadly neglected. Allow me to bring you up to speed....

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/bacteria-survive-nearly-three-years-on-the-moon/9931.html

    4. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Intentionality is implied when someone uses the word "brought" without qualification. I really doubt someone would've understood this to mean "when human beings travelled to the moon, they did so in a state of complete sterility".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Intentionality is implied when someone uses the word "brought" without qualification.

      Not at all. For example, diseases are "brought" along with human activity all the time unintentionally.

    6. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Survived three years, but we haven't been there for how long now? And that's on the moon, which is a relatively benign environment compared to the places unmanned probes have been sent to and thru.

      And it's arguable that the "surviving" bacteria weren't anything of the kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis_on_the_Moon

    7. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. No intentionality is implied or required in bringing something somewhere, as we have learned to the detriment of our own species more than once.

      Google "diseases brought to the new world", and note the many references even from university research using the word "brought" in the sense that I used it. Unless, of course, you believe early explorers practiced intentional germ warfare.

  9. Purpose? by sinktank · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From TFA:

    This experiment will test whether plants can survive radiation, flourish in partial gravity, and thrive in a small, controlled environment.

    We can (and have) test all those things here on Earth. IIRC, NASA successfully grew lettuce in zero-g on a shuttle mission.
    The moon is a terrible place to grow plants:

    - 13-day/night cycle
    - 275 Kelvin temperature variation
    - 25 rem/yr radiation with no solar flare protection
    - no water
    - lunar regolith useless as soil

    In other words you have to take the whole environment with you. Growing plants on a scale sufficient to be considered food on the moon is a long way off.

    It makes for a good kids public outreach program, but let's be realistic: the moon is basically good for 2 things - a huge radio telescope on the far side, and the 1-50 ppb He-3 in the lunar regolith. By the time we're ready to do those things, robots will be good enough to do it all for us.

    1. Re:Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it could also be good for large optical telescopes not affected by the earth's atmosphere. And for telescopes exploring parts of the spectrum not reaching the earth's surface, where the needed or desired telescope size is too large to put it on a satellite.

    2. Re:Purpose? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      We can (and have) test all those things here on Earth. IIRC, NASA successfully grew lettuce in zero-g on a shuttle mission.
      The moon is a terrible place to grow plants:

      Exactly; we have done all the tests we can on Earth, and of course nothing beats the real thing for accuracy.

      Plus the only place in the solar system that isn't a terrible place to grow plants is Earth, and possibly the upper atmosphere of Venus.

    3. Re:Purpose? by gagol · · Score: 1

      if your satellite is too large for earth orbit, how the hell are you boosting it to the moon?

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    4. Re:Purpose? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      - 13-day/night cycle
      - 275 Kelvin temperature variation

      There are areas near the poles that have basically unending sunshine, neatly taking care of those 2 issues.

      no water

      Those same areas have been show to contain a surprising amount of water in the regolith, in the range of cups per cubic meter.

      lunar regolith useless as soil

      Soil is overrated anyway. Hydroponics (or even aeroponics) allows better production with more efficient use of resources. Of course, eventually it'd be nice to work out exactly what it will take to break down the regolith into something earth plant life can survive in; but in it's simply not necessary.

    5. Re:Purpose? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      no water

      Not exactly. Aside from the huge amount of water ice that can be found in the always-dark craters near the poles, there's also the regolith itself. NASA plans to mine the regolith for water.

      Half the reason why a lunar space elevator makes sense is because of the tremendous value of having a source of water (and consequently hydrogen and oxygen for fuel/oxidizer) in a shallow gravity well.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In pieces. With possible fabrication of some pieces from raw materials on the moon?

    7. Re:Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - lunar regolith useless as soil

      Lunar regolith works just fine as a medium for growing plants in, as has been demonstrated by various experiments decades ago growing all sorts of things in imitation regolith (based on what was brought back from the Apollo program). You still need to add nutrients, but I would think that was kind of assumed form the start.

    8. Re:Purpose? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > robots will be good enough to do it all for us.

      or clones of Sam Rockwell.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    9. Re:Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't. You manufacture it there from materials refined from lunar soil. For example, one could imagine an enormous Arecibo-style telescope created by carving a precisely shaped depression into the ground, coated by glass made from melted lunar soil with a thin layer of silver paint on top to make it reflective. Only the paint and electronics would need to be brought in from Earth along with construction machines; the massive bulk of the structure would be made of local materials. Moon has some iron and aluminum that could be used for structures too, but requires more complex refining hardware to be launched from Earth.

    10. Re:Purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to think that orbit (around Earth, the Moon or the Sun) is still better than the surface of the Moon. Even though there is no atmosphere dust still gets kicked up by meteor impacts and there might be difficulty keeping the optics clean. dfw

    11. Re:Purpose? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Err the 1-50ppb of He3 is also completely useless. If you can burn He3 you can burn DD and create all the He3 you need. Neutrons are not that hard to deal with. If you still don't believe me, work out the size of the mining operation to run just one 1GW power station assuming 100% efficiency!

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    12. Re:Purpose? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      imitation regolith is not like the real thing. For starters its not close in terms of abrasiveness.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  10. In the Arthur Clarke story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...GREEN FINGERS,

    A Russian scientist secretly breeds a cactus-type plant to survive on the moon.

    He is eventually killed by it - in order for the plant to spread its seeds on a planet with no wind, he had arranged for it to fire the seeds out in the way some plants do on Earth. And. observing one at close quarters, his plexiglass helmet is shattered by one of the tough seed-pods being ejected...

    Clarke was a very good visionary engineer. Many of the things he predicted have come to pass. Almost certainly any moon-plant which can survive outside will use a similar seed-spreading mechanism...

    1. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No water (a little ice at the poles), ridiculous temperature extremes, terrible soil, no atmosphere... must be quite a plant. That's the type of environment that would make extremophile bacteria want to head home again. The only place plants are growing on the moon is in a controlled environmental container.

    2. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is eventually killed by it - in order for the plant to spread its seeds on a planet with no wind, he had arranged for it to fire the seeds out in the way some plants do on Earth. And. observing one at close quarters, his plexiglass helmet is shattered by one of the tough seed-pods being ejected...

      That is one powerful cumshot!

    3. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...No water (a little ice at the poles), ridiculous temperature extremes, terrible soil, no atmosphere... must be quite a plant...

      Leathery skin, perhaps with silicon layers included for radiation protection, acid-secreting roots to dig into the lunar regolith and extract bound water. No doubt it would have had lots of DNA error correction as well, but given the story was written in 1956, I think we can forgive him leaving that one out.

      Tell you what, why don't you read the story?

    4. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Aside from "no atmosphere" you've nicely described the Antarctic deserts. Admittedly that's a big "aside".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Silicon provides no radiation protection. Why the fuck do you think we have to harden the electronics we send out into space?

      Tell you what, why don't you pay attention in school so you can tell what is reality and what is fiction?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Silicon provides no radiation protection.

      Why would you think that? Electronics requires radiation hardening because it is small scale and delicate (especially to high energy charged particles), not because it is made of silicon.

    7. Re:In the Arthur Clarke story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Points to make to a rude and ignorant oaf:

      1 - Silicon is readily available in the Moon's regolith.
      2 - A Silicon covering on leaves would reflect a lot of the UV radiation.
      3 - We are talking about a FICTIONAL book. As far as I know, no Russian scientist HAS actually bred and planted a cactus-type organism on the MOON.
      4 - Why don't you STFU until you know what you are talking about?

  11. Weed and Dandilions by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should plant weed and dandelions. It will grow anywhere. Pretty soon the whole moon will be green.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weed on the moon? Somehow I feel that will make space tourism much more popular ... ;-)

    2. Re:Weed and Dandilions by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      First I thought "why would anyone even bother?". Then I realised, 24 hour sunshine and nobody for miles. And since it's partially legalised and taxed in some parts of the US this could be a good revenue sourse for NASA. Clever guys, very clever... Now they just need that space lift they've been talking about.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    3. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lunar Bud! Out of this world! You're gonna float all the way back down. Buds the size of watermelon in low grav. Tricomes glistening like stars, piled high like moon dust on every inch of it. Residents can buy an oz. at a time, tourists can buy 2 gm. Moon price: $200 gm. + tax @ 25%, Colorado would be SLIGHTLY cheaper.

    4. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering the relative weight of seeds versus the weight of the final product, as well as the cost of getting things up versus getting things down, this might stand a chance of being profitable...

    5. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Dthief · · Score: 1

      not to mention....you weigh 1 oz on the moon, and sell it as 1 oz on Earth.......not good business

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    6. Re:Weed and Dandilions by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Well, considering the relative weight of seeds versus the weight of the final product, as well as the cost of getting things up versus getting things down, this might stand a chance of being profitable...

      If it heats up too much on the way into the atmosphere, the headlines won't be about greenhouse gases provoking global warming anymore ;-)

    7. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24 hour sunshine

      Someone's high.

    8. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      They should plant weed and dandelions. It will grow anywhere.

      Sure, but what would that prove about the ability to grow normal plants on the moon?

      I think they should plant triffids. Relieve the boredom of future dwellers who'll be living in tiny glass bubbles.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it heats up too much on the way into the atmosphere, the headlines won't be about greenhouse gases provoking global warming anymore ;-)

      I imagine instead they'll be about Frito-Lay's ginormous spike in revenue.

      Well, assuming the headline writers aren't too busy getting their munchies on themselves. Or the grocery store sales clerks. Or the delivery truck drivers. Or the production staff at Frito-Lay.

      I'm sorry, I think I just ruined the joke. :(

    10. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it is closer to two weeks of sunshine.

    11. Re:Weed and Dandilions by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      I honestly would not be surprised if Canadian Thistles would grow there. Those are the heartiest weeds I've ever dealt with. You spray weed killer on them for years and they still come back.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    12. Re:Weed and Dandilions by sjames · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Kudzu.

    13. Re:Weed and Dandilions by sjames · · Score: 1

      From the NY Times: "DUUUUUUUuuuuuuude!"

    14. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weed on the moon? Somehow I feel that will make space tourism much more popular ... ;-)

      All the weed you want but limited food for munchies ... That might make space tourism more like torture...

    15. Re:Weed and Dandilions by slew · · Score: 1

      Then I realised, 24 hour sunshine...

      Only from a stoner who's listened to the dark side of the moon played one too many times... :^(

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/dark-side-of-moon.htm

    16. Re:Weed and Dandilions by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Japanese knotweed -- that shit is downright evil in how tenacious it is.

    17. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Optali · · Score: 1

      That's the future of space travel mate!

      Here in the Netherlands we have already a very advanced propulsion system: Netherweed!!!

      Our plans include transforming Dam Square into our space launch centre from which our astronauts will float all the way up to the moon, once there the lunar plantations can refuel our astronauts for a safe travel back to earth or with the help of our Colombian partners' "Wonder Powder" to a travel faster than light to the Alpha Centaury!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    18. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hardiest things I've seen are aloe plants here in Florida. rip them into pieces and throw them on the ground to plant. They thrive when every other plant has long since died. If you bother to water them once they multiply in number exponentially. I honestly have never seen one that didn't look perfectly healthy.

    19. Re:Weed and Dandilions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't get 24 hour sunshine unless you were on one of the poles.

  12. Re:how to piss off an alien/human hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They Live (1988)

    See the movie. It's a thrilling satire about consumerism. Everything is trying to sell you something, especially the billboards.

  13. !FIrst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis_on_the_Moon

  14. Re:how to piss off an alien/human hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Get two sheets of Polaroid plastic.
    2) Place them on each other and rotate the topmost one until the combination becomes as opaque as possible.
    3) Use a sharp knife to cut out the word "OBEY" in the sheets.
    4) Place the letters from one word in the cutout of another.
    5) ???
    6) Profit! (Or at least world domination.)

  15. Re:What about milk, eggs, and 'meat'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we send cows and beetles to the moon, will cosmic radiation and crossbreeding cause them them to evolve into buggalo?

  16. Moon Pot by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    Now that pot is becoming legal in the US, maybe the final frontier will be growing pot on the moon.

    Think about it. What's needed is a really high (pun intended) profit margin product to drive space exploration. Think how much stoners would pay for pot grown on the moon. Astronomical profit!

    Unlike mineral extraction, there is minimal extra-terrestrial processing involved. It's like a sample and return mission, except you don't have to find anything.

    Now we can finally fill in item number two:

    1) Grow pot on Moon

    2) Return it to Earth.

    3) Profit!

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Moon Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooo!

      I just agreed with myself to stay off it until retirement. But moon pot - game over. I'd be all over that!!!

    2. Re:Moon Pot by Dthief · · Score: 1

      ....you weigh 1 oz on the moon, and sell it as 1 oz on Earth.......not good business

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    3. Re:Moon Pot by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Guaranteed to get you high!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Moon Pot by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You'd have to do it the other way around, weight 1 oz on earth and sell it as 1 oz on the moon.

  17. First life brought to another planetary body? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do know humans brought human life to the moon, right?

  18. Cannabis by muttoj · · Score: 1

    Moon grown Cannabis will get you real high I suppose.

  19. Soil by sandertje · · Score: 2

    This might sound a bit stupid, but in my opinion it is more interesting to see how the soil survives than how the plants do. Most people think soil is dead material, while in fact it is full with activity of bacteria, fungi, insects, earthworms, nematodes and more. Growing anything usefull requires good soil. Once we know how soil biology behaves in Lunar conditions, we might be able to come up with a way to convert Lunar regolith into useable soil.

    1. Re:Soil by khallow · · Score: 1

      I imagine that's part of the point of the experiment. A plant that is kept alive would imply that its soil was kept alive as well.

  20. Weeds first, THEN interesting plants by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 2
    You'd think NASA didn't know about taking baby steps, as if they'd gone to the Moon first and decided to work on that boring stable orbit shit later. They should be growing crabgrass, dandelions, and kudzu first. Shit that you have to fight like hell to get to stop growing. Shit that doesn't care how badly you treat it or how poor the conditions are. Bonus: dandelion leaves and kudzu are edible.

    While regolith ain't soil, it can be used as a basic substrate which hearty weeds wouldn't complain about.

    1. Re:Weeds first, THEN interesting plants by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      If you can grow crabgrass, dandelions, and kudzu, then you could grow basil and turnips instead with no substantial difference in difficulty. What's the real difference? Astronauts would rather eat basil-turnips stew than kudzu crabgrass salad. The experiment is actually somewhat needed since it'll give us better estimates on the amount of area food production will take (it depends on the growth rate of the foods).

      If we're talking terraforming and not just growing goodies to eat in a mostly closed cycle (poo is fertilizer, albeit rather 'hot' with bacteria), then we'll want some kind of genetically engineered microbes and lichen, etc which can survive on water mixed with regolith + heat and break down the rocks into more useful soil. You'd be wanting that under a dome of sorts, maybe in a crater or two on the south pole, so any gases produced wouldn't be blown away by solar winds.

      We're a long way off from lunar dome construction and genetically engineered lunar microbes. However, we have all the technology required to put a habitat on the moon -- Just not funding to do so. You want funding you need to aim for getting people off the planet. Joe sixpack is inspired by people, not probes or plants. Folks atrophy in low G, so it limits the time humans can spend in a habitat; One that's big enough for long term missions and food cultivation would have to be cycled like the ISS does, but the gravity may let them stay longer than orbital platforms -- It's the radiation I'd be worried about.

      Actually, this just reminded me I need to catch up on Space Brothers -- An anime series about the human element involved in becoming a JAXA astronaut, international cooperation, brotherly love and rivalry, and performing Lunar and other missions. I recognized many Houstonian landmarks in their episodes at NASA / Johnson Space Center. There were episodes about such a lunar habitat, and while I'm sure artistic license is taken, the show demonstrates some impressive real life space agency involvement for an show. The current arc includes training in an international undersea platform must be inspired by actual plans. Space Brothers includes the first voice acting to ever be recorded in space (by Akihiko Hoshide). In the live action movie based on the anime / manga, Buzz Aldrin makes a cameo appearance as himself.

      I don't mean to ramble on about this series (which you can find free streaming online w/ ads on crunchroll among other places), but IMO, this sort of thing I think about as "baby steps". I agree with you on that front. NASA needs more Community Involvement, sparking public interest especially among children. They're getting a bit better with social media, and we have NASA TV, but it's not half as entertaining to minds young or old as comic books, animations, or movies about what it would be like to live in space in the future. All around the world I see cultures becoming more excited about space, and yet here in the USA most common people are disenchanted with it, and many are actively negative towards awarding any funding. That Gravity film was in the right vein, but far more expensive than a manga or anime. It's a shame the stigma western societies have over art mediums like these (and even games) -- It's just as valid a medium as film, radio, theater, or painting, but western animation studios (like Dreamworks or Pixar) are hampered by the expectation that animation is for kids, and thereby kid-safe and lacking most mature dramatic elements. I'd much rather see something like an American version of Space Brothers on prime time TV than yet another Simpsons wannabe.

      Ultimately space exploration's goal must include spreading life beyond our planet.

    2. Re:Weeds first, THEN interesting plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of your suggestions require much more comfortable conditions than the moon offers. Lichens OTOH are practically immune to drought and temperature variation and can survive on bare rock. They grow in Antarctica where they are buried in ice for months at a time and in hot deserts. That's what you use for terraforming to make soil.

  21. WRONG by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    ok, coffee can sized aluminum containers? Clearly you've not been reading High Times. Rather than trying to invent new ways to grow plants in confined spaces with limited resources and light, why not ask the people who've been doing it for decades?

    1. Re:WRONG by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Maybe they don't want to get caught?

  22. A Great Idea, Question Though by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    When the phase of the moon is in the dark, what would have to be done?

  23. 1st time? Who knows. by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

    If they are successful, it will be the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body.

    It think that's a very optimistic statement.

    --
    Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:1st time? Who knows. by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

      $s/It/I/

      --
      Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
  24. Farmer on the moon by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I'm a farmer on the moon
    I till with a harpoon
    But there ain't water
    So I have my daughter
    Sing this jaunty tune!

    Take it Crushinator!

    1. Re:Farmer on the moon by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      I'm a farmer on the moon
        I till with a harpoon
        But there ain't water
        So I have my daughter

      Moonshine in lieu of water? Ensuing drunken incest?

      Let's face it, you're actually a farmer on the Ozarks, not the Moon.

  25. Re:What about milk, eggs, and 'meat'? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Won't work. The cow will jump over the moon.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  26. Re:how to piss off an alien/human hybrid by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Please seek psychiatric help."

    Please seek help in spotting cultural references. Get the hell off your computer, and step the fuck outside and pay attention.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  27. Why don't they use ordinary containers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty on hand. Surely that's the cheaper way to go?

  28. The activist within.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone ask if the plants wanted to be taken to space?

    I'll go chain myself to the rocket! :(

  29. Never mind the moon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can get basil to grow in their living room, I'll already be sufficiently impressed.

  30. Starting with plants? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    I think they're starting with plants (that require carbon dioxide to create food) when there's no carbon dioxide on the moon, at least not where plants could utilize it for photosynthesis, when what I think would be better, and probably more in tune with how Nature works, would be fungi of a wide variety. Fungi don't need carbon dioxide from the air, they use oxygen from the ground. The moon has water in the form of ice all in the soil, we're told. Fungi would be so much better to start off with for so many reasons, but the main one being that they could prepare the soil as well as the atmosphere for more Earth-like activity.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  31. Don't forget the telephone cleaners... by chopper749 · · Score: 1

    They must be on the first ship so everything is ready when the rest of us get there.

  32. Life to another planetary body? by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

    Didn't they do that all the times they landed on the moon in the 60's and 70's?

    --
    In C++, your friends can see your privates.
  33. Lichen mars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Far better would be to cultivate/breed/engineer a lichen that will grow in some region of mars. Lichens are hardy and grow on barren cliffsides at high altitudes. according to TPS http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/20120515-earth-life-survive-mars.html it's possible with existing species.

  34. hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if only there was a plant that could provide food, fuel, and fiber.

  35. Damn it Jim! by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    I'm a doctor, not an gardener!

  36. Larry Niven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am surprised there are no references yet to Larry Niven's Sunflowers.

  37. The day of the Triffids by Cito · · Score: 1

    This will be how Triffids are created, they'll come back and eat all of humanity

    Btw Triffids were a blueprint for modern zombie fiction as well as the oldest "bite infection turning into biter " came from original Peyo Smurf comics pre-zombie movies

  38. Elon has started a lot by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This is Elon's idea for mars. I think that the same set-up will be sent to both the moon and mars. It should prove to be interesting.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. Who will buy my turnip?? by Dabido · · Score: 1

    Good luck bringing those tasty turnips to market, NASA! :-)

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    1. Re:Who will buy my turnip?? by Dabido · · Score: 1

      After saying that though, I had another thought, maybe NASA will just have a growers market on the moon, in which case, 'Good luck getting to the NASA growers market, humans!' Prices will be kept reasonable for our alien friends ... as long as our turnips don't mutate and return to take us over!!! (Yes, I am setting that up for a punch line).

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)