Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lunar Scientist Proposes Dozens of Impact Probes To Map Moon's Water (examiner.com)

Posted by timothy on from the just-thump-for-worms dept.

MarkWhittington writes: Water ice believed by scientists to reside at the lunar poles is the key to opening up the solar system to human activity. The water could help sustain a lunar settlement. It could also be refined into rocket fuel, not only to sustain travel to and from the moon but to make it a refueling stop for spacecraft headed deeper into the solar system. A recent MIT study suggested that lunar fuel would simplify NASA's Journey to Mars. Lunar scientist Paul Spudis, writing in Air and Space Magazine, pondered the next step in determining the extent and composition of the lunar ice. Spudis' idea is to deploy several dozen impact probes across one of the lunar polar regions.

35 comments

  1. We beging bombing in five minutes. by jdharm · · Score: 0

    I'm sure nothing bad could possibly come from a first strike.

    1. Re:We beging bombing in five minutes. by jdharm · · Score: 0

      How about lingering a little over that preview next time? Not so quick on the submit, a little more with the spelling and grammar check.

    2. Re:We beging bombing in five minutes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure nothing bad could possibly come from a first strike.

      And we be targeting the lunar isis

    3. Re:We beging bombing in five minutes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am all for not doing stupid stuff on other heavenly bodies, but if we are to learn how to do stuff right, we need a scratching pad.

      The moon seems to me legitimate ground for reasonable experiments. Compare stirring some dust for analysis to the shit we are doing on our own planet. Even if there was yet undetected micro bacterial life on the moon, this seems like a relatively safe experiment to help us proceed in a better manner for exploring mars, or perhaps even more importantly, proto-planets and other moons.

  2. Use femtospacecraft Instead. by mbone · · Score: 0

    It would cheaper to use femtospacecraft than impacters to explore these regions. One CubeSat could act as a relay for dozens of femtospacecraft while the Lunar Flashlight lights up the territory.

    1. Re:Use femtospacecraft Instead. by khallow · · Score: 2

      No, it wouldn't. Mass isn't cheap. But development of radically new spacecraft aren't either.

  3. Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We have no reason to be on the moon or in the unlivable vacuum of outer space. Send a few robots to explore and satisfy the curiosity, anything more is a colossal boondoggle and a waste of money. You might as well burn $100 bills as fuel.

    1. Re:Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will burn those $100 for prestige.

    2. Re:Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be hating, playah!

    3. Re:Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said, sir. There's no need to explore the ocean in a hopeless search for a better route to the Indes, when we know the overland route works!

    4. Re:Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as this "Lunar Scientist" is using his own money on this whacked out scheme I don't care. But don't give him any tax money!

    5. Re: Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But for each robot, to send, to awnser one question, is a undertaking. Expensive. We value life so cheaply, that a habitat setup, with a group of engineers, aka civilian scientists, could explore, relay results, and be infanitly more programmable. To ask the next question. Or request supplies to create the next question. Without the question, the habitat, and the people to explore. What use is education? You may as well put down the stick, and give up the quest for food. Let the machines do it? Why? To go much further into space we need something to replace batteries, and low life reactors. That machines depend on. No power, dead machine. Battery gets old, dead machine. And we aren't talking of the next step of space travel yet. Are we waiting for advanced aliens to visit us, who need a food supply or slaves?

    6. Re: Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most probes don't answer one question, they answer many. People are not infinitely reprogrammable, since for modern science they need all of the same equipment a probe would need to actually do the analysis. The people amount to being slightly better shovelers, yet at many times the cost of distributing many probes over a wide region.

    7. Re:Immediately defund this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have no reason to be on the moon or in the unlivable vacuum of outer space. Send a few robots to explore and satisfy the curiosity, anything more is a colossal boondoggle and a waste of money. You might as well burn $100 bills as fuel.

      One of the things about living in a democratic-style country is that the majority of us can elect people who can envision exploring a world farther than the tip of their own dick, or iPhone, as the case may be.
      Suck it up, we won. We're spending our money and yours on what we want to do.
      You, and those like you, can continue to hide in your cave and quiver. The rest of us are going to see what's out there.

  4. Fuck Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    and Fuck their Moon God

  5. When you're only tool is a rocket... by GrpA · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then every problem starts to look like an impact target.

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    1. Re:When you're only tool is a rocket... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I was thinking, "To Fight Terrorism, and for the Children." I guess using deep penetrating radar is pretty stupid. Of course capturing an ice ball heading toward the sun is just beyond the Knowledge Base of the Air Force. Which sounds like a really great idea for a movie, and game.

  6. The world is flat, you can't land on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can't land on the moon, the world is flat, there are no satellites (they are cell towers) and there is no south pole

    google "emergency landing bali alaska birth"

  7. Sensors on the orbiter? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I read somewhere a while back about them smacking craft into the moon and then analysing the debris clouds that were cast up. Would this not work better, allowing you to get data from significantly deeper? As I would have thought sensors on the probes would be unlikely to survive strong impacts.

    On a side note wtf has happened to Slashdot that there is only 1 on topic comment on this story?

    1. Re:Sensors on the orbiter? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      The impact probes would be equipped with aluminum foam to cushion them as they hit the lunar surface. Then each of these probes would measure the surface hydrogen as well as the neutron signature of volatiles on the moon where they land and then transmit their findings to an orbital craft for relay to Earth.

      I don't know enough about orbital mechanics to know how they're going to pull this off, but I assume they'd do something to shed most of their delta-v in lunar orbit and drop from there.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    2. Re:Sensors on the orbiter? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I read that. And I'm sure they can slow the probes enough for sensors to survive impact without too much problem. At 60km above surface lunar orbital speed is only about 1600m/s so slowing the probes to survive impact would be easy.

      My question was more would they get more useful information on ground composition if they accelerate the probes into the surface and analyse the dust plumes instead of having the sensors on the probes.

    3. Re:Sensors on the orbiter? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Oh, my bad, I misunderstood.

      That's a good question.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  8. That *is* a looney idea. by hey! · · Score: 2

    ... Oh, wait.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Majick! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:

    The group developed a model to determine the best route to Mars, assuming the availability of resources and fuel-generating infrastructure on the moon.

    Well isn't that handy? So as long as we assume that the cost of setting up and staffing and running a moon base is zero, and the cost of building the generation facilities and producing the fuel is zero, generating the fuel cost is zero, It's financially much better to make fuel there.

    No doubt the time involved in setting up a completely peripheral side project is also assumed to be zero. Why not, it makes just as much sense as assuming everything else id free?

    MIT should be ashamed that such drivel came from anyone related to that institution.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Majick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MIT hasn't been about serious engineering for about 20 years now. They used to have the MIT Radiation Laboratory... The work they did in WWII is still used today.

      MIT now is about the "Media Lab" and assorted space clowneries.

    2. Re:Majick! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Hell, as long as everything is majick we could just grab a passing asteroid and mine it for metals to make the spacecraft.

    3. Re:Majick! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Hell, as long as everything is majick we could just grab a passing asteroid and mine it for metals to make the spacecraft.

      And if we ignore the costs of getting to the asteroid, and the mining and refining - it's free!

      Last night, I watched a National Geographic program on building the Skywalk over the Grand Canyon - the glass bottomed horsehoe shaped walkway that extends some 70 feet over the edge of a 4000 foot cliff. Pretty well done program and explanation of a lot of the engineering involved.

      I would suggest that these folks glossing over their assumptions that are at least as difficult as the presumed Mars trip, watch that show, then come back and breezily dismiss the costs of constructing and operating a moon base and fuel processing plant. The comparisons between a lunar base and a cool walkway supported on only one side aren't direct, but just to show the interesting engineering challenges and expenses in a realistic way - as in if it's this much work to do a simple walkway, imagine developing said moonbase. Glossing over that shows a fundamental flaw in the writers ability to assess much of anything.

      And don't get me wrong, folks - I'm in favor of both a moonbase and going to Mars. I just don't connect them together, unless we don't plan on getting to Mars for around a hundred or more years from now.

      I find the high earth orbit assembly area, followed by a space tram that the martian landing and housing modules hitch a ride on, then return on the same. The tram would be more heavily built in order to better shield the occupants from radiation.

      Build the tram in that High orbit, nudge it into it's Earth to Mars orbit, probably taking materials for a martian base on a shakedown cruise, and end up with a re-useable travelling space station. No need for moon water, very possibly made of unobtanium, or not in sufficient quantity to do anything with.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Majick! by spauldo · · Score: 1

      A lot of people feel that going to Mars is a mistake, and that we should be focusing on the moon. Going to Mars with our current infrastructure would be another Apollo - go there, look around, come back, and then abandon the whole thing altogether.

      The "cost" of a moon base in regards to a Mars mission would be negligible, if you consider that a moon base justifies itself. Only the money used for equipment and research that is directly related to the Mars mission would be counted as part of the cost.

      This study shows that both sides of the moon/Mars debate can get what they want - at least in a fantasy world where NASA can keep the same mandate for more than eight years.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    5. Re:Majick! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree. The problem with construction on the moon is you will be in a gravity well. It's only one sixth that of earth but still a problem. Best to build in high orbit and take it one step at a time. I hate to think of working on a project on the moon and realizing some contractor sent the wrong size panel for a module under construction. It's not like you can just drive over and get the right one.

    6. Re:Majick! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This study shows that both sides of the moon/Mars debate can get what they want - at least in a fantasy world where NASA can keep the same mandate for more than eight years.

      So you are saying that we should both assume there is water on the moon, and that we should not consider the cost of a moon base at all?

      Accountants work a lot of dubious majick these days, but that one's beyond the pale in my book.

      As well, wouldn't a major justification for a moon base. be to provide fuel for martian missions? A perfect circular argument.

      Also, is my tram concept not feasible? It has nothing whatsoever to do with a one shot Apollo type mission. It's in another post, but is a continual earth to mars orbiting platform that ferrys landers and supplies between Mars and earth.

      Regardless, all it takes is not enough water on the moon to make the moobased Mars missions unfeasible.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Majick! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree. The problem with construction on the moon is you will be in a gravity well. It's only one sixth that of earth but still a problem.

      Definitely a problem. Because now you have another escape velocity to deal with.

      Best to build in high orbit and take it one step at a time. I hate to think of working on a project on the moon and realizing some contractor sent the wrong size panel for a module under construction. It's not like you can just drive over and get the right one.

      And it does happen.

      THere is one more issue that has an analogy in ethanol production. I think it is always a bad idea to mix comestibles or life critical things like water with fuel. Making ethanol form Corn is ethically wron in my book. If a nation is at war, needs fuel, has only invested in corn based ethanol, and they have to make a choice - fuel versus food.

      A moon base, assuming there is water to be made into fuel at the moon, also needs water to exist at all. If there is not enough water for both, we have a problem, Houston.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Majick! by spauldo · · Score: 1

      There's no accounting magic involved.

      A moon base offers similar, if not greater, benefits as a Mars mission in terms of science and technology development. The point of building a moon base isn't to save money going to Mars - it's to have a research and hopefully manufacturing and mining platform on the moon. The base justifies itself, even if we don't plan to go to Mars.

      What the MIT study shows is that if you already have a moon base, going to Mars will be cheaper. It's an added benefit, not the justification. It's similar to how we didn't spend half a trillion dollars on an interstate system to make it easier for people to visit their relatives.

      As far as water is concerned, we know that water is there. We don't know how much water is there, but there's certainly enough in shadowed craters to support all the Mars missions we're likely to have in the next century along with a moon base or twelve. We also suspect that there is water all over the place near the poles, but we don't know how much and how feasible it would be to collect it - which is what the guy in TFA wants to find out.

      I haven't looked at your tram comment, because it really doesn't have any bearing on the study. We're going to need water and fuel not matter what - after all, we have to catch the tram and then slow down after we jump off. I doubt such a thing would be useful for supplies (if you're going to spend the delta-v to catch the tram, you're already up to speed to go to Mars anyway), but it would be handy for crew quarters.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  10. Can we just report the story as it REALLY is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCIENCE DECLARES - "WE MUST BOMB MOON"

    dashdfkashdk;asdfasdljljas;dljf;lasdjf;lajsdl;fjasd;lfjasd;ljfwe;j;aosdfifoasjid lower case letters to allow me to save. Duh, filter.

  11. Just Like Earth by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Just as we enjoy murdering natural resources on Earth we should now suck the moon dry of water so that we can one day be forced to haul millions of gallons of water to the moon to replace the water we use there. And the way things look we can get plenty of water as it is covering areas of the world right now that should not be under water at all.