Slashdot Mirror
NASA Crashing Probe to Look for H2O on Moon
Echoloc8 writes "This article from Yahoo! News reports that NASA will be smashing the Lunar Prospector probe into the moon near the probable ice deposit discovered recently, trying to send a water-vapor plume high enough to be detected. They claim a 10% chance of success." It's a pretty cool idea-the probe has just about served all of it's usefulness, and while not finding liquid doesn't mean that it is not present, I like the notion of using every last dollar they can.
I mean, really, some of the posters have displayed such ignorance of things nerdly they should have their slashdot logins revoked. Must be the "computers are kewl, starwars is kewl" kiddies.
Some examples:
"Willy K." apparently posting from MIT (MIT? then that message must be a troll. Even the janitor would know better.):
Does it seem odd to anyone else that the first thing we decide to land permanently on the moon is a wrecked satellite?
Uh, hello? The US and USSR have been "landing" wrecked (and intact, but now inactive) satellites and spacecraft on the Moon for nearly 40 years now, this is hardly "first". In fact, Pete Conrad and Al Bean on Apollo 12 even brought back some pieces of one of them (Surveyor 3), to see how they'd held up to a few years of lunar exposure. There are literally tons of "space junk" on the lunar surface.
"philreed" mentions in response to somebody commenting that the orbit will decay that:
Uh, orbits degrade because of atmospheric drag. No atmosphere on the moon.
He's half right, there's no detectable atmosphere. However orbits also degrade because of perturbing forces such as the gravity of Earth and Sun, solar light pressure, and the irregular gravitational field of the Moon (mascons). Nothing stays in lunar orbit forever.
"Gumpu" worries that:
The problem is that space vehicles usually use nuclear fuel for their power generation. With this they will contamenate that place on the moon for future generations..
First, space vehicles only use nuclear fuel if they need a particularly dense power source (as some old Soviet radar sats), will be operating far from the Sun (as with trans-Mars spacecraft) or will need to operate during extended dark periods (as the Apollo scientific experiment packages that had to survive the lunar night). Since Prospector was doing gamma-ray spectrometry, the last thing they'd want is a nuclear power source aboard.
Second, the lunar surface is daily bathed with radiation both from the Sun and deep space (cosmic rays), it having no shielding atmosphere.
A little extra from a few spoonfuls of isotope in (usually) an RTG is hardly anything to worry about.
"nlucent" also seems concerned about keeping the Moon and Mars green (which they aren't, but facts aren't important if we're arguing feelings), and concludes:
and then we say, Hey, lets crash something into mars
Apparently ignorant of the fact that we've been doing that since the 1960s too, and as recently as a few years ago (remember Mars Rover? That at least was within your lifetime.)
There were a few others.
Fortunately the more intelligent slashdotters eventually showed up to correct some of the above misconceptions, but the mind still boggles...
Besides, we need to get off this Muddball just in case Mother Nature decides to pull something. Personally, I'd prefer another star system (just in case there's a reason we're not detecting as many neutrinos as we should be from our middle-aged sun), but baby steps are a start.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Besides, this is maybe 300 lbs of metal and plastic -- you or I put out more trash than that in six months. It was going to eventually crash into the moon anyhow (what goes up...), so we might as well do it in a way that'll eventually help us build a base up there.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
These recent "faster, cheaper, better" probes are really a big contrast to the older "big waste" programs like the Space Station (motto: Now $20 billion over budget). The Lunar Prospector, the Mars Rover, DS1... These are some really exciting programs. This is just a really good illustration of the whole "think better" paradigm in action.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Posted by kenmcneil:
I want to respond in general to all the people who are transferring the "save the planet" ideas over to the moon. If we eventually settle on the moon and make a big mess what would be the loss? On the earth there is something special (i.e. life) but on the moon there is nothing! We are way off in the bonnies in the universe and I don't think where going to get a ticket if we throw a few bottles out the window. Get real people!
The only problem with taking out the garbage, is that nuclear waste is very heavy. The energy required to lift nuclear waste only into orbit may negate the economics and any environmental possiblity of nuclear power. Not only that, there are different classes of nuclear waste: high level, medium, and low level that is the bulk such as things exposed to radiation such as gloves, spent containers, updated plumbing, etc... All this stuff does fit nicely in mine shafts waiting for the next time the crust recycles into the earth's core.
If we develop a more efficient method of propultion to lift craft out of our atmosphere, this idea may become viable. Rocket technology is very effective, but requires an amazing amount of resources. The cost of the fuel may not justify powering a "garbage truck."
Trash on the moon may be a valuable resource for recycling. Nuclear waste is still energy that can be used until it is completely depleted for many years to come. Trash from a ship may be a valuable resource, much like the junk in a salvage yard. You may have many uses for moon rock, but a spent pipe may be readily used as a tool or put back in commision. Waste can also be used as construction material for building shields from the high speed projectiles in space.
Don't be wasteful. Learn from nature and reuse everything. When we create our own environment on the moon, we will be forced to learn this lesson.
And...
They knew it was going to crash from the beginning, so they don't need to slam it into the lunar poles to bury him. But they ARE trying to continue Shoemaker's research by hurling the probe containing his ashes at a specific place. Way, way, way cool. Gotta love those NASA guys. Let's hope the experiment is a success.
Personally, I think this is a good experiment, even if we had to build a brand new probe to accomplish it. The fact that we can use an existing one is frosting on the cake.
There's no logic in the argument that this kind of experiment is going to lead to more destruction of some 'natural' environment by man.
First off, any eventual settlement we put on the moon (or mars, etc.), will only aid in alleviating the effects of human population pressure on earth. If we find water in some form on the moon, it is an additional aid to forming a settlement that can eventually be self supporting (admittedly quite a ways into the future, but a good goal, nonetheless).
Second, in the case of the moon, it is already dead. What possible damage could we do that would make it any more dead? On the other hand, if we settle it and make it habitable at least in some degree, we gain a great deal. For example, one thing to consider is the potential for some sort of global catastrophe on earth. Unless we spread ourselves out a bit onto other planets, a global catastrophe *could* cause the complete end of the human race. Settlements on other planets would give us at least some chance of avoiding complete extinction.
Finally, if we argue that we should avoid any efforts to settle other planets in the name of preserving their pristine characteristics, we would actually open the door to furthering the damage we already do to earth. Like it or not, human population is not going to diminish (barring a catastrophe), and as it expands, the drain on existing resources will only get worse. By offloading some of this drain onto other planets (and their associated resources), we have the potential to halt (or even reverse) the ecological damage we do to earth, and, if we have learned our lessons, we might even be able to use all of our resources (including those on other planets) more wisely, and maybe we can avoid repeating our mistakes.
To close off any avenue of expansion to our poplulation will eventually result in the extinction (or mortal damage) of the human race, either through population pressure, resource depletion, or a global natural disaster.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
The astronauts installed seismometers on the moon as part of the ALSEP project. The seismometers detected the seismic waves produced when lunar modules and Saturn upper stages hit the Moon. This produced data on the structure and composition of the Moon. Scientists on Earth have done similar work using the seismic waves produced by earthquakes and nuclear weapons tests.
The USA and USSR have landed/crashed a large number of probes on the Moon. Here is a list of the missions.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That's why the mission to Saturn raised such a stink. It was the first nuclear-powered mission since 1979. Pretty much any missions that are staying inside the orbit of Jupiter will be solar powered.
See this link and look toward the bottom for "...surface mounted solar cells..."
Or this one for more info on the vehicle. Or, finally, the FAQ, which says:
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
If I'm not mistaken there's already plenty of space junk up there - the lunar rover(s?) comes to mind. In any case, crash-landing the junk somewhere controlled is a heck of a lot better than letting it orbit until it smacks into some other body at thousands of MPH and does damage - possibly to a satellite or other craft.
Here's a tribute page for Eugene by Carolyn Porco:
h tml
http://condor.lpl.arizona.edu/~carolyn/tribute.
I read an article about him recently. His studies of impact geology changed the basic foundations of modern geology. Previously geologists frowned apon geological theories that involved major catastrophies, instead assuming everything important happened through slow, gradual processes such as plate tectonics. All the craters on the moon were thought to be volcanic in origin. His studies suggested that exterrestrial object impacts happened on a periodic basis and greatly affected the landscape.
His studies also greatly affected biologists, who adapted evolutionary theories to account for periodic impact catastrophies and resulting extinctions. Since then paleontologists and geologists have worked together to try to determine when major impacts took place and where.
Anyone mention that Eugene Shoemaker's ashes are in the probe? I guess this would be the first burial on the Moon or any extraterrestrial body.
It's rather fitting, though. He tried to become an Apollo astronaut, but failed due to health problems. He became one of the first experts on lunar geology and impact crater geology, and spent much of his later life searching for comets and Earth-crossing asteroids. He was the co-discoverer of the Shoemaker-Levy comet that struck Jupitor a few years back.
I'm surprised NASA's not playing this up more. I know they had some protests from a Native American group a while back for sending his ashes up, but I'm not sure the details of that.
Here's an article about the ashes:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/news82.html