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.

Comments

Not a bad idea

[Skyshadow]

It's good to know that NASA still has some people who are thinking outside the box.

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.

----

Spreading out

[Aleatoric]

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.

Eugene Shoemaker's Ashes

[scud1]

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