Splash! NASA moon strikes found significant water

[Mrbloodworth]

Yay! Let the colonization and raping of mineral wealth begin!

EDIT: Changed link to nasa site.

[WayAbvPar]

[Sky]

Since you started a NASA thread, I'll tuck this in here:

Museums and libraries are invited to apply for free NASA space shuttle artifacts, including small items such as astronaut helmets, gloves, and boots, and large items such as shuttle Motion Based Simulators and Crew Compartment Trainers. NASA will retire the Space Shuttle Program at the end of 2010 and is eager for the public to learn about the wonders of space exploration through museum and library exhibitions. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is helping NASA reach out to eligible institutions, including museums attended by the public and free libraries serving all residents of a community, district, state, or region. Museums and libraries must first be determined as eligible through the State Agency for Surplus Property in their state. Artifacts, which will be released as they are no longer needed by the Space Shuttle Program, may be viewed by eligible institutions that have been given a log-in and password at the website http://gsaxcess.gov/NASAWel.htm.   
 
The artifacts are offered in batches. For eligible museums and libraries, the current screening period ends November 29. A new batch of artifacts will be made available in January 2010. For the latest information about NASA shuttle transition and artifacts, visit http://www.nasa.gov/transition.

On topic, I'm surprised they didn't pop a rover on the moon to test for the mars projects.

[01101010]

On topic, I'm surprised they didn't pop a rover on the moon to test for the mars projects.

Not cost effective. It would cost nearly as much to pop a rover on the moon as it did for the ones on Mars. At least that is what a buddy of mine told me, he was a subcontractor for NASA out of CMU.

I ask him something similar awhile back - hence my reply.

[Venkman]

I imagine they figured the primary thing they want out of the moon (a weigh station with usable water) wouldn't be discovered by walking along the surface. So instead they invent this impact solution because that's the experiment they needed for the specific job they had.

[Merusk]

If you read the comments on several news sites, you'll note a lot of 'fuck you <news agency> where was the front page when India discovered this months ago.' type posts.

So, yeah, world politics is awesome.

[caladein]

On topic, I'm surprised they didn't pop a rover on the moon to test for the mars projects.

The whole idea behind LCROSS was that another mission had extra room on board so they threw a mission together (by NASA standards) under some strict cost/weight constraints.  For example, the "projectile" used to first impact the moon would have been space junk on a normal mission.

[Morat20]

On topic, I'm surprised they didn't pop a rover on the moon to test for the mars projects.

Not cost effective. It would cost nearly as much to pop a rover on the moon as it did for the ones on Mars. At least that is what a buddy of mine told me, he was a subcontractor for NASA out of CMU.

I ask him something similar awhile back - hence my reply.

90% of the cost of ANY mission is getting to low earth orbit. After that, it's just a matter of waiting.

Launch costs dwarf everything.

[Lantyssa]

I'm curious as to the definition of 'significant'.  They may be qualifying 'detectable' as such, but that doesn't mean it amounts to much.

[ghost]

I love NASA lately.  Hmmm, there is a potential threat to our funding.  Oh, there are signs of habitable planets all over the universe!  See, there is one!  And another one over there!  And they are covered with water and gold.  And teeming with UFOs.  

[Simond]

I'm curious as to the definition of 'significant'.  They may be qualifying 'detectable' as such, but that doesn't mean it amounts to much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359744.stm

Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water-ice and water vapour.

One researcher described this as the equivalent of "a dozen two-gallon buckets" of water.

"We didn't just find a little bit; we found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, chief scientist for the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission.

[Tannhauser]

God put it there.

[Murgos]

I'm curious as to the definition of 'significant'.  They may be qualifying 'detectable' as such, but that doesn't mean it amounts to much.

In this case my science to English translator says that significant means that there is enough there to warrant further funding for the project.

[Nebu]

I love NASA lately.  Hmmm, there is a potential threat to our funding.  Oh, there are signs of habitable planets all over the universe!  See, there is one!  And another one over there!  And they are covered with water and gold.  And teeming with UFOs.  

It's not just NASA.  Every branch of science needs to make their research look attractive to get funding for projects.  Scientists, particularly those not associated with the top 10 universities (Harvard, Cal Tech, MIT, etc) need sensationalism to have any chance at all of getting table scraps.  It's even funnier when you consider that faculty need to get grants just to keep their $50k a year jobs that they studied 10-20 years to get. 

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too 

[Venkman]

I think them wanting to find water on the moon is the primary reason they keep trying to look for it It theoretically makes a lot of exploration a lot better if there's a way to establish a base that provides recoup/refill point after you spent so much time trying to get out of LEO.

[Nebu]

Were it not for the molecular attraction holding the water to the moon dust particles, there would be no water at all.  There's just not enough water on the moon for it to be useful as a base.  If you want to create a non-Earth base, you'll need to do it somewhere where there exists at least a minimal protective atmosphere. 

At least that's how it would seem to me as a nonexpert in astronomy. 

[Lantyssa]

Agreed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359744.stm

Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water-ice and water vapour.

One researcher described this as the equivalent of "a dozen two-gallon buckets" of water.

"We didn't just find a little bit; we found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, chief scientist for the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission.

Thank you for the link.  That is the first number I have seen given.  It still does not really answer "how much"?

Twelve gallons out of twelve gallons of ejecta is "Woah!  Moon water for everyone!".  Twelve gallons out of two tons of ejected matter is scientifically important, but not that much quantitatively.

Don't get me wrong, with my background this is exciting stuff.  Even if it was just dirt I would be interested because it would still tell us stuff.  I'm not wanting the hype for the public though, I want to be able to draw conclusions for myself and fantasize about their significance given actual data.

[Teleku]

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too 

I disagree, I always thought the obsession with Mars was a waste of time and money.  Mars takes forever to get to and would cost a horrific amount of money just to have somebody walk around for awhile then fly back.  We can't do anything with it (now).  Much better to start trying to setup permanent bases on the moon for research, and use them as launching pads for further exploration.  We can construct and launch things from the moon that we can't from earth.   We can then get to mars and other places much much easier.  Not to mention it would be easier to develop the technology and knowledge base to live on the surface of another planet using the moon as test grounds first.

Not to mention, there is also the potential for Helium-3 extraction from the moon.  Actually, there are several viable commercial and strategic reasons to concentrate everything on the moon.  Mars, not so much.

[pxib]

There's a lot more reason to concentrate on places like Antarctica, the Canadian and Russian arctics, deep deserts, and shallow portions of the ocean floor that may seem inhospitable but still do not exist in the three Kelvin unshielded radioactive vacuum of space with escape velocity launch costs exceeding thousands of dollars per pound.

I love NASA because it's awesome... and that's all I desire or expect it to be. Beyond geosynchronous orbit it's never been practical.

[01101010]

There's a lot more reason to concentrate on places like Antarctica, the Canadian and Russian arctics, deep deserts, and shallow portions of the ocean floor that may seem inhospitable but still do not exist in the three Kelvin unshielded radioactive vacuum of space with escape velocity launch costs exceeding thousands of dollars per pound.

I love NASA because it's awesome... and that's all I desire or expect it to be. Beyond geosynchronous orbit it's never been practical.

Underwater bases get my vote. Fuck the moon.

[Morat20]

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too 

What? The impact study? It was actually pretty cheap, if I'm remembering correctly. A previously designed moon study had some extra weight in the budget. Engineers took some already "planned to be ejected material" and had it injected at the moon.

In short, they took what was going to be "space junk", used the excess mass budget to crowd in some sensors and eject the junk at the moon, and analyzed that.

It was a really high pay-off mission to boot, since water is so damn useful. You can make fuel out of it, store energy in it (well, in the hydrogen in it), use it to grow things, and just drink the damn stuff. If you've got water, you're good.

[pxib]

In short, they took what was going to be "space junk", used the excess mass budget to crowd in some sensors and eject the junk at the moon, and analyzed that.

Excess mass budget is the key. The cost per pound of space travel is high because the launch vehicles are expensive... but any rocket you use has a fixed weight capacity, so if you're going to launch one you might as well use every pound. The thing LCROSS threw at the moon was a Centaur rocket, a popular final stage launch vehicle used to push payloads to high orbits or out of the gravity well entirely. Rather than separating from it as soon as it ran out of fuel, the probe didn't let go until it could swing around and throw it at the moon.

This is the sort of relatively cheap, math and engineering-intensive fun that NASA's been having since Sojourner's airbag landing.

[Samwise]

Not to mention, there is also the potential for Helium-3 extraction from the moon.

But what happens when the clones catch on?

[tazelbain]

There's a lot more reason to concentrate on places like Antarctica, the Canadian and Russian arctics, deep deserts, and shallow portions of the ocean floor that may seem inhospitable but still do not exist in the three Kelvin unshielded radioactive vacuum of space with escape velocity launch costs exceeding thousands of dollars per pound.

I love NASA because it's awesome... and that's all I desire or expect it to be. Beyond geosynchronous orbit it's never been practical.

Underwater bases get my vote. Fuck the moon.

We now can build underwater bases on the moon.

[Murgos]

We now can build underwater bases on the moon.

See?  Now, that's thinking ahead.

[Venkman]

I'm of a mind that the more we look outward, the more likely we'll find solutions that can apply to our internal issues. This is basically because history has shown the more a culture looks inward, the more likely corruption and complacency prevent any real solutions.

There's only "waste" when an experiment is done and it fails. But you "experiment" and "guaranteed success" are contradictory

[Nebu]

There's only "waste" when an experiment is done and it fails.

This is a common misconception.  We learn much from failed experiments, often because they fail to produce an expected outcome.  Developing a new hypothesis for why the experiment fails leads, in the best case, to Nobel Prize winning research. 

It is the unexpected that leads us in new directions.  When all of our experiments work, it just demonstrates that our founding theories are solid for that system. 

[Venkman]

You just made my point for me That's why I put "waste" in quotes. If there was no value in failure, there'd be no science, nor would there be R&D at all as misinformed people look to scale back sunk costs with a low percent of output.

[Murgos]

It's my personal bias peeking through.  I happen to think that most of the money NASA spends is a waste.  I'd rather focus resources on Earth's problems.  Potable water, renewable energy, food shortages, disease, etc. seem like better investments. 

It's not to say that they don't do good research.  I just question the priority of it all given the problems on Earth. 

NASA's budget is the lowest, as a % of of the federal budget, as it's been since 1960.  It's only ~0.5% of the total federal budget this year.  Think of all the "real science" that gets, at least a little bit, of money from NASA every year and what the cost really is.

Now, think about how in your own experience how hard it is to get funding for "real science", that NASA is probably many scientists best shot at getting pure research funded.  Really, I wouldn't whine about that .5% too much.

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

I love NASA lately.  Hmmm, there is a potential threat to our funding.  Oh, there are signs of habitable planets all over the universe!  See, there is one!  And another one over there!  And they are covered with water and gold.  And teeming with UFOs.  

It's not just NASA.  Every branch of science needs to make their research look attractive to get funding for projects.  Scientists, particularly those not associated with the top 10 universities (Harvard, Cal Tech, MIT, etc) need sensationalism to have any chance at all of getting table scraps.  It's even funnier when you consider that faculty need to get grants just to keep their $50k a year jobs that they studied 10-20 years to get. 

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too 

See, thats why global warming is the hot topic. It's ALWAYS about the funding.

[Sir T]

AAAND we have a projected retarded politics derail in 5...4...

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

I do not want a derail to politics here, but why is the Nebu statement, a blanket statement off the table on global warming? Is there any other science off the table?

[Nebu]

I deleted those posts.  Keep this out of politics. 

My apologies.

[ghost]

We now can build underwater bases on the moon.

I smell a Moonraker remake.

[Cyrrex]

This is all a big cover up.  What is being sold as a bunch of space junk deliberately being plowed into the moon was actually a top sekrit manned mission that has gone horribly, horribly wrong.  They lost control of the craft and slammed into the service, losing all hands.  That 24 gallons of "water" was just their brown water tanks bursting on impact.  Urine and poo.