Moon has more water than previously thought, scientists say, a potential boon to space exploration https://www.nbcnews.com/science/spa...-scientists-say-n1244795?cid=eml_nbn_20201026 Seems there could be more water there, than originally thought. Could make a big difference in having a settlement on the moon......and to further space exploration. This is great news.
Pair of studies confirm there is water on the moon’s surface and hint at widespread lunar ice https://www.washingtonpost.com/scie...9.X8lqR9QkJlJ5LuxNU2VBPReR5j8eq8LSRjkSuB1bhu8 Time for a sample of this water...
I figured this was going to be the big announcement NASA has been teasing for a couple weeks regarding the moon
Water on the moon? That's great news! But now all that water causes another problem. How and where to land on the moon and not sink into quicksand? We've known for a long time that the moon is full of dust that can be very deep in places. Add water to the mix and you get quicksand.
Maybe it is "Heavy Water" more adherent in the Moon's lesser gravity. Y'think And what of damage to the Moon trying to harvest that water. Like strip mining in Alberta, Canada Moi
The water found is moisture in the regolith. And, my understanding is that the amount found is less than what is in the soil of Death Valley. So, it's meaningful and even surprising, but nobody is going to need water wings! Imagine if we had scored Ensyladus as a moon instead of our own. That moon is 85% water. Though significantly smaller than our moon it would still be like a giant water bubble circling Earth! ... frozen, though.
Frankly, I don't see any justification for that - even now. We aren't doing that for science. We can learn all we want to know about the Moon without humans being there. And a manned mission costs the same as numerous science missions to all sorts of places with amazing new capabilities. It's quite reasonable to argue that a manned mission to anywhere outside low Earth orbit would be a net negative for science given equal tax dollars. And, so far a manned mission to the moon isn't funded and would likely seriously depelete the budget for NASA's science missions. So, the question remains - why?
Trump has created the Space Navy to navigate the waters of the moon. https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020...then-the-real-u-s-navy-got-involved-and-rofl/
Listen to Raymond Masseys' last lines in 1936s "Things to Come", sums it up better than I ever could.
Science fiction is GREAT! Their ideas of space travel are really quite cool to watch sometimes. In this case, it looks like a capsule was shot to the moon out of a giant cannon. Of course, that precludes return and therefore death for all the reasons that a human can not survive on the moon without MASSIVE support for every single thing a human needs. But, if there is EVER a reason to put people on the moon we know that it would be possible. We don't have to put someone on the moon to "conquer" it like the movie suggests. The question remains: Why would we put a human on the moon?
Perhaps to establish a "moon base" from where more exotic space exploration can take place Or: Why NOT"???.
In going to the Moon, NASA is laying the foundation that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars. The Moon will provide a proving ground to test technologies and resources that will take humans to Mars and beyond, including building a sustainable, reusable architecture. https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/back.html
I think the "proving ground" theory is the best argument. However, it brings up another question. And, that is: Why have humans on Mars? In terms of maximizing science per dollar, both Mars and the Moon are MAJOR losers. In terms of some deep future where we find a reason for a planet or moon based station, we can figure it out then. Our exploration of Mars is continuing today. But, Mars isn't the only planet and there are lots of other significant destinations - planets, moons, comets, asteroids, interlopers arriving from outside our solar system, etc. We're sending a drone to Mars so we can fly around the planet looking for cool stuff - something a human on Mars can't do. We have the ability to drill holes in the surface. We can retrieve samples to be examined on Earth by equipment that absolutely is NOT going to be on Mars due to its physical requirements. Blowing a "humans on Mars (or Moon)" size hole in whatever we can tolerate for a budget for exploration of the cosmos hits me as a stupendous waste - and a serious distraction from our effort to understand this universe.
I think a better answer is that we ARE exploring the universe. Humans have sent missions to every planet. We even have missions that have gone outside the solar system!! We've landed on asteroids. We've gone places which those of 1936 didn't even know existed. In 1936 even sci fi didn't recognize what we can do without there being a human on board.
Let's remember that NASA works at the pleasure of congress. So, if congress directs them to produce a plan for going to Mars, that's what you're going to get. And, given that anything landed on Mars has to stay there for a year, it's no surprise that NASA would need to develop ways to keep a human alive for that long. If congress were to ask NASA to address other objectives (such as advancing science, addressing our broken model of physics, improving our protection from asteroids or Carrington events, learning how to detect the estimated 100 billion black holes in our galaxy, etc.), I don't believe there is a ghost of a chance that they would propose a manned lunar landing.
RE: The Moon Has Water? SUBREF: #11 ⁜→ WillReadmore, et al, BLUF: Humans are Explorers and Adventurers at heart. We admire those people (past and persent) and many of us like to tackle challenges. (COMMENT) If the Moon really does have significant underground water reservoirs, or ice, that changes the entire effort. Water can be separated into its constituent parts (Hydrogen and Oxygen). Water can be used to to establish hydroponic gardens for a habitat. Once that is done, then gradually, the habitats can be expanded. Small manufacturing facilities can be established. A scientific observatory and science facility can be erected. Mining can begin for various valuable ore and minerals. It is discovering a new world. Most Respectfully, R
Well, it certainly does accomplish that! Even Trump is ready to spend tens of billions if it means spacemen on his watch. I don't think this is his fault. I think we're all tuned up with stupendous sci fi books and movies which create a universe that is stupendously cool, but unfortunately doesn't have any relationship to the actual universe we live in. Everything in that world of magic is so possible! How could anyone not want to be on the deck of the starship when Picard says, "Make it so". The actual science concerning spacemen ends up sounding like a buzz kill!
I would suggest it is going to make WAY more sense to do that manufacturing in space. Everything you build on the moon is either going to have to stay on the moon or it's going to have to be launched - which is the largest problem we face with sending stuff to space from Earth. Launching stuff from the moon inseated of Earth doesn't solve enough of the problem. And, so far there is nothing on the moon that is some sort of super material not available on Earth or on asteroids. Today what we want in space is stuff like telescopes aimed at Earth and aimed at unbelievable distances that give us information about things like why our model of physics is broken. Launching that kind of stuff is a HUGE problem - a problem that can be solved by launching parts to space where assembled vehicles never have to undergo the huge forces, shaking and tiny spaces that are requirements for launch survival. The folding required to fit inside even the largest nosecones is a gigantic restriction that means delicate unfurling that, if it fails, means a total loss. We have plans to build a telescope to replace Hubble that is powerful enough to directly view the atmosphere of Earth sized planets circling other stars. To do that, one has to block out the light of that distant star. The strategy being used for that includes a "sun shade" that is 50 yards in diameter and has to have its edges in place to a tollerance of less than a milimeter. Then, that sunshade has to be positioned between the telescope and the distant start and a large number of kilometers - again precisely positioned. Creating that kind of object to be folded into a nose cone and then perfectly unfurled after undergoing the shaking and g forces of launch is a huge problem - larger that the problems of folding up solar panels, etc. Also, spacecraft to head to the outer reaches of our solar system should be manufactured in space - where they can be build sturdily in their final configuration without having to undergo the rigors of launch in tiny nosecones. Our needs for manufacturing off of Earth are not solved by doing the construction on the moon. The moon just doesn't help.
The problems of launch survival are what has caused the James Web telescope to burn through $8 Billion and be YEARS late. The telescope has had huge prolems surviving the shake tests and then proving that it can unfurl the many parts that have to be folded - the huge sunshades to protect it against solar heating, solar panels, the telescope itself, communication antennae, etc. The James Web telescope is headed for a point in space where we have no way of reaching it in order to fix it if something should go wrong. And, that's true for more and more of our satellites that aren't just oriented to Earth communications, thus living in Earth orbit.
I have always enjoyed science fiction. I was literally addicted to it in college. But you need to underline the word fiction. There is no reason to house humans on the moon or send them to Mars. There is simply nothing to gain. It would make 100 times more sense for the U.S federal government. to get its financial house in order.
It's not just the destination that one should look at. It is also the journey. NASA is actually one of the VERY few government programs that actually pays for itself, and then some. For every dollar spent on NASA the return is 7 dollars. They are responsible for over 2,000 inventions. From kidney dialysis machines to frozen foods to GPS. All of it being derived from space exploration...or perhaps more precisely, trying to figure out how to explore space. Just the figuring out how to make a base on the moon and then getting to Mars and onward is not a negative. It's a positive. And that is just looking at things materially as it stands right now. If you're looking for future use, well...there are tons of resources out there. More than likely more than we'll ever need. Yeah, its prohibitively expensive to even think of harvesting those resources right now. But if we don't figure it out then it will always be prohibitive. Every scientific endeavor known to man has started out prohibitively. Its through pushing through that cost that we end up achieving something...and making it more available and cheaper. Putting a base on the moon is just the first step to making those resources more available and cheaper. Earth is a very small planet (4th smallest planet in the solar system) with limited resources. Especially for a growing population. A whole solar system though? Those are just the material reasons. The reason that I personally favor however has to do with knowledge. Just that. Knowledge. To me that is worth far more than every form of monetary dollar that is in the whole world put together. I like knowledge. To me its the second best thing in the world. My kids being the 1st.
Amen. I mentioned sci fi as I think a lot of people are misled by sci fi - not that they don't know how bad the environment is, but more that sci fi is aspirational and totally unconstrained by the realities of physics and economics. I do believe that the NASA budget is worth the cost - just not the huge budget increases needed for spacemen.
