SpicyLemons Fourm Uptime: 11 Years, 5 Months, 2 Weeks
Not logged in [Login ]
  Go To Bottom
Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites  Post new threadPoll:
Author: Subject: Water On the Moon!
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 11-14-09 at 08:24 AM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote
Water On the Moon!



Im sure that most of you have/had heard that NASA shot an expended booster stage into the moon and monitore the results looking for water. Well joy of joys the data results have finally been released and the verdict is that there is in fact water on the moon! The value of this find is monumental not to mention the $$$. There could literally be billions of dollars worth of H20 waiting for us up there. Interesting that the original moon rocks brought back to earth indicated water was present on the moon but scientist assumed that it had come from contamination and not from the moon... Only took us 40+ years to go back and do some follow up "research".

View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 11-14-09 at 05:49 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


Ya, it is a pretty impressive discovery for sure. Will definitely make future space travel easier.

cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
9ofclubs
Posting Whore
******




Posts: 961
Registered: 8-15-06
Location: Longmont
karma Rating: 1 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Tall

[*] posted on 11-14-09 at 07:15 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


I find it strange that this happened: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6846639.ece and then NASA still went ahead with the LCROSS mission to basically bomb the moon surface to see if it kicked up any traces of water.

It seems pretty clear that they found water in the moon rocks they first brought back and then India found traces of water on the moon, but they still wanted to go ahead with this really expensive mission. Seems that they could have used the LCROSS for something better after they already knew there was water on the moon. Things just don't add up for me, unless they just wanted to waste the money or there was another reason for bombing the moon.

Spank says that there is lots of it up there waiting for us. That is only if we are going back and plan on establishing a permanent base there to mine for it. Then we need the infrastructure to store an move it to where it needs to be. NASA does not have anything like this in the works, if they are even talking about going back to the moon at all. The main debate is about Mars, I believe. I have not heard anything recently about them wanting to do another mission to the moon, especially since we are too worried about the economy being bad, well for normal people at least.

I say we start pushing for going back to the moon and setting up a permanent base there. There is obviously water there, which is most of the problem because now we can grow what we need using it.


veQDuj 'oH Dujllj'e'
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
jent
Chief Shaman
*********


Avatar


Posts: 2122
Registered: 5-19-06
Location: above ground
karma Rating: 15 karma: 15
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: Hanging in there

[*] posted on 11-14-09 at 08:25 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


9ofclubs,
Because science is all about constantly questioning what we know, even if we think there is strong evidence to support it.

Further more if we are going to the moon and making assumptions that there will be water to live on, we better damn be sure that is true. I know if I was on that mission I would be glad they double checked it to be sure.

Speaking of Mars, they will obviously need water. Water is very very heavy. Transporting water off the earth and to Mars will be much much harder than transporting water off the moon and to Mars. The reason being that obviously the moon has a much smaller gravitational field, and thus making the weight of the water less of an issue.

Of course nothing is in the works to use it yet. But it's important to know that these things are even possibilities now.

I don't feel this was a wasted mission, I think the evidence strongly pointed that they would in fact find water. But I think it is highly valuable in running a test like this to be sure.

p.s. speaking of an economy in peril, government spending will certainly help stimulate the economy....so it is not like the money was just destroyed, it was put into private industries to produce the equipment, and in the pockets of the engineers to later spend as well


cheers,
jent d-_-b
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Memberjent's Aim
9ofclubs
Posting Whore
******




Posts: 961
Registered: 8-15-06
Location: Longmont
karma Rating: 1 / +
Member is Offline

Mood: Tall

[*] posted on 11-14-09 at 11:08 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


I guess you are right on being certain, and I guess now that there is water more people will want to go to the moon and make a base there. This would help with later missions to Assuming that they happen.

They were correct, the evidence did point in the right direction: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_sc/us_sci_shoot_the_moon;_ylt=Aojndjw1Nad75ig9MuQvivus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM3OGw4aWdpBGFzc2 V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE0L3VzX3NjaV9zaG9vdF90aGVfbW9vbgRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzYEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNzcGxhc2huYXNhbW8-

But being an astronaut that was going, I would want to be certain as well. Point well made.


As for you comment about the economy, I would argue that Northrop Grumman, who is the company who made LRCROSS, already gets ungodly amounts of money from the Federal Government anyway and that a little more to them will not help in a significant way. They could spread that money around and be more affective with it, by making investing it into Clean energy like Solar, Wind, tidal and geothermal. It seems like these would be a better way to spend that money if you were going to make that argument. Or maybe into healthcare for people who need it.

Anyway, the money was worth it if you wanted to prove beyond a doubt there is enough water to go to the moon for.



p.s. everyone should watch the Movie "Moon" with Sam Rockwell. Very well done and he is amazing


veQDuj 'oH Dujllj'e'
View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
spank
Moderator
********


Avatar


Posts: 1206
Registered: 5-20-06
Location: CO
karma Rating: 16 karma: 16
/ +
Member is Offline

Mood: absorbent

[*] posted on 11-15-09 at 01:33 PM   «:|:»  Link to post Reply With Quote


I thought that the current "stratagy" for NASA was to make it back to the moon by 2020 with the intentions of then going deeper into the solar system. I honestly dont think it would be possible to make a man'd mission to mars without some sort of depot on the moon as a jump off point.

As for the Northrop Grumman comment I see no major issue as long as they had to make a competing bid for the contract. NASA outsourcing to major industry isn't inherently wrong as long as their is a fair and thorough bidding process, unlike the military.


View User's ProfileView All Posts By UserU2U Member
Post new threadPoll:


  Go To Top