POLL: Importance of Water on the Moon?

[EarthlingX]

Here is a link to an international effort for lunar exploration:
(International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG))
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=34125

and link to one of past (5th. august) workshops:
(OSEWG Workshop on Robots Supporting Human Science and Exploration)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/osewg2 ... 91st.shtml
presentations:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/osewg2 ... entations/

 

[kozzm0]

Sorry to rain on your all's parade, but take a reality check.

The overwhelming motive for space exploration is the search for ET life. Few would dispute that.

There is no life on the moon, water or not. Few would dispute that, either.

There is possibly liquid water on Mars, but there is probably more water on Europa than we have here on Earth. And it's likely that conditions in the Europan water are similar to conditions in which life is known to exist here on Earth, such as in Lake Vostok.

What, then, is the point of mucking around on the moon, or even on Mars, when Europa is entirely within reach?

The whole jumping for joy thing about water on the moon seems to be, with water, a lunar base could be built. A lunar base for what purpose? No lunar purpose can outweigh the possibility of life on Europa. And a lunar base would be an incredibly wasteful way to go about extra-lunar projects. Stopping on the moon on the way further out would amount to dropping your spacecraft into a big hole, then having to waste time and energy hauling it back out again. It's no use for constructing spacecraft for the same reason. Going to all the trouble to lift materials to moon-level orbit, only to drop them into a gravity sink, is nuts.

The logic behind water and lunar bases seems to be this: water makes lunar bases possible, therefore lunar bases should be built. By the same logic, guns make gunshot wounds possible, therefore people should be shot. No, there has to be a better reason to mess around with the moon other than "it could be done." There are far more interesting things that "could be done."

It's unfortunate that science fiction and the space race have got people so obsessed with the moon and Mars, when the things worth exploring are farther out. Exploration of Europa will probably be delayed by decades just so a few more scientists can get to say they walked on the moon. Wanting to "colonize" the moon is about mania and fame, not scientific priority. There's nothing there worth colonizing. Better off colonizing the Gobi Desert.

"It can be done" is not a mission objective. What's the objective of a lunar base mission? How can it be a better objective than the exploration of the more promising parts of the solar system?

 

[EarthlingX]

Sorry to rain on your all's parade, but take a reality check.

The overwhelming motive for space exploration is the search for ET life. Few would dispute that.

I'm one of them. I just want off this rock, as soon as possible, yesterday would be fine, two weeks before even better.
As it goes for the motive, same thing that brought Columbus to America, or Marco Polo to China, or Erick the Red to Greenland, or those first folks from Africa to other places around the world, or ..
It is time we stop talking and start moving.

There is no life on the moon, water or not. Few would dispute that, either.

Not yet.

There is possibly liquid water on Mars, but there is probably more water on Europa than we have here on Earth. And it's likely that conditions in the Europan water are similar to conditions in which life is known to exist here on Earth, such as in Lake Vostok.

What, then, is the point of mucking around on the moon, or even on Mars, when Europa is entirely within reach?

The whole jumping for joy thing about water on the moon seems to be, with water, a lunar base could be built. A lunar base for what purpose? No lunar purpose can outweigh the possibility of life on Europa. And a lunar base would be an incredibly wasteful way to go about extra-lunar projects. Stopping on the moon on the way further out would amount to dropping your spacecraft into a big hole, then having to waste time and energy hauling it back out again. It's no use for constructing spacecraft for the same reason. Going to all the trouble to lift materials to moon-level orbit, only to drop them into a gravity sink, is nuts.

The logic behind water and lunar bases seems to be this: water makes lunar bases possible, therefore lunar bases should be built. By the same logic, guns make gunshot wounds possible, therefore people should be shot. No, there has to be a better reason to mess around with the moon other than "it could be done." There are far more interesting things that "could be done."

It's unfortunate that science fiction and the space race have got people so obsessed with the moon and Mars, when the things worth exploring are farther out. Exploration of Europa will probably be delayed by decades just so a few more scientists can get to say they walked on the moon. Wanting to "colonize" the moon is about mania and fame, not scientific priority. There's nothing there worth colonizing. Better off colonizing the Gobi Desert.

"It can be done" is not a mission objective. What's the objective of a lunar base mission? How can it be a better objective than the exploration of the more promising parts of the solar system?

In short, you need to learn how to crawl before you can walk.
Read this: A Space Program for the Rest of Us

 

[Booban]

While I appreciate your logic about a moon base, I would say your own reasoning about ET is pretty much the same. You assume that it is a given that we should go into space to find other life.

Hmm...

I think a moon base is cool, I think finding life would be cool too, even better, intelligent UFO flying life.

I am not sure that finding some microbes or worms on another planet is any more justifiable than finding some pretty rocks on the moon. What is it that would so astounding about finding a new rock or a new microbe on another planet? We already have the most spectacular planet in this solar system.

 

[TC_sc]

While I appreciate your logic about a moon base, I would say your own reasoning about ET is pretty much the same. You assume that it is a given that we should go into space to find other life.

Hmm...

I think a moon base is cool, I think finding life would be cool too, even better, intelligent UFO flying life.

I am not sure that finding some microbes or worms on another planet is any more justifiable than finding some pretty rocks on the moon. What is it that would so astounding about finding a new rock or a new microbe on another planet? We already have the most spectacular planet in this solar system.

Water anywhere means the possibility of life. Finding even a worm on another world would be the greatest discovery since discovering the New World. Finding life of any kind would open up so many new questions. We have this innate drive to explore and the logic course is to follow the water, just like a wander in the desert..

 

[Booban]

If that outer space life form was a talking crystal I would agree that that would be mankinds greatest discovery. But if it's a worm it most likely behaves like any other worm according to physical and biological laws. We have some very odd creatures found in the most incredulous places here on earth.

 

[nimbus]

It only has to be a "worm" that definitely doesn't fit anywhere on the branches of our evolutionary tree.

 

[TC_sc]

If that outer space life form was a talking crystal I would agree that that would be mankinds greatest discovery. But if it's a worm it most likely behaves like any other worm according to physical and biological laws. We have some very odd creatures found in the most incredulous places here on earth.

I look at it this way. When we find life off this planet, even if it's a worm, we know at last that life does exist beyond this blue ball. This tells us definitively that life does exist elsewhere. That worm will improve the odds that intelligent life does exist beyond this planet. When we find that worm that changes the entire discussions about life beyond Earth and it lends credibility to those of us that believe intelligent life exists on some distant planet.

 

[Booban]

If that outer space life form was a talking crystal I would agree that that would be mankinds greatest discovery. But if it's a worm it most likely behaves like any other worm according to physical and biological laws. We have some very odd creatures found in the most incredulous places here on earth.

I look at it this way. When we find life off this planet, even if it's a worm, we know at last that life does exist beyond this blue ball. This tells us definitively that life does exist elsewhere. That worm will improve the odds that intelligent life does exist beyond this planet. When we find that worm that changes the entire discussions about life beyond Earth and it lends credibility to those of us that believe intelligent life exists on some distant planet.

Yes, I think that would quieten a question humankind has had for ages, and give us some insight into our place in the universe. Or in other words very cool, and even cooler with intelligent life.

I think people have really gotten rather used to the idea of life beyond earth, even the possibility of intelligent life. But unless we meet a small green man and he hands over the blue prints to a space ship, how is this otherwise helpful?

Are you implying that by finding a worm in space that people will then be prepared to devote a significant portion of the budget in looking for little green men?

I remember telling my sister about that martian fossilized rock and how NASA presented as proof of ET. She was like, 'didn't we already know that?' and 'that's under a micro scope, it barely counts'.

 

[Booban]

It only has to be a "worm" that definitely doesn't fit anywhere on the branches of our evolutionary tree.

Can't be sure of that can we? Some say life came to earth from meteorites...or maybe a bit from Mars.

Still, it should hold to the laws of nature, I'm not a biologist but wonder if it would be any different from finding those tubes and fishes deep in the oceans around those hot water vents.

 

[nimbus]

I'm saying that even a lowly worm could prove to be worth the effort (though when the effort is made makes a big difference) to reach and explore Mars, if it undoubtedly (in the scientific sense) evolved separately from our lineage. Whether this Martian life was native or panspermic.
It wouldn't guarantee at all that there's life out there, but it would support the idea.

 

[Sarkoloff]

Wait a minute... we just found evidence that there is in fact water (or traces of it) on the moon, right? And here, we've long ago established that the key element to "Life", as we know it, is indeed 'water'. I'm not saying there's intelligent life on the moon, although I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility; but life in some way, shape, or form 'possibly' could exist on the moon, theoretically. (i.e.- a microscopic sized civilization that is unseen by us). True, hardly probable, but 'possible'! Now, here we are, blasting the moon's surface with complete disregard, to try and find out something that we already know(?) Is this the precursor of how we are going to deal with other planets and their satellites in future space exploration, as well? If so, we are already doing the wrong thing! Think about it. If there are intelligent life-forms besides us out there, (and certainly there must be), suppose they too acted with such reckless abandonment upon the Earth! Not only that, but we know so little about the overall importance of the moon in relation to the Earth; we do know it effects our tides and weather though. They know that the surface is much softer than ours, but do they even know what is at the core? No, we do not. The size of this "kinetic" explosion, I'm assuming - based on the size of the crater to be made - will be the equivalent of about 100 metric tons of TNT. If you take into account the size of the moon compared to the Earth (approx 1 to 4 ratio), that's a pretty significant sized blast! Can we really be assured as to the safety of this "experiment"? Will we know weeks, months, even a year from now if there has been any sort of negative impact upon our planet? I tend to think it's more in the nature of a kid blowing up firecrackers on the 4th of July now, for NASA, than a significant scientific experiment. To me, this is insanity. Wise up, world!

 

[nimbus]

The size of this "kinetic" explosion, I'm assuming - based on the size of the crater to be made - will be the equivalent of about 100 metric tons of TNT. If you take into account the size of the moon compared to the Earth (approx 1 to 4 ratio), that's a pretty significant sized blast! Can we really be assured as to the safety of this "experiment"? Will we know weeks, months, even a year from now if there has been any sort of negative impact upon our planet? I tend to think it's more in the nature of a kid blowing up firecrackers on the 4th of July now, for NASA, than a significant scientific experiment. To me, this is insanity. Wise up, world!

Wise up, meaning do the actual math in planning this mission, instead of basing it on truisms and off the wall analogies?

Think about it. If there are intelligent life-forms besides us out there, (and certainly there must be), suppose they too acted with such reckless abandonment upon the Earth!

Why would it be a given that aliens would have ethics anything like humans'?

 

[d_brunty49]

Water on the moon will determine a human presence off world in decades or centuries, period!

 

[deagleninja]

So they found trace amounts of water on the Moon...so what?
Mars has (literally) frozen oceans of the stuff a few feet below the surface.
Oh yeah, and a 24 hour day so you can grow stuff like say, I don't know...food?
And an atmosphere to shield you on the surface from pesky micrometeorites.

Folks, living on the Moon is going to always, always, always, ALWAYS be like living in a basement.
For all intents and purposes you'd be better off living on top of an asteroid, seriously.

NASA's plans to build a base on the Moon is nothing more than ISS 2.0
Fifty years later you'll all be scratching your heads wondering when NASA will get to Mars.

 

[John_with_a_B]

If they need to excavate say 25 tonnes of regolith to extract enough water to support a modestly sized lunar base its not going to be long before that there is a massive tailings pile around the base. Multiply this by numerous bases and a few decades there will be large areas of trashed lunar landscape rather like areas that have been strip mined on earth. There will need to be some strict environmental guidelines in place to prevent this. If the solar wind hydrogen ion theory of continuous hydroxl and water production stacks up some form of sustainable water harvesting may be an option.

Not really. Twenty five tonnes a year is miniscule in earth moving terms, it is 10 cubic metres. Excavate to a depth of only 10 cm and it is still an area of only 100 metres square, about a sixth the size of a reasonable suburban house block. After 100 years that would be an area 100 m on a side. Any lunar settlement is going to need earth moving anyway, for radiation protection, road construction, preparation of landing sites, etc. Compare that to large scale terrestrial mining which can shift millions of tonnes a year. Ten cubic metres is one reasonable sized face shovel full. A thousand cubic metres is about two Haulpac loads.

Jon

No no no Jon! Not 25 tonnes a year... 25 tonnes a day! A much different task. That is close to 10,000 tonnes per year, two and a half orders of magnitude more.

 

[Bagus1]

I mean if water turns out to be pretty hard to extract from the moon yet very easy on Mars, living on the moon to practice living on Mars is going to be like going to the Gobi Desert to practice for living in Manitoba. Doncha know.

 

[Terran62]

I am of the opinion that we should be developing the technology to do this ion/hydroxyl breeze capture for water manufacture rather than relying on moving and baking the lunar regolith. Main reason being that we should not be reliant upon anything other than the systems we can take along with us. Until a complete cost/benefit analysis can be done on the economy of mining water versus hauling it up there I can't see where either option is going to save any costs.

 

[ApexOfExistence]

I dont necessarily think that finding water on the moon is going to make any difference other than giving our government more of a "reason" to expand further in space related fields. We have been off our feet for way too long IMO. We go to the moon in less than 10 years, yet since then we have done almost nothing...pretty much anyways. Its sad. Outer space is our future, humanity's future.

 

[Rumor]

So I have a question that's been burning in my mind for some time now, forgive my ignorance if it seems like a no-brainer...

With all the talk of water on the moon and the increasing possibilities of colonizing it, I have read several ideas on how we might go about setting up a moon base, some of the more prominent ideas being inflatable habitats or using the regolith to essentially build "bricks" with which to construct modules. My question is this: Has there been any consideration to the possibility of drilling a cave-like structure and using the moon itself as the habitat, sealed off from the surface with an airlock, similar to the structures described in Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?

As a Mechanical Engineer in the making, I understand the difficulties inherent to construction in a vacuum, especially regarding welding metals and the like, but it seems to me that there should be ways to evacuate a space into the moon and start a base that way. The initial construction costs would be higher than sending inflatables to Luna (although as a start it seems almost necessary to do this as well), but long term maintenace of the base should be lower, since the main consideration would be the airlock. The space station costs millions (billions?) to maintain every year, but an airlock would be fairly inexpensive to build and maintain...

Any thoughts?

 

[Lancelot_64]

I would guess the bottom line is how much water is needed and how quickly it would have to be produced..
I believe it's obvious that finding water is key to making advances on the moon simply because it would be terribly inefficient to transport it there. I am far from a chemist but can imagine that processing of the regolith to extract water is a slow and intensive process. With that in mind I thinks its only wise to keep searching for large quantities of ice.. and not necesarily on the moon.. Perhaps we can snag a roid that has high concentrations of ice and transport it to the epicenter?

 

[EarthlingX]

So I have a question that's been burning in my mind for some time now, forgive my ignorance if it seems like a no-brainer...

With all the talk of water on the moon and the increasing possibilities of colonizing it, I have read several ideas on how we might go about setting up a moon base, some of the more prominent ideas being inflatable habitats or using the regolith to essentially build "bricks" with which to construct modules. My question is this: Has there been any consideration to the possibility of drilling a cave-like structure and using the moon itself as the habitat, sealed off from the surface with an airlock, similar to the structures described in Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?

As a Mechanical Engineer in the making, I understand the difficulties inherent to construction in a vacuum, especially regarding welding metals and the like, but it seems to me that there should be ways to evacuate a space into the moon and start a base that way. The initial construction costs would be higher than sending inflatables to Luna (although as a start it seems almost necessary to do this as well), but long term maintenace of the base should be lower, since the main consideration would be the airlock. The space station costs millions (billions?) to maintain every year, but an airlock would be fairly inexpensive to build and maintain...

Any thoughts?

People have been guessing about it for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Men_in_the_Moon
but, we have to start on the surface, find out more, before making any plans. A lot more of sci-fi has been written on the subject too, probably some more will, before we move in the caves on Moon, or anywhere else.
Here is an example study:
http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers ... mars_2.htm
and a presentation with a lots of pictures:
http://www.moonbase-italia.org/was-PAPE ... se2005.pdf

Here is a video of Schrödinger basin by Kaguya, that shows cracks, that might be evidence of lavatubes, but we don't know yet.
KAGUYA taking around "Schrödinger Basin" by HDTV [HD]

 

[Amadamerican]

Very interesting find , now my question is how much water are we talking about? A gallon of water, a drum of water or a swimming pool full with water? For me to better comment on this matter, I would have to know how much water is on the moon. :?:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Can we wait until the LCROSS results come in before we speculate?

 

[ulao]

The outcome of this investigation will determine the future of space travel/exploration/exploitation for the next hundred years. If water in useful concentrations and indecently also fissionable metals are found on the Moon then in a few years the rush will be on. A number of countries are now poised to return to the Moon. Governments alone however will accomplish little in going to the Moon or anywhere else for that matter. It is private enterprise that by exploiting the resources of the Solar system will facilitate routine space travel.
The real value of water is not as many have claimed as drinking water and oxygen for life support or even as rocket fuel but as reaction mass.
As far back as the 1960s both the US and the USSR developed thermal nuclear rocket engines. Both governments developed these engines to a high degree of readiness. The US for environmental reasons never flight tested their version. The Soviets being perhaps a bit less concerned with such trivia apparently did flight test theirs. These Thermal nuclear rockets are just about the only game in town if you wish to move freight around the solar system unless one reconsiders Project Orion which could also see new life on the moon.
Neither water nor uranium/thorium have yet been proven to exist on the Moon in exploitable concentrations but both are known to exist. We have long known that there is some concentration of thorium and more recently uranium in Oceanus Procellarum. More recently also water (or at least hydrogen) has been shown to exist in some areas as well. Shipping water from Earth is just too expensive to be economically viable. The problem with fissionable metals is the perceived risk associated with transporting it from the Earth’s surface. Finding both of these commodities on the Moon means that we will see widespread space travel in first half of the 21st century. If we don’t find them it is doubtful that we will see such space travel in the next hundred years.
Them’s the facts Ma’am