'Significant' water found on Moon

Aleenik

Deity
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
2,203
Location
France
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8359744.stm

So...the experiment was a huge success. One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.


Nasa's experiment last month to find water on the Moon was a major success, US scientists have announced.

The space agency smashed a rocket and a probe into a large crater at the lunar south pole, hoping to kick up ice.

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.

No doubt

October's experiment involved driving a 2,200kg Centaur rocket stage into the 100km-wide Cabeus Crater, a permanently shadowed depression at the Moon's far south.

At the time, scientists were hoping for a big plume of debris some 10km high which could be seen by Earth telescopes.

The actual debris cloud was much smaller, about 1.6km high, but sufficiently large to betray the evidence researchers were seeking.

The near-infrared spectrometer on the LCROSS probe that followed the rocket into the crater detected water-ice and water vapour. The ultraviolet-visible spectrometer provided additional confirmation by identifying the hydroxyl (OH) molecule, which arises when water is broken apart in sunlight.

"We were able to match the spectra from LCROSS data only when we inserted the spectra for water," Dr Colaprete said.

"No other reasonable combination of other compounds that we tried matched the observations. The possibility of contamination from the Centaur also was ruled out."

Useful resource

The total quantity of H2O spied by the instruments was more than 100kg. It came out of a 20m-30m wide hole dug up by the impacting Centaur rocket.

The LCROSS scientists stressed that the results presented on Friday were preliminary findings only, and further analysis could raise the final assessment of the amount of water in Cabeus.

Peter Schultz, from Brown University and a co-investigator on the LCROSS mission, said: "What's really exciting is we've only hit one spot. It's kind of like when you're drilling for oil. Once you find it in one place, there's a greater chance you'll find more nearby."

The regular surface of the Moon as seen from Earth is drier than any desert on our planet. But researchers have long speculated that some permanently shadowed places might harbour considerable stores of water, perhaps delivered by impacting comets billions of years ago.

If future investigations find the quantities to be particularly large, this water could become a useful resource for any astronauts who might base themselves at the lunar poles.

"It can be used for drinking water," said Mike Wargo, Nasa's chief lunar scientist for exploration systems.

"You can break it down and have breathable air for crews. But also, if you have significant quantities of this stuff, you have the constituents of one of the most potent rocket fuels - oxygen and hydrogen."

In September, data from three spacecraft, including India's Chandrayaan probe, showed that very fine films of H2O coat the particles that make up lunar soil.

Scientists behind that finding speculated that this water might migrate to the even cooler poles, much as water vapour on Earth will condense on a cold surface.

This cold sink effect could be supplementing any water delivered by comets, they said.

If cometary material did reside in places like Cabeus Crater it would be fascinating to examine it, commented Greg Delory, from the University of California, Berkeley.

"The surfaces in these permanently shadowed areas, such as the one LCROSS impacted, are very cold," he told reporters.

"That means that they tend to trap and keep things that encounter them - compounds, atoms and so forth. And so they act as record keepers over periods as long as several billion years. They have a story to tell about the history of the Moon and the Solar System."

LCROSS was launched by Nasa on 18 June as part of a double mission which included the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

The latter, which continues to circle the Moon, measured a temperature of minus 230 Celsius at the base of Cabeus Crater.
 
take $20 Billion from the military and give it to NASA, I'm sure they would be overjoyed to have their budget more than doubled
 
I wish NASA had a lot more funding.:) However, obviously money isn't limitless.
 
BTW, what's the news on Orion/Ares project? When will it fly, if it is going to fly at all...?

They've spent hundreds of millions perhaps billions on this crew transportation system, and you think they're just going to abandon it?

Who do you think they are...ESA???:D
 
100kg of water. That's about 100L, right?

That sounds like way more water you'd expect. Maybe this will get space agencies excited about going to the moon - if there's a lot of water it could make it economically feasible and strategically sound to set up some sort of a base there. Something like that is probably decades off, but once one non-nasa space agency starts planning a realistic base, others will join in.
 
They've spent hundreds of millions perhaps billions on this crew transportation system, and you think they're just going to abandon it?

Who do you think they are...ESA???:D

:lol:

Ariane-5 is a by-product of the Hermes project, so it wasn't all for nothing (little consolation, I know).

But the Americans can hardly abandon Orion, otherwise they'd have no independent access to space and that would bš too much of a humiliation for such a proud country.

I am just interested in when do they plan to send first crewed Orion capsule up, since I am working on a little future space exploration timeline and I can't find anything about that. It is just clear that the Bush-era plan is mostly dead now.
 
Just wait till they find oil on the moon. We'd have permanent bases there within a decade.

Without the atmospheric oxygen we couldn't burn it there, and getting it home to burn here would likely take more energy than it is worth.

Of course, oil would still encourage more exploration because it would be significant evidence of extra terrestrial life.
 
take $20 Billion from the military and give it to NASA, I'm sure they would be overjoyed to have their budget more than doubled

How about 200 billion? I wonder what NASA could do with that every year.
 
100kg of water. That's about 100L, right?

That sounds like way more water you'd expect. Maybe this will get space agencies excited about going to the moon - if there's a lot of water it could make it economically feasible and strategically sound to set up some sort of a base there. Something like that is probably decades off, but once one non-nasa space agency starts planning a realistic base, others will join in.

1kg = 1L of water, by definition (well, early definition/foundation... nowadays we have extremely precise methods of establishing baseline units)
 
I am just interested in when do they plan to send first crewed Orion capsule up, since I am working on a little future space exploration timeline and I can't find anything about that. It is just clear that the Bush-era plan is mostly dead now.

Orion will launch from Launch Complex 39 at Kennedy Space Center, the same launch complex that currently launches the space shuttle. While shuttle operations continue from launch pad 39A, 39B is being readied for Ares launches. NASA will use Orion spacecraft for its human spaceflight missions after the last shuttle orbiter is retired in 2010. The first crewed Orion flight is anticipated in 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

NASA's Ares I-X test rocket lifted off Oct. 28, 2009, at 11:30 a.m. EDT from Kennedy Space Center in Florida for a two-minute powered flight. The flight test lasted about six minutes from its launch from the newly modified Launch Complex 39B until splashdown of the rocket's booster stage nearly 150 miles downrange.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html
 
1kg = 1L of water, by definition (well, early definition/foundation... nowadays we have extremely precise methods of establishing baseline units)

Assuming standard temperature and pressure, which are very unlikely on the moon.
 
1kg = 1L of water, by definition (well, early definition/foundation... nowadays we have extremely precise methods of establishing baseline units)

Ice is 91% the density of water. If we're being technical, it depends how much of the water was liquid (the impact would have melted some of it) and how much ice. Also this is assuming it's normal ice not some fancy ice.

100kg of normal ice on earth would be ~110 litres.
 
Assuming standard temperature and pressure, which are very unlikely on the moon.

Actually, no. Since mass is constant when not at high speeds (and I assume they were talking 1kg mass not weight), and liquid water cannot be compressed or decompressed (as I recall), the total volume in litres will still be equal to the total mass in kilograms.
 
Liquid water can be compressed, but not easily or by very much. It is usually reasonable to model water as incompressible, but that is not technically true.

Without any atmospheric pressure it would not be a liquid at all, but would sublime straight from solid to vapor.


Water, like everything else, does change volume with temperature. Most substances continue to get denser as temperature drop, but water's maximum density occurs around 4 (actually closer to 3.9) degrees Celcius.

(That of course assumes standard pressure, and a typical terrestrial mixture where the vast majority of the water's hydrogen is protium instead of the heavier deuterium isotope. Iirc we usually use a typical freshwater ratio of protium to deuterium, but sea water contains about twice the deuterium concentration of freshwater and water from outer space (from asteroids and comets at least) tends to contain twice the deuterium concentration of sea water. I believe that still leaves the deuterium content as less than 1% though, still much too low to be harmful to human life or useful in making nuclear weapons.)



The rise of sea level is however thought to be almost entirely caused by more liquid water entering the oceans from melting ice caps.
 
Top Bottom