NASA says they now know there's water on the moon. Think they've known all along?
Asked by
kevbo (
25672
)
September 24th, 2009
from iPhone
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
42 Answers
It’s a real discovery. There is no visible evidence of water, like there is on Mars.
From reading other articles, I was under the impression they only found Hydrogen, so this adds to the allure of returning. The Moon is rich with energy producing materials, and we need to go back. I don’t think they have been hold this back, waiting for a day when we can’t afford to go.
They predict there’s water; however they haven’t found real water. So, I’m not sure.
Robert A. Heinlein talked about ice mining on the moon back in the 1960s, so I know scientists have long suspected there was water there. There’s good enough reason to think so, considering the composition of the solar system in general and that the moon is a chunk of the earth that was blown off in a collision. Lots of water ice elsewhere in the solar system, so it was always a good bet. This is a confirmation; I don’t think they knew, but they had every reason to expect it.
Well, I think it’s too far to go for a drink of water anyway…
Yea they have always known , but why tell us now what is there to gain that they couldn’t years ago .
First thing I thought was that water on the moon means oxygen and hydrogen, the possibility of air and fuel. Could there be a point to building a moon base after all? Probably not.
Very interesting though. I wonder what more we don’t know about the moon. I guess some of it comes from meteorites and comets, but some is probably from earth and the sister planet that smashed into us. I suspect the moon contains most of what we have here on earth.
For the second part, I can’t imagine why that would be something they would keep secret. Water on the moon? It is not very controversial, only surprising.
Interesting that the lunar surface is 45% oxygen while earth’s composition (not sure if the source means surface or throughout) is 30%. The source also explains how oxygen is highly reactive and readily bonds with other elements, which is why it’s not immediately released into a “moon atmosphere.”
Still, if the idea of hydrogen from the sun interacting with oxygen in the moon’s surface is as basic as it sounds, why has it taken 50 years to discern?
@kevbo -Hydrogen from the sun? How do you mean?—Right ions. I am a bit skeptic about hydrogen ions from the solar wind explaining the presence of water. Since the moon as I understand it is the leftovers of when another planet crashed into the Earth in the beginning of time, and since it’s seems common that meteors and comets contain water, I don’t find it very strange that it contains water now. The scarred surface of our little buddy shows that there has been some traffic.
Could it be that NASA wants to go back to the moon, and funding is a bit of an issue? Maybe I’m a bit cynical, but they need something to shut up the criticasters that say: Been there, done that. A scientific expedition in search of water(and other minerals) is always a better investment option than a roadtrip.
@oratio, right…
The rocks and regolith that make up the lunar surface are about 45 percent oxygen (combined with other elements as mostly silicate minerals). The solar wind — the constant stream of charged particles emitted by the sun — are mostly protons, or positively charged hydrogen atoms.
If the charged hydrogens, which are traveling at one-third the speed of light, hit the lunar surface with enough force, they break apart oxygen bonds in soil materials, Taylor, the M3 team member suspects. Where free oxygen and hydrogen exist, there is a high chance that trace amounts of water will form.
@kevbo – What about particular oxygen isotopes? From Wikipedia: Indirect evidence for this impact scenario comes from rocks collected during the Apollo Moon landings, which show oxygen isotope ratios identical to those of Earth. The highly anorthositic composition of the lunar crust, as well as the existence of KREEP-rich samples, gave rise to the idea that a large portion of the Moon was once molten, and a giant impact scenario could easily have supplied the energy needed to form such a magma ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
@mattbrowne, I hadn’t read about that, and that is interesting.
If I understand you and @oratio correctly, it seems even more likely (to me, anyway) that this was discovered a long time ago.
Discovering it is one thig. How to take advantage of it is another. Espically when cost is a primary issue.
I can’t prove that they didn’t know all along but that hardly counts as proof they did know all along.
Scientists have theorized there may have been water on the moon for some time.
It appears as though they were right. However, that doesn’t qualify as prior knowledge.
Do we “know” it even now? Seems to me that it is still a hypothesis in search of more confirmatory or disconfirming evidence.
That is why it is so important to go back to the moon. We now have the technology to see what the moon has to offer.
After all, it is an ideal launching platform to get to other places in the solar system. Especially if we want to get to mars.
@The_Compassionate_Heretic, unless the reporters are taking artistic license, the idea that scientists have (since Apollo) thought the moon was “bone dry” is repeated in nearly every version of this news story. Obviously, we could split hairs even further here, but it seems clear from the reporting that a theory of water on the moon was entirely uncommon in the scientific community.
—ahh… Okay, I see now that they suspected it at the pole. So the article is (most literally) misleading.
This sentence also sucks in a similar regard:
For decades, the moon had been considered by scientists to be a dead and uninteresting world.
Really?
@ChazMaz A moon base would be exciting, but I don’t think that’s on the menu. If I would guess, I would say that we’ll build our planets first real space ship instead, and build it in space. That makes much more sense. A moon base might come later.
@kevbo – Yes, and the giant impact hypothesis has been around for quite a while. There are still gaps and contradictions.
Sounds like a cool idea. I am with you on that. But, Just keeping it in orbit is a major cost in itself. Construction in space, limited orbit time. Once we are done with the ISS it will be almost time to de-orbit due to age.
I do love the space station but I think it is a waist of money.
It would be more productive (in the long run) to build structures on the moon. Mine for materials. And construct on the surface. If water can be found or the components to make it, that means more room for other stuff. Lest money spent for redundancy. We could re fuel on the moon for a true space ship as opposed to the massive cost of getting it out of earth orbit. As the saying goes, Gravity Sucks.
@ChazMaz I agree. In the long run that makes sense. Though, a moon base would be best under ground, but that’s way into the future.
Hey, I thought by 1999 we were suppose to have a Moon base?
Something else NASA is not telling us?
@ChazMaz The Chinese said a couple of years ago that they would have a moon base by 2015. That is unlikely of course. Sooner or later though, I think we need to get together and create a Earth Space Agency, and pool our efforts together. What do you think?
I totally agree. The cost is so overwhelming. The days of spending 10% of the gross national budget to go to the Moon are so over.
But like anything, politics and money always get in the way.
Hell yeah they knew. Bill Cooper was flashing pictures of what appeared to be flowing water on the Moon for years before he police killed him at his home 2 months after 9/11. See the video “Behold A Pale Horse” from Bill Cooper, it will explain a lot. Humans are so selfish. “No, only we, the great human race, can have water.” What a joke.
Behold a Pale Horse, very powerful stuff.
fro the 1st link I understand that those spacecraft took those pictures a few years ago but now the scientist realized what’s on that pictures.So the proof is older but now we figure it out
I think it’s from neil Armstrong taking a leak.
@ChazMaz – The cost is so overwhelming? Well, this is why Portugal rejected Christopher Columbus. Eventually in Spain Ferdinand and Isabella became sponsors of the exploration.
We can both save the Earth and become a spacefaring species.
You are so right.
But, the sacrifices of the past are not the ones we take in modern times.
The risk of human life is on the top of the list.
It was a given in the day, and even in the 20th century. People were expected to die in order to accomplish the task.
The space shuttle cost so much to operate due to so much redundancy. Just think how far Christopher Columbus would have gotten if he had to have a “Mission control” watching his every move. And, the amount of redundancy in the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria as the Shuttle has.
That is why you will never see a Panama canal built or another World Trade Center. At least in the USA.
Insurance, liability and financial gain is so high for so many. It is too cost prohibitive.
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Does not work any more. Unless it includes a Mansion over looking the Pacific Ocean.
I believe we save the earth first then go to space. Meaning manned space travel. Send all the probes you want. Send one to Uranus if you like. :-)
The sun is not expected to blow up for some time. The snail pace that we are going, exploring our own solar system, will not help us if something catastrophic were to happen. Even the people lucky enough to be in the space station or on the Moon would be SOL in no time.
I think the risks astronauts are taking is similar to the ones taken by sailors hundreds of years ago.
It was and I liked Space 1999
And before that was UFO.
@ChazMaz Wow, never heard of them. Interesting.
Alright, they have found the traces. But, I’m not able to see why it is so important to find it. Can anybody explain?
My guess, if there were water, there could have been life. But, now we know there’s no life on moon nor Mars. Knowing this, why they’re after it? And, what’s the point in doing so?
@prasad , if there is any significant water on the moon, it can be mined and processed to provide drinking water and oxygen. That’s huge. It would pave the way for a permanent base there.
Drinking water, oxygen, and fuel! Not having to bring it there is huge!
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
