ShareThisShooting a rocket booster into the moon, followed four minutes later by an instrument-laden spacecraft, turned out to be, if not a public-relations dud, at least a major letdown.
NASA would broadcast the impact live. But instead of the promised six-mile-high plume of dust and vapor, the debris rose only a mile and was invisible to backyard telescopes. The Oct. 9 LCROSS mission seemed to be destined to be remembered for the quip that President Barack Obama observed his award of the Nobel Peace Prize by bombing the moon.
But in its brief life span hurtling through the plume at 5,000 mph, the spacecraft made a major scientific breakthrough -- conclusive proof of water on the moon and, potentially, in ample quantities.
The target was a crater in permanent shadow near the moon's south pole. In studying the readings from the spacecraft, NASA found 25 to 26 gallons of water in the form of ice and vapor in the plume. And, said the head of the mission, there is still "a lot more interesting stuff" to be studied in the readings. One obvious question is: Where did the water come from? Maybe Earth itself, maybe comets, maybe solar wind.
The proven presence of water must surely be factored into the Obama administration's review of where the United States should go next in space exploration. Some space enthusiasts seemed to treat the moon with a "been there, done that" dismissiveness in favor of a full-bore effort to reach Mars.
With water to drink and oxygen to breathe that the water could provide, a long-term human presence could be, theoretically, supported by the moon. With a source of hydrogen and oxygen to serve as rocket fuel, the moon could also presumably serve as a base to launch spacecraft deeper into the solar system -- perhaps even as a way station to Mars.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
Editorial: Water puts moon in a new light
Really is this a joke? NASA has been trying to get us back to the moon for years, and I really dont see this as the way. The only reason they say they found water is because they want tax payers to support going back to the mooon. Or yet, even putting enough money together for a space station on the moon which NASA has been longing. Yes it may be a fact that there is water on the moon, but why cant NASA tell us how much there is. The truth is once they get there station on the moon, they'll turn it around and tell us that there isnt as much water as they thought. That coming from them usally means little to none. But hay since we have this space station up here now why dont we keep it. Its a win win for them. But hay why not have a cool looking space station on the moon. Well look at it this way, I would much rather have the government pay everyone in the USA 100,000 dollars then have them pay 4.5 billion to NASA for a space program.
Think of all the great things that money could do for all of us. It could buy the whole nation out of its bad economy, and turn it back to how it once was. People could buy their way out of debt and still have money to start a new life. And those of the people that have been doing it right the whole time can buy a new car or what ever they ever wanted. Hay free money I would take it.
{Ryan Claus}
well apparently, people dont
well apparently, people dont like to be reminding how small and insignificant we really are in the universe. Yeah, lets not fund science. in fact. lets just go back to the dark ages. or wait mabye we could actually learn something from this. Like, holly shit water on the moon, means that there could be water in more place than we once thought. I think it is pathetic that people snare down at one of the greatest science discoveries of our times.
well apparently, people dont
well apparently, people dont like to be reminding how small and insignificant we really are in the universe. Yeah, lets not fund science. in fact. lets just go back to the dark ages. or wait mabye we could actually learn something from this. Like, holly shit water on the moon, means that there could be water in more place than we once thought. I think it is pathetic that people snare down at one of the greatest science discoveries of our times.
People are not happy with discovery of water on the moon
It seems many people are not happy with discovery of water on the moon.
Refer the discussions in the below link
http://qualitypoint.blogspot.com/2009/11/water-on-moon-official-confirmation.html
Not enough water
The amount of water found after the LCROSS impacts shows the Moon to be drier than the driest desert on Earth. It is still going to be really difficult to extract this water for human use.
Let's move on to Mars, where we've proven there to be LOTS of water. Humans can drink the water there. They can electrolyze it to get oxygen to breathe and both hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel. We can go to Mars and live off the land -- when we go to the Moon, we still have to bring EVERYTHING with us to survive and to get back home.
Sure the Moon has three things that Mars doesn't: Location, location, location. Three days to the Moon by chemical rockets (that we no longer even have!) vs. 6+ months to Mars. The Moon is always about the same distance (1/4 million miles) from Earth, whereas Mars varies from 35 million miles to 250 million miles over a 22 month cyclic period.
But Mars is more Earth-like than any other body in our solar system: It has an atmosphere (the Moon doesn't), it has 24 hour 40 minute days (a lunar day is 28 Earth days long, Mars gets about 1/2 the sunlight we get on Earth, so plants will be able to grow in pressurized greenhouses. Mars is made of the same stuff Earth is, so we'll be able to find everything (except maybe oil) to support a technological civilization -- the moon is missing a lot of these materials.
I do not think it will be easier to colonize the Moon than Mars in the long run -- Mars simply has more going for it, in spite of the distances involved. It is the logical choice. Just do it.
why
Why are eople not happy with discovery of water on the moon?