Water On The Moon!

[dragonboss]

What are your views on this finding and how do you think it will impact space exploration?

[Chronon]

I think it's neat. It certainly could help. Water = ingredients for fuel (I guess it's burned fuel, technically). But you could use electrolysis or maybe even just UV irradiation to split it into 2H_2 and O_2. I don't really know what business we have on other planets at the moment, though. Right now, a mission to Mars is a death sentence. It won't be viable until we have sent robots ahead that are capable of building shelter and mining and extracting fuels for the return trip. Of course, if the robots can do all of that, why not just have them do the whole trip?

[pwnst*r]

it's definitely exciting to know that there's hope for lunar resources, but at the same time i think a majority of Americans (not sure about the rest of the world) don't care what the hell NASA does anymore.

the water cooler topic over coffee monday morning will more than likely be about Sunday's games rather than finding water on the moon.

[handy]

There is another thread on this already in existence in this forum.

It even includes Mars (which has water too) & the fact that it actually takes 6 months to get there, but still uses less fuel than going to the Moon, because Mars has an atmosphere to use in breaking the speed of the landing craft as opposed to the Moon having no atmosphere & requiring fuel to do the entire job.

Obviously slowing these lumps down is an expensive business.

Robert Zubrin is the man who turned NASA around on the man on Mars topic.

The problem is, no one has the political will to commit to it. Even though it can be done inside of NASA's annual budget!?

I suggest that anyone interested in this topic, should find the "Mars Underground" documentary on google video, where you will get great scientific details.

It's a great documentary that everyone on Earth should see. As, as far as I'm concerned, it gives us hope for the future.

Though it does scare some Christians, as there is the chance that a second Genesis will be found, due to the water on Mars.

Whether that is the reason that the U.S. has failed to go to Mars or not, we may never know?

The E.U. plans to be there before 2020.

[Paqman]

It's interesting. As an engineer i'm sceptical that we've got the knowhow to field a completely self-sustaining habitat off-world. So for the forseeable future we're only going to be able to create outposts in places where there's either locally available replenishment, or where it's economical to replenish from Earth.

Low Earth orbit (where the ISS is) is replenishable from Earth, but it's pricey. Keeping a Moon outpost supplied from Earth would be outlandishly expensive. The possibility of a practical way of topping up an outpost's water supplies from local sources would lower the resupply burden considerably. This could now happen within our lifetimes.

[handy]

It's interesting. As an engineer i'm sceptical that we've got the knowhow to field a completely self-sustaining habitat off-world. So for the forseeable future we're only going to be able to create outposts in places where there's either locally available replenishment, or where it's economical to replenish from Earth.

Low Earth orbit (where the ISS is) is replenishable from Earth, but it's pricey. Keeping a Moon outpost supplied from Earth would be outlandishly expensive. The possibility of a practical way of topping up an outpost's water supplies from local sources would lower the resupply burden considerably. This could now happen within our lifetimes.

Many space scientists consider the ISS to be not a worthwhile expenditure of funds. When it comes to inter planetary or moon travel, it has been an impediment.

Some consider it to have been all but a total waste of money, & a way to slow down genuine space exploration.

Far too much "what if" stuff is being done, & bugger all lets do this, is going on. Which equates to nothing is really happening as far as humanity exploring this solar system, which is of course the first step to exploring this Galaxy & beyond.

It was the lets do this by then, that got the first man on the Moon. That is what we need now to put man on Mars, & to set up a colony there.

Have you watched "The Mars Underground" documentary?

Or done any investigation of the Mars Direct, & Mars Semi-Direct mission plans?

If not, then you don't know what your brother engineers have come up with. They are clever bastards, that's for sure.

There have been quite a few of the worlds top space flight engineers working on the subject.

They have got the Mars mission sussed. Have had it done for many years.

All they need are the funds.

I expect that the E.U. will get there first, due to the Christian resistance in the U.S.

Time will tell though.

The interesting thing is, that I'm in my 50's, but I expect to see man land on Mars in my lifetime. :)

It will be one of the happiest days of my life to see that happen. Because it bodes so well for the survival of humanity.

(As far as any other species in the universe is concerned, in the long term, I can't be sure... As we have shown ourselves to be a particularly stupid species, argumentative & warlike by nature. Even off planet, chauvinism may still be our downfall...)

[Paqman]

I do recall Mars Direct from a while back, probably something on Discovery channel. It still seems like the big stumbling block is a totally unsupported six month spaceflight each way, and a year or two on Mars. We've got no experience in conducting operations like that, so i'd dispute the claim that it could be done with current technology. We've never done any real testing, so we can't say with any confidence that it's feasible.

We'll need to start conducting a lot more long-duration space flights and habitation without support from Earth before we can go as far out as Mars safely. The Apollo missions were totally different, as on a trip that short it's possible to bring enough consumable supplies for the whole mission. You can't do that for Mars, which raises the bar well above anything we've done before.

We've got a lot of medical data about long-duration spaceflight thanks to Mir and the ISS, but both of those had all their water, food, etc lugged up to them from Earth. Hell, they were so close you could even see them with the naked eye!

[handy]

When NASA finally gave up its resistance (due to various people being peeved that their pet project wasn't required). They (in collaboration with Zubrin) came up with Mars semi-direct, which uses a strategy that is a bit longer, a bit more costly, (than Mars Direct) but does give the astronauts more room for error & comfort on the trip as well.

Mars semi-direct is incorporated into The Mars Underground documentary.

It is available on google video, I'm sure that you would enjoy the time spent watching it. Very stimulating, & far from stupid.

[The Funkbomb]

I look forward to the day when we mess up the moon just as much as we've messed up the Earth. Let's get some landfills going.

[Sealbhach]

I do recall Mars Direct from a while back, probably something on Discovery channel. It still seems like the big stumbling block is a totally unsupported six month spaceflight each way, and a year or two on Mars.

Why would they need to stay so long on Mars, is it because they would need to wait that long to get the proper alignment favourable for a return journey?

.

[vagrantrooper]

I look forward to the day when we mess up the moon just as much as we've messed up the Earth. Let's get some landfills going.


hahahaha

funny

but true :(

[Paqman]

Why would they need to stay so long on Mars, is it because they would need to wait that long to get the proper alignment favourable for a return journey?


I assume so, yes.

[ElSlunko]

Creating artificial gravity would be a huge requirement for the trip as well because of the incredible muscle mass loss due to long periods of weightlessness.

[handy]

Watch the vid?

[johnb820]

It still amazes me that something so significant for all of human kind will not be achieved because of money issues. Perhaps that is reason enough to tell us we don't belong in space.

[Paqman]

It still amazes me that something so significant for all of human kind will not be achieved because of money issues. Perhaps that is reason enough to tell us we don't belong in space.

Money is just a measure of the amount of resources something consumes. Spending a lot of money on something just means you're doing something inefficient. Once the technology and knowhow improves, efficiency gains will make it economical.

And history shows us that once something becomes economical, humans do it right away. Putting an attractive pricetag on space will be the biggest push skywards we've ever had.

[J-Buntu]

i look forward to the day when we mess up the moon just as much as we've messed up the earth. Let's get some landfills going.
_______________

+1

[supermelon928]

Seems they found it. (http://www.google.com/#q=water+on+the+moon&ct=wateronmoon09-hp&oi=ddle&fp=94f5bc3d92523f1a)

:popcorn:

[bruno9779]

It also seems that there are an amount of threads about this already

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

That's cool I guess. I like NASA. I'm not a hater. That just doesn't really excite me.

[overdrank]

Threads merged

[RATM_Owns]

Water on the moon, fire in the sky?

[tjwoosta]

It doesn't really surprise me that there would be ice on the moon, or mars for that matter. It would be surprising if there weren't.

I am personally very excited about this whole situation. I can't wait until we finally begin to colonize other celestial bodies. With the amount of money and resources we spend every day on war and developing weapons to fight each other we could easily afford this expedition. Its all about coming together as a planet and getting our priorities straight.

[Chronon]

I really don't understand the rationale for sending people to Mars, though. It costs a lot of money to send fragile humans through space. Plus we get sad if something goes wrong and they die. Just send robots! What do we need to do on Mars that robots can't do for much less money?

[kholdstare]

They might make a base on the moon. Which would be awesome, imagine being the first person to live on the moon.

[Chronon]

I imagine the novelty would wear off pretty quickly. No thanks.

[J-Buntu]

It doesn't really surprise me that there would be ice on the moon, or mars for that matter. It would be surprising if there weren't.

I am personally very excited about this whole situation. I can't wait until we finally begin to colonize other celestial bodies. With the amount of money and resources we spend every day on war and developing weapons to fight each other we could easily afford this expedition. Its all about coming together as a planet and getting our priorities straight.
________________

+1 . . . nice.

[The Funkbomb]

I think the most important part is that we may be able to use the moon as a launching place for people to live on Mars.

[tjwoosta]

I really don't understand the rationale for sending people to Mars, though. It costs a lot of money to send fragile humans through space. Plus we get sad if something goes wrong and they die. Just send robots! What do we need to do on Mars that robots can't do for much less money?

Robots would be good too, but not for a permanent solution. One main reason I can think of for sending actual humans to colonize other bodies would be to spread our species around.

For example, right now we are all in one place. If anything happens to earth our entire family tree is gone, not just our species but our entire tree from microbes to humans. What if there were a random enormous solar flare that were to wipe out all life on earth? What if some ignorant ******* with a lot of power decides to start World War 3? There are so many factors that could wipe out everything, it just makes sense to not keep all our eggs in one basket.

Another reason for sending actual people would be the lag time it takes to send or receive signals. It would be incredibly difficult to control machines from that great a distance, not to mention all the things machines might miss whereas an actual human would have the ability to make much better judgment calls. Its the difference between a first hand human experience and seeing delayed readouts on a screen.


Plus we get sad if something goes wrong and they die. Just send robots!
We send thousands of people to war all the time to possibly die for their country, and many do, why should this be any different?

[-=hazard=-]

Though I'm exited by this news, definitely we will end to mess up other planets too, like we have done with our great planet Earth.

[phrostbyte]

Money is just a measure of the amount of resources something consumes. Spending a lot of money on something just means you're doing something inefficient. Once the technology and knowhow improves, efficiency gains will make it economical.

And history shows us that once something becomes economical, humans do it right away. Putting an attractive pricetag on space will be the biggest push skywards we've ever had.

We would need a fundamental breakthrough in propulsion technology for space travel to be cost effective.

[Chronon]

Robots would be good too, but not for a permanent solution. One main reason I can think of for sending actual humans to colonize other bodies would be to spread our species around.

For example, right now we are all in one place. If anything happens to earth our entire family tree is gone, not just our species but our entire tree from microbes to humans. What if there were a random enormous solar flare that were to wipe out all life on earth? What if some ignorant ******* with a lot of power decides to start World War 3? There are so many factors that could wipe out everything, it just makes sense to not keep all our eggs in one basket.

Yeah. I mean in some kind of abstract sense it makes sense. But I really don't think we're there yet. Suppose you send people. Are they going to have enough food and water to support themselves for long enough to mine and distill enough fuel to get them back to Earth? Will they live aboard the vessel that takes them to Mars the whole time? We haven't even shown the ability to maintain a closed-loop system for long enough to get to Mars.



Another reason for sending actual people would be the lag time it takes to send or receive signals. It would be incredibly difficult to control machines from that great a distance, not to mention all the things machines might miss whereas an actual human would have the ability to make much better judgment calls. Its the difference between a first hand human experience and seeing delayed readouts on a screen.

I think developing semi-autonomous robots to do the tasks we are interested in is more feasible than sending humans to Mars and expecting them to make it back here alive.



We send thousands of people to war all the time to possibly die for their country, and many do, why should this be any different?
True. People do get coerced into giving up their lives for worse reasons sometimes. I disagree with it because I do not believe there is a significant chance of survival and pouring human lives down the drain when robots could do the job cheaper just seems senseless to me.

I also have a hard time understanding what sort of carrot would compel people to sign up for being settlers on Mars. Traditionally, people have been able to convince themselves that life in the new land will be better than their current lot. For the set of people qualified to embark on such a mission this is not likely to be the case in this scenario.

[tjwoosta]

mega clip...

I agree, we are not quite there yet. Sending machines first to do the work of building and setting up a proper environment able to sustain life is a must. We cant just send a bunch of humans without any way for them to survive.


I also have a hard time understanding what sort of carrot would compel people to sign up for being settlers on Mars. Traditionally, people have been able to convince themselves that life in the new land will be better than their current lot. For the set of people qualified to embark on such a mission this is not likely to be the case in this scenario.

Well if I had the required skills and experience I would definately be one of the first to volunteer. It doesn't even matter that life would be much more difficult, its about science. Why do people live in Antarctica?

[lisati]

We would need a fundamental breakthrough in propulsion technology for space travel to be cost effective.

Just follow some borg craft that happens to be close by, get caught in their temporal distortion field, and either help whoever you find yourself with, or learn from them, depending on where in time you end up.

[Chronon]

Well if I had the required skills and experience I would definately be one of the first to volunteer. It doesn't even matter that life would be much more difficult, its about science. Why do people live in Antarctica?

Well, people are stationed for limited shifts in Antarctica and you can still have some contact with the outside world. I just think that if science is the goal we can do much more with far less by not doing manned space flight. Our biggest scientific payoffs have been satellites and the Mars rovers. Manned spaceflight is a virtual bust as far as scientific progress goes. I believe the same as far as science on Mars.

Of course, given your first paragraph, maybe we're really saying something similar. Robots would need to have had a sustained presence on Mars for quite some time before it will be fit for humans to arrive (probably with enclosed shelters filled with atmosphere waiting, etc.). I think that by the time Mars is ready for a human crew to live there, our robots will already have conducted quite a lot of science there.

Any idea on time estimates on how long it would take to mine enough material to produce enough fuel for a return voyage?

[Chronon]

Just follow some borg craft that happens to be close by, get caught in their temporal distortion field, and either help whoever you find yourself with, or learn from them, depending on where in time you end up.

Yeah. . . .

that sounds like. . . a . . . great idea.

[forrestcupp]

Though it does scare some Christians, as there is the chance that a second Genesis will be found, due to the water on Mars.




I expect that the E.U. will get there first, due to the Christian resistance in the U.S.


Some is the key word in your first post. It's not good to stereotype Christians in such a negative light. There is no reason that a "second Genesis" should scare Christians, and I really don't think that "Christian resistance" has anything to do with the slowed progress of space exploration. That is kind of a ridiculous statement that makes your bias extremely obvious.

Christians are not always at fault for slowing scientific progress.

Don't you miss the Backyard?

[handy]

I think the most important part is that we may be able to use the moon as a launching place for people to live on Mars.

It is too expensive.

As I've stated before in this & other threads on the topic, more fuel is used to go to the Moon that to go to Mars.

The reason being that the Moon has no atmosphere & therefore requires a lot of fuel to land on, as propulsion is used to break the fall.

Mars does have an atmosphere, so it can be used to slow the landing craft instead of all the fuel required to do the same thing on the Moon.

Watch "The Mars Underground (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+mars+underground&emb=0#)", freely available on the web. It explains the whole process, of getting there & back; right through to teraforming & the creation of an atmosphere. & the reasons why it is a good idea for humanity to colonise Mars & to forget about the Moon.

[handy]

Some is the key word in your first post. It's not good to stereotype Christians in such a negative light. There is no reason that a "second Genesis" should scare Christians, and I really don't think that "Christian resistance" has anything to do with the slowed progress of space exploration. That is kind of a ridiculous statement that makes your bias extremely obvious.

Christians are not always at fault for slowing scientific progress.

Don't you miss the Backyard?

I don't have much respect for the effect of fundamentalist Christians, most especially those in the U.S. My attitude is based on a variety of things that I have observed.

Yes I do miss the Backyard. :)
As we aren't allowed to discuss this stuff here anymore, we had better be careful or this thread will get locked up.

I didn't make my statement to be offensive, it is a statement of something that I consider to be quite possible though.

I agree that Christians aren't always at fault with regard to the slowing of scientific progress.

Here are some stat's that I find very scary:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

http://religions.pewforum.org/

A scary article:

http://www.grist.org/article/scherer-christian/

[Exodist]

I am shocked that anyone would be really surprised at finding frozen water on the moon. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two very popular elements in the universe. Also anyone that is not in complete denial can clearly look at the surface of mars and see where water erosion has scared the mars planet surface. Even photos of the artic polls of mars shows frozen water. Only reason it is so hard to find is that soon as water hits such a low air pressure or no air pressure in space that it evaporates. Thus you only find it in Ice (solid form) or very sparsely gas.

[Paqman]

We would need a fundamental breakthrough in propulsion technology for space travel to be cost effective.

Interstellar travel yes, but what we have now is ok for getting around the solar system.

Besides, there's possible solutions to the cost of getting out of Earth's gravity well that don't involve exotic propulsion, such as star ladders.

[3rdalbum]

Is anyone else bothered that we're just crashed our junk into the moon in the hope that it will make a really big explosion? The moon isn't, or shouldn't be, ours to abuse.

Ours to make use of, but not ours to destroy. We've already ruined so many parts of Planet Earth, we shouldn't be going all Mythbusters on the moon.

[3rdalbum]

And what's up with saying that the moon is a jumping-off point to Mars? It's only 5 days from Earth - wouldn't it be easier to tap the vast resources of our massive oceans and transport it for 5 days through space, than to drill deeply to find a small amount of water on the Moon and save 5 days travel?

[treesurf]

Let's learn to take care of our own planet before we go screwing up others.

[handy]

And what's up with saying that the moon is a jumping-off point to Mars? It's only 5 days from Earth - wouldn't it be easier to tap the vast resources of our massive oceans and transport it for 5 days through space, than to drill deeply to find a small amount of water on the Moon and save 5 days travel?

Check out the documentary I linked to previously?

[Paqman]

Is anyone else bothered that we're just crashed our junk into the moon in the hope that it will make a really big explosion? The moon isn't, or shouldn't be, ours to abuse.

Ours to make use of, but not ours to destroy. We've already ruined so many parts of Planet Earth, we shouldn't be going all Mythbusters on the moon.

Getting smacked by objects is just a normal day for the moon. Hence all the craters. It's not like we were defacing it.

[Paqman]

wouldn't it be easier to tap the vast resources of our massive oceans and transport it for 5 days through space, than to drill deeply to find a small amount of water on the Moon?

Hell no. Water is heavy, and lifting mass out of Earth's gravity is expensive and wasteful.

The water they've found on the moon is in the actual regolith itself, so presumably they'd just squeeze or heat it to extract it. No drilling required, just a bit of scooping.

[Sealbhach]

I am shocked that anyone would be really surprised at finding frozen water on the moon. Hydrogen and Oxygen are two very popular elements in the universe.

True, but this water they found may have come from comets, so there might not be all that much of it.



Even photos of the artic polls of mars shows frozen water.

I always understood that the poles of Mars were covered in frozen CO2.

.

[wilee-nilee]

@Handy so the Google video link is only a set of shorts the actual web site doesn't allow the full download even if you install the media player, I did find it on several torrent though but at a very low download speeds. I will watch it if can ever get it, maybe you know a faster viewing method or download.

I like your post #39 is it faith, fear or ingrained I wonder or all together. ;)

[handy]

@Handy so the Google video link is only a set of shorts the actual web site doesn't allow the full download even if you install the media player, I did find it on several torrent though but at a very low download speeds. I will watch it if can ever get it, maybe you know a faster viewing method or download.

I like your post #39 is it faith, fear or ingrained I wonder or all together. ;)

I think(?) it is completely available in parts on YouTube.

It IS available via torrent.

I borrowed it from the local library initially.

[Chronon]

I checked out the documentary. I suppose the plan he has is somewhat feasible. They didn't really mention how the water will really be harvested on Mars. That sounds like it could involve a bit more than just the set of 3 craft that they have budgeted for. Will they be able to run machinery there for two years with enough yield to generate all of the water, fuel and oxygen necessary for the crew when they arrive? I guess it's possible. . .. Those rovers did last a lot longer than people thought, but they weren't having to do any real work either.

I do agree that space madness would be a real hazard faced by the people on this mission.

[Exodist]

True, but this water they found may have come from comets, so there might not be all that much of it.
I am fairly sure some may have. There is comet dust left all over earth as well.



I always understood that the poles of Mars were covered in frozen CO2.I may be wrong, but I was fairly sure it was actual water. I will go look that up again.. BRB


EDIT:
Woot! We are both correct. lol


(http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Mars.html)Mars (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Mars.html) has ice caps at both its north and south poles. The perennial or permanent portion of the north polar cap consists almost entirely of water ice. In the northern hemisphere winter, this gains a seasonal coating of frozen carbon dioxide (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/carbon_dioxide.html) (dry ice (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dry_ice.html)) about one meter (three feet) thick.

The south polar cap also aquires a thin frozen carbon dioxidehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/1163_magglass.gif (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html#) coating in the southern hemisphere winter. Beneath this is the perennial south polar cap, which is in two layers. The top layer consists of frozen carbon dioxide and about 8 meters (27 feet) thick. The bottom layer is very much deeper and is made of water ice. Data collected by the Marsis radar instrumenthttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/1163_magglass.gif (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html#) aboard Mars Express (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MarsExpress.html) has indicated that enough water is locked up at Mars' south pole to cover the planet in a liquid layer 11 m (36ft) deep.

Ref = http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html

[Sealbhach]

I may be wrong, but I was fairly sure it was actual water. I will go look that up again.. BRB


EDIT:
Woot! We are both correct. lol


That's a good result.:D

Thanks for checking up on it.

.

[Exodist]

That's a good result.:D

Thanks for checking up on it.

.
Not a problem, it was good reading. :-)

[dragonboss]

Thanks for all your replies and info on the topic and related topics. Discovery of water on the Moon is exciting and all but it would probably be depleted fairly quickly if there was a permanent colony using it. About journeys to Mars, well we're not exactly ready since, as you posted propulsion isn't that efficient. And to be off topic a bit about human warlike and stupid nature, I think that the only way humans will truly band together as one is IF we face a threat of imminent extinction, be it some new deadly virus(probably conjured by some scientists or other), some environmental disaster(caused by us of course)or (my favourite) some other new species comes into contact with us in our excursions to space who are then attacked by some trigger happy pilot by accident and decide to wage war on us (just like we do to each other).

[tjwoosta]

Discovery of water on the Moon is exciting and all but it would probably be depleted fairly quickly if there was a permanent colony using it.

I guess that depends how it was used. For example here on earth our water gets recycled eventually. We consume it and we urinate, we sweat, we die and decompose. Eventually it goes back where it came from. Even If we split it into oxygen and hydrogen and burn it, it still doesn't leave the ecosystem, unless we take it off planet. The only way we would deplete the water on the moon would be if we were to leave with it, such as use it to fuel space craft, which in my opinion is not a very good idea. If there were a colony on the moon just using the water for sustaining an ecosystem it could easily continue to be recycled.


About journeys to Mars, well we're not exactly ready since, as you posted propulsion isn't that efficient.

If I'm not mistaken we already have a planned manned mission to mars sometime in the 2030's. We also already have robots on mars and more of them planned for the not too distant future. The fact that our propulsion is not very efficient yet is not stopping anyone.

[Chronon]

What I am interested in seeing is an analysis that shows the energy budget for running machinery on Mars to mine and extract water. The rovers did last a lot longer than people thought but they have gone dormant now. How will machines that have to do real work be able to produce enough power to do their jobs? The spacecraft that go to Mars will have to spend a lot of energy to reverse entropy. They must split CO_2 to get oxygen. They must melt ice to extract water. The reaction to produce methane should also cost energy, since the whole idea is to store energy in the molecular bonds. Everything is an uphill struggle that will require copious amounts of energy. At this point, this is the big piece I haven't seen addressed.

[samh785]

I look forward to the day when we mess up the moon just as much as we've messed up the Earth. Let's get some landfills going.
It's sad that I find that to be plausible :[

[tjwoosta]

The rovers did last a lot longer than people thought but they have gone dormant now.


Im pretty sure the rovers are still operational. They went dormant for a while when there were severe dust storms blocking the sunlight and things were looking grim, but I think thats over now. Last I heard spirit was stuck in the sand, but still functioning.



SPIRIT UPDATE: Flash Memory in Use Again - sols 2077-2083, Nov. 5-11, 2009:

Spirit is preparing to attempt extrication from her embedded location at "Troy" on the west side of "Home Plate."

The project was successful in reformatting Spirit's on-board flash memory file system on Sol 2083 (Nov. 11, 2009). The rover is now again using the non-volatile flash file system for telemetry storage.

On Sol 2078 (Nov. 6, 2009), Spirit straightened her wheels in preparation for the first straight-ahead extrication drive, currently planned for Sol 2088 (Nov. 17, 2009). Spirit also collected another microscopic imager (MI) mosaic of the rover underbelly on Sol 2081 (Nov. 9, 2009).

As of Sol 2082 (Nov. 10, 2009), Spirit's solar-array energy production was 368 watt-hours, with an atmospheric opacity (tau) of 0.569 and a dust factor of 0.5995. Total odometry remains at 7,729.97 meters (4.80 miles).





OPPORTUNITY UPDATE: Approaching "Marquette Island" - sols 2057-2062, Nov. 6-11, 2009:

Opportunity is still heading south before the turn east to head toward Endeavour Crater. The right front wheel is exhibiting elevated motor currents. So, the plan is to find a place to stop and rest the actuator while conducting some some contact science.

On Sol 2058 (Nov. 7, 2009), the rover began a 15-meter (49-foot) approach to a candidate rock target called "Marquette Island." On Sol 2061 (Nov. 10, 2009), Opportunity bumped about 4 meters (13 feet) to position Marquette Island within the work volume of the rover's robotic arm (instrument deployment device, or IDD). The rover continues to command the miniature thermal emission spectrometer (Mini-TES) elevation mirror open each sol in an attempt to clear some of the putative dust off the elevation mirror. To date, no improvement in the Mini-TES has been observed.

As of Sol 2062 (Nov. 11, 2009), Opportunity's solar-array energy production was 400 watt-hours, with an atmospheric opacity (tau) of 0.486 and a dust factor of 0.531. Total odometry was 18,905.90 meters (11.75 miles).




How will machines that have to do real work be able to produce enough power to do their jobs? The spacecraft that go to Mars will have to spend a lot of energy to reverse entropy. They must split CO_2 to get oxygen. They must melt ice to extract water. The reaction to produce methane should also cost energy, since the whole idea is to store energy in the molecular bonds. Everything is an uphill struggle that will require copious amounts of energy. At this point, this is the big piece I haven't seen addressed.


I have seen proposals for using geothermal energy.

[Chronon]

Im pretty sure the rovers are still operational. They went dormant for a while when there were severe dust storms blocking the sunlight and things were looking grim, but I think thats over now. Last I heard spirit was stuck in the sand, but still functioning.

That's cool. It seemed when they first went dormant that there was little hope of them reviving.



I have seen proposals for using geothermal energy.

Okay, but this requires a lot of drilling = lots of work. I didn't know there was much reason to expect geothermal [sic] activity, but I'm a bit out of the loop on Martian science, I admit. (BTW, geo- applies to Earth, what's the proper term for other planets?)

[MasterNetra]

I look forward to the day when we mess up the moon just as much as we've messed up the Earth. Let's get some landfills going.

What is there to mess up? It might have ice but its still a barren and lifeless world...at the very least on the surface..though a future terraform would be interesting. Looking up at the moon one day and it not grey but green and blue, like a baby earth. Granted that would mean adding a atmosphere, moving the planet further away and increasing its rotation for stronger gravity. Of course the latter two are not currently do-able, though will be at some point, just a matter of time and development.

[Chronon]

I didn't think that the moon had sufficient mass to hold onto an atmosphere.

[alphaniner]

moving the planet further away and increasing its rotation for stronger gravity.

Increasing its rotation will not increase gravity. Terminology aside, nor will it have the effect you seem to expect. Plus, moon or Mars, there is the issue of the lack of a magnetic field. We'd all be as dead if Earth lost her magnetic field as we would if she lost her atmosphere.

Personally, I think the future of space travel is commercial/private. Only once there is an economic incentive will we see any tangible progress, just as it was with the Americas. And NASA can take it's rightful place as the outer-space equivalent of the FAA.

[Paqman]

I didn't think that the moon had sufficient mass to hold onto an atmosphere.

It's not mass that's the big problem, it's the solar wind. Earth's magnetic field protects it's atmosphere. The loss of the magnetosphere was what stripped away Mars' atmosphere.

Energy isn't going to be the big barrier to building an outpost, there's nothing stopping you from using nuclear, for example. The big hurdles would be life support, the sheer cost of shifting all that equipment up there, and even oddball stuff like maintenance of machines in the ultra-abrasive lunar environment. It'd also require a pretty hefty infrastructure investment for the constant back-and-forth shuttling of people, and equipment. Probably well in excess of what we're currently using to keep the ISS in business.



Personally, I think the future of space travel is commercial/private. Only once there is an economic incentive will we see any tangible progress, just as it was with the Americas. And NASA can take it's rightful place as the outer-space equivalent of the FAA.

+1 on that.

[pi4r0n]

What are your views on this finding and how do you think it will impact space exploration?

Someone was watching Doctor Who recently :)

I personally think there are other live living forms out there and they are coming :p

[Tristam Green]

I'll make my own Lunar Lander.

With Blackjack.

and hookers.

In fact, forget the blackjack and the Lunar lander.

Ah, screw the whole thing.

[openuniverse]

.

[slakkie]

What are your views on this finding and how do you think it will impact space exploration?

Maybe they can use the water on the moon for future exploration, although I'm more interested in the water they found on one of Jupiter's moon. Because of the geysers there it could harbor life, which IMO is more important then water on the moon (since the moon is basicaly Earth 2).

[merkourio]

Guys..
There are no REAL practical reasons of building a base on the moon, except that a rocket-launch-base would make launches affordable and quick. Why? Moon-lower gravity => Launch-less resistance.
But there is also a but. This scenario is only affordable and logical if could build mines (if we find some kind of metal, of course), factories where rockets and spaceships would be built, and some type of fuel.
Although this may seem impossible and too costy to be built, if think about it, it is absolutely logical:
1. "Moon is Earth 2" => iron, nickel, gold, silver, platinum
2. Lower gravity, lower cost to launch spaceships
3. Factories working more efficiently, due to less gravity

I know there ARE problems with this scenario, but in my opinion in the next 20-30 years it will be a fact!

What do YOU think guys?

Please don't diss about my English, i am not a native speaker.

[realzippy]

Ridiculous.
Terraforming Mars/Moon...we better should stop "Terraforming" here on earth
before...

[Chronon]

It's not mass that's the big problem, it's the solar wind. Earth's magnetic field protects it's atmosphere. The loss of the magnetosphere was what stripped away Mars' atmosphere.


Well you should provide loss rates instead of just saying "it's not the one it's the other". The escape velocity is much smaller than Earth and so the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would constantly escape even in the absence of solar wind. I would not be surprised if the loss rate on the sun-facing side of the moon due to this mechanism exceeded the loss rate due to ionization.

[alphaniner]

Well you should provide loss rates instead of just saying "it's not the one it's the other". The escape velocity is much smaller than Earth and so the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would constantly escape even in the absence of solar wind. I would not be surprised if the loss rate on the sun-facing side of the moon due to this mechanism exceeded the loss rate due to ionization.

Regardless of the relationship between magnetosphere and atmosphere, most forms of life would not survive direct exposure to the sun without a magnetosphere.

[Chronon]

Regardless of the relationship between magnetosphere and atmosphere, most forms of life would not survive direct exposure to the sun without a magnetosphere.

And most would not survive without an atmosphere either.

[alphaniner]

Yes, I am aware. I guess I must have misinterpreted your post, because you seemed to be implying that the magnetosphere didn't matter. All I was saying is that it matters as much as the atmosphere, regardless of the relationship between the two.

[Chronon]

Here's the chronology:


What is there to mess up? It might have ice but its still a barren and lifeless world...at the very least on the surface..though a future terraform would be interesting. Looking up at the moon one day and it not grey but green and blue, like a baby earth. Granted that would mean adding a atmosphere, moving the planet further away and increasing its rotation for stronger gravity. Of course the latter two are not currently do-able, though will be at some point, just a matter of time and development.


I didn't think that the moon had sufficient mass to hold onto an atmosphere.


It's not mass that's the big problem, it's the solar wind. Earth's magnetic field protects it's atmosphere. The loss of the magnetosphere was what stripped away Mars' atmosphere.



Well you should provide loss rates instead of just saying "it's not the one it's the other". The escape velocity is much smaller than Earth and so the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution would constantly escape even in the absence of solar wind. I would not be surprised if the loss rate on the sun-facing side of the moon due to this mechanism exceeded the loss rate due to ionization.


Regardless of the relationship between magnetosphere and atmosphere, most forms of life would not survive direct exposure to the sun without a magnetosphere.

As you can see, I was commenting about the reasons for the Moon's inability to hold an atmosphere, not on how charged particles from the sun affect life.

[alphaniner]

And I was pointing out that it doesn't matter why the moon can't retain an atmosphere, because without a magnetosphere life can't survive. I wasn't attacking you, so what the problem is?

[Chronon]

Okay. We were just embarking on different tangents. I didn't get the connection to what I was saying before.

[Deicider]

water on moon yayy,now i dont have to pay for water ill getz frem teh mouns ;o

[handy]

Perhaps anyone who actually has any serious questions with regard to human missions to Mars, should contact the people at The Mars Society.

If they can't give you a valid answer, I suspect that no one can...

http://www.marssociety.org/portal

[merkourio]

Stop Terraforming? Then how do you want to get metals? But no only metals, glass, wood.. Any source of raw material could be explained as terraforming..

[NightwishFan]

I prefer to stay on the ground and study space from here. :KS

[wilee-nilee]

Perhaps anyone who actually has any serious questions with regard to human missions to Mars, should contact the people at The Mars Society.

If they can't give you a valid answer, I suspect that no one can...

http://www.marssociety.org/portal

I watched the video good stuff. I think Zubrin or another scientists have also presented a pre arrival without the humans on board that would process the fuel for returning before the actual human arrival. I have also seen ideas of sending humans there with no return, with the technology to survive a full life term.

[alphaniner]

There's a show called Cosmic Journeys on Hulu and they have a pretty good episode about Mars (http://www.hulu.com/watch/95112/cosmic-journeys-mars-a-world-that-never-was). It's not about manned missions, but it does give a good summary of what we know about the planet 'geologically'.

[ice60]

on a podcast i heard the other day they were saying how there are possibly 5 planets and moons that could support life in our solar system and that's because they are pretty certain they have water. fly-bys have looked for water signatures. i can think of mercury, europa and ganymede i think that should have water too.

this maybe a bit OT but the best moon documentaries i've seen by a long way are on youtube called 'moon machines'. there are 5 of them i think and they are about how the engineers got all the equipment working - the computer systems, the rockets, the moon buggy, the lunar module and the space suites i think?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1203167/combined
actually i found a playlist for them -
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=82CF039F1E337E16

[alphaniner]

on a podcast i heard the other day they were saying how there are possibly 5 planets and moons that could support life in our solar system and that's because they are pretty certain they have water. fly-bys have looked for water signatures. i can think of mercury, europa and ganymede i think that should have water too.

Water or life on Mercury? I refute it thus*:

[sets self on fire]

Seriously, I think you must have made a mistake with that one. Check out the Cosmic Journeys series I mentioned, the episode about Saturn's moons. Several were mentioned as possible harbours of life, but I forgot the names :/

*My hat is off to anyone who gets this reference

[SteveHillier]

... which is of course the first step to exploring this Galaxy & beyond.

and this is what gets me.

If we are keen to explore other solar systems (let's leave out other galaxies at the moment) and the nearest star is 4 light years away then travelling at light speed will take a considerable chunk out of a space explorer's life.
By the time the round trip is complete those who put forward the idea would be like the three gentlemen who knew the answer to the Westphalia question. Some will be dead, others will be mad and the rest will have forgotton what it was all about.

To explore other galaxies I suspect will need mixed sex space flight with onboard midwifery services and those left at the end of the mission will have changed the game plan from what was originally designed by mission control. Those left on earth would have forgotton that a mission had been sent anyway and probably shoot the returning craft as aliens, which of course they might be if divergent evolution occured.

Of course we might be able to exceed light speed but we then just disappear from view!

However as Cronon points out maybe we can find enough water on the moon convert it to it's component gases (making sure none of it is lost because it reaches escape velocity at the moon surface) to give us the fuel for an 8 or 9 year or greater round trip.

I suspect I will be worm fodder long before that happens.
Can't find a smiley for turning my toes up!!

[wilee-nilee]

Water or life on Mercury? I refute it thus*:

[sets self on fire]

Seriously, I think you must have made a mistake with that one. Check out the Cosmic Journeys series I mentioned, the episode about Saturn's moons. Several were mentioned as possible harbours of life, but I forgot the names :/

*My hat is off to anyone who gets this reference

The planets or moons IO and Europa are believed to have deep oceans.

[ice60]

Water or life on Mercury? I refute it thus*:

[sets self on fire]

Seriously, I think you must have made a mistake with that one. Check out the Cosmic Journeys series I mentioned, the episode about Saturn's moons. Several were mentioned as possible harbours of life, but I forgot the names :/

*My hat is off to anyone who gets this reference

i noticed i was talking about two different things just after i posted but was too lazy to correct it!

there's probably little bits of water on mercury that don't support life. and this is what i was trying to say (i think :D) there are 5 possible places outside what's considered to be the habitable zone in the solar system that could contain life i.e. deep down on europa. and 4 other places where water looks likely to be after fly-bys that have looked. i have no idea about lol. i might have heard it on this podcast -
http://radio.seti.org/episodes/Extreme_Geology

it wasn't part of the main topic though and was just mentioned as a possibility.