Moon Water

In article ,
(Hobbs aka McDaniel) wrote:

I'm all for exploring Mars but I am curious why NASA put
so much effort into looking for old water on Mars and no
effort into using robot explorers to confirm reports of
water on the moon. Any ideas?

Because the Moon has been pretty much taboo at NASA for the last three
decades (until now, perhaps). And they've had some sort of romantic
interest in Mars for reasons I've never quite understood.

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote in news:joe-
:

And they've had some sort of romantic
interest in Mars for reasons I've never quite understood.

Mars much more Earthlike than the Moon. It is a planet with an atmosphere
and weather, and very friendly to life compared to our other nearby
neighbors. All of which adds up to a romantic interest.

But don't misunderstand me. I think we should send an ice hunting probe to
the moon. I was very disappointed when the deliberate crashing of the
Lunar Prospector into the pole didn't turn anything up. But NASA will have
to shoehorn it into their perpetually underfunded budget for planetary
science.

But don't misunderstand me. I think we should send an ice hunting probe
to
the moon. I was very disappointed when the deliberate crashing of the
Lunar Prospector into the pole didn't turn anything up. But NASA will
have
to shoehorn it into their perpetually underfunded budget for planetary
science.

Was it supposed to scream:"WATER!! I SEE WATER!!" just before it hit?

Just kidding.

Doc


--
"I'm at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It's Evolution, baby."


Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution"

drdoody wrote:


But don't misunderstand me. I think we should send an ice hunting probe
to
the moon. I was very disappointed when the deliberate crashing of the
Lunar Prospector into the pole didn't turn anything up. But NASA will
have
to shoehorn it into their perpetually underfunded budget for planetary
science.

Was it supposed to scream:"WATER!! I SEE WATER!!" just before it hit?

No, just after.

The 'dying gasp' science was an attempt to detect water in the spectra
(from earth) just after an impact into a crater that was hoped to contain
water.

In article ,
(Hobbs aka McDaniel) wrote:

I'm all for exploring Mars but I am curious why NASA put
so much effort into looking for old water on Mars and no
effort into using robot explorers to confirm reports of
water on the moon. Any ideas?


It is plausible that there was a significant period when there was liquid water
on Mars, during which life as we know it might have evolved.

Lunar ice, on the other hand, is generally presumed to come from comets hitting
the moon, hitting places near the poles where the sun don't shine, and
remaining there for millions or billions of years.

So water is water, but Martian water is more interesting to Biologists.

Will McLean

In article ,
Hobbs aka McDaniel wrote:
I'm all for exploring Mars but I am curious why NASA put
so much effort into looking for old water on Mars and no
effort into using robot explorers to confirm reports of
water on the moon. Any ideas?

A combination of the interest in life on Mars (understanding the history
of Mars's water better would help tell us where to look for signs of past
or present life), major unsolved scientific puzzles of Mars's geological
history, and the "been there, done that" feeling which has made NASA
reluctant to do more lunar missions.

Finally, don't be misled: some of the emphasis on Martian water is
press-release hype, an officially-decreed central theme for unmanned Mars
exploration.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Parallax) wrote in
m:

If the theories of Hoyle and Wickramsinghe that are
sort of championed by NASA are correct, they might even find
micro-organisms in the ice which would make the mission worthwhile.

If true, it would certainly be worthwhile, although the search for
primitive life on Mars seems much more promising. The Moon is sterile and
without atmosphere, and there is no evidence that water ever flowed there.
Even if there were ice on the Moon, the other ingredients are not present,
as they are on Mars.

Furthermore, you can't make the argument about the Moon that there may have
once been a time when the sun's habitable range once existed farther away
from the sun than it does today. Although it may not be true, on the off
chance that it once was, then Mars would gave been favored for the
occurence of life. But the Moon is in the habitable zone right now, and it
is still barren, which does not lead to a promising prognosis.

In article ,
Parallax wrote:
You would think that a sample return mission from the areas containing
lunar ice would be one of the most interesting possible missions. The
ice deposited by comets would reveal the constituency of comets
showing what organic molecules are present.

Unfortunately, if the most popular theory about the nature of the hydrogen
deposits is true, it's not a direct sample of cometary material -- it's
condensed from the vapor resulting after comet hits elsewhere on the Moon.
So the information about comets would be rather limited.

Furthermore, mapping the
extent of the ice might show how much of this very valueable resource
is available.

True. However, this is actually fairly difficult. Lunar Prospector did
about all that can reasonably be done from orbit... and the problem with
doing mapping on the ground is that it takes so long to cover the
territory.

You would think such a mission would be easy compared to working on Mars.

It's surprisingly hard. The topography of the cold-trap areas is poorly
known, the environment is colder than even the Martian surface, there is
no solar power available, and communication with Earth is difficult.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"McLean1382" wrote in message
...

So water is water, but Martian water is more interesting to Biologists.

Whereas lunar water might be more interesting to entrepreneurs.


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

In article ,
Hobbs aka McDaniel wrote:
We don't know that the moon was always barren.

We're pretty sure. There isn't even water of hydration chemically bound
in the rocks; indeed, all volatile elements are badly depleted. The Moon
was thoroughly baked very early in its history (during its formation, by
current theory), and it has never had significant amounts of water since.
Nor is there any chemical indication of it ever having had an atmosphere.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |