Plentiful Water Found on Moon!

"Splash! NASA moon crash struck lots of water
By ALICIA CHANG (AP) – 55 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES — Suddenly, the moon looks exciting again. It has lots of
water, scientists said Friday — a thrilling discovery that sent a
ripple of hope for a future astronaut outpost in a place that has
always seemed barren and inhospitable.

Experts have long suspected there was water on the moon. Confirmation
came from data churned up by two NASA spacecraft that intentionally
slammed into a lunar crater last month.

"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We
found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, lead scientist
for the mission, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.

The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what
scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.

Some space policy experts say that makes the moon attractive for
exploration again. Having an abundance of water would make it easier
to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying drinking water and a
key ingredient for rocket fuel."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...-v66AD9BV10180


So now we know!

Double-A

It's a good discovery confirmation...but 25 gallons in a plume 1000
kilometers across isn't exactly like they hit a lake.

On Nov 14, 7:17*am, studio wrote:
It's a good discovery confirmation...but 25 gallons in a plume 1000
kilometers across isn't exactly like they hit a lake.

250 ppm is hardly a gusher of water.

Moon basalt that contains roughly .025% water is not a cache of raw
ice as NASA suggested. The average water content of lunar basalt
could be as low as 50 PPM.

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Nov 14, 10:57 am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Nov 14, 7:17 am, studio wrote:


snip usual GuthBall drivel

Take the same pictures and measurement at the Moon's poles, in craters that
never, ever see sunlight, and you'll see plenty of water. None of it came
from the inside of the Moon, but was deposited over the past 4 Billion years
by comets, just like here on Earth. Of course you can't take picture of the
inside of those craters, because they are pitch dark, you loon.

On Nov 14, 11:59*am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Nov 14, 10:57 am, "Hagar" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

....
On Nov 14, 7:17 am, studio wrote:

snip usual GuthBall drivel

Take the same pictures and measurement at the Moon's poles, in craters that
never, ever see sunlight, and you'll see plenty of water. *None of it came
from the inside of the Moon, but was deposited over the past 4 Billion years
by comets, just like here on Earth. *Of course you can't take picture of the
inside of those craters, because they are pitch dark, you loon.

The dynamic range of our LRO cameras are way more than sufficient, not
to mention their SAR imaging capability. Other previous observing
satellite based imaging has also been capable of pulling out
sufficient details within shadows (Christ almighty on a stick, even
those Apollo Kodak moments took thousands of images with fully solar
illuminated stuff and otherwise fully shadowed items within the exact
same unfiltered FOV, as looking good), though it gets into especially
good observationology science if using their LRO and/or LCROSS UV and
secondary/recoil florescence imaging. The only visible spectrum
issues as an imaging dilemma comes from all of that crystal dry carbon
soot like dust, that's in places thick and as dark or darker than
lampblack.

Try to remember, that in addition to solar illumination and the
secondary IR that comes off the local surrounding terrain, there's
also a great deal of earthshine that contributes towards illuminating
into those polar craters, at least onto those on the nearside.

Btw; seems there's still no such objective science with regard to raw/
naked ice existing/coexisting in 1AU space, so there's no way of
honestly telling how long such cold ice would actually last while
exposed at the vacuum of 3e-15 bar, and otherwise unavoidably
receiving some local heat. Perhaps the laws of physics do not apply
to our moon, or perhaps craters manage to have a great deal more
atmosphere than previously thought. Otherwise, that 100 kg of water
came from the 50750 PPM of h2o that's in lunar basalt.

Btw No2, if God ****ed ice on our moon, all that's left of whatever
yellow ice is the sodium.

~ BG

"Double-A" wrote in message
...
"Splash! NASA moon crash struck lots of water
By ALICIA CHANG (AP) – 55 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES — Suddenly, the moon looks exciting again. It has lots of
water, scientists said Friday — a thrilling discovery that sent a
ripple of hope for a future astronaut outpost in a place that has
always seemed barren and inhospitable.

Experts have long suspected there was water on the moon. Confirmation
came from data churned up by two NASA spacecraft that intentionally
slammed into a lunar crater last month.

"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We
found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, lead scientist
for the mission, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.

The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what
scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.

Some space policy experts say that makes the moon attractive for
exploration again. Having an abundance of water would make it easier
to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying drinking water and a
key ingredient for rocket fuel."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...-v66AD9BV10180


So now we know!

Double-A

**Lets start designing the lunar cities now. We need them,
just to have a really large permanent space station, and of course,
the huge telescope on the far side.

At the permanent Moon base, we could use minerals mined there to
build the mass quantities of space craft, to move much of overpopulated
human population...to the Cosmos.

And we could get all the iron we need from Mercury...remember?

On Nov 14, 9:21*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...
"Splash! NASA moon crash struck lots of water
By ALICIA CHANG (AP) – 55 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES — Suddenly, the moon looks exciting again. It has lots of
water, scientists said Friday — a thrilling discovery that sent a
ripple of hope for a future astronaut outpost in a place that has
always seemed barren and inhospitable.

Experts have long suspected there was water on the moon. Confirmation
came from data churned up by two NASA spacecraft that intentionally
slammed into a lunar crater last month.

"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We
found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, lead scientist
for the mission, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.

The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what
scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.

Some space policy experts say that makes the moon attractive for
exploration again. Having an abundance of water would make it easier
to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying drinking water and a
key ingredient for rocket fuel."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...FPrQjvdnQhVIvx...

So now we know!

Double-A

**Lets start designing the lunar cities now. *We need them,
just to have a really large permanent space station, and of course,
the huge telescope on the far side.

At the permanent Moon base, we could use minerals mined there to
build the mass quantities of space craft, to move much of overpopulated
human population...to the Cosmos.

And we could get all the iron we need from Mercury...remember?

At first it'll only cost us a cool ten billion per tonne of having to
extract that 100 PPM of water from lunar surface basalt, although
deeper basalts should contain greater amounts of h2o 750 PPM, and
deeper yet should be a few hollow spaces or perhaps fluid/brine filled
geode pockets that can be directly reutilized as reservoirs or made
into nifty habitats.

How much of the lunar interior is pumice or that of other low density
material is anyone's guess, and the moon certainly doesn't require
that additional iron from Mercury. However. the lunar interior could
be a real treasure trove of nifty and extremely valuable elements as
is, as well as at least 0.1% hollow as is.

The process of producing basalt fiber for my LSE-CM/ISS and lunar 2xL2
tug tethers would yield that water, as well as O2 and a fair number of
other easily extracted elements, bringing that cost per kg of water
down to perhaps as low as $10. This tether creating process would
also create a thin toxic atmosphere of sufficiently heavy elements
that could be sustained.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 13, 7:03*pm, Double-A wrote:
"Splash! NASA moon crash struck lots of water
By ALICIA CHANG (AP) – 55 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES — Suddenly, the moon looks exciting again. It has lots of
water, scientists said Friday — a thrilling discovery that sent a
ripple of hope for a future astronaut outpost in a place that has
always seemed barren and inhospitable.

Experts have long suspected there was water on the moon. Confirmation
came from data churned up by two NASA spacecraft that intentionally
slammed into a lunar crater last month.

"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We
found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, lead scientist
for the mission, holding up a white water bucket for emphasis.

The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what
scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.

Some space policy experts say that makes the moon attractive for
exploration again. Having an abundance of water would make it easier
to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying drinking water and a
key ingredient for rocket fuel."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...FPrQjvdnQhVIvx...

So now we know!

Double-A

50250 ppm is lots of water?

You could get more water from a hot desert rock, or nearly as much
from a spent meteorite.

Why is so much of our LRO mission malfunctioning?

~ BG