As this forum contains space topics...
Discussion
Water on the moon...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
That's excellent news, we might not be closer to finding life, but we are learning that space is more hospitable then we might have first thought.
Think its time for a by-law on the moon though, prohibiting the Evian/Volvic/Vittel lot moving in and causing a blot on the moonscape. Given the cost of spring water, moon water would cost a bloody fortune anyway
Think its time for a by-law on the moon though, prohibiting the Evian/Volvic/Vittel lot moving in and causing a blot on the moonscape. Given the cost of spring water, moon water would cost a bloody fortune anyway
ErnestM said:
Water on the moon...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
So, the Americans actually put a man on the moon and took samples, yet it took another 41 years to discover this? Confused.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
dr_gn said:
ErnestM said:
Water on the moon...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
So, the Americans actually put a man on the moon and took samples, yet it took another 41 years to discover this? Confused.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
Due to technical, safety and lighting restrictions, the six Apollo landing missions landed in a belt fairly close to the equator. This meant that, although the samples brought back did vary in detail, the general morphology of the rocks and dust collected were broadly similar and were all very, very dry and lacking in water or evidence of tghe effects of water in the distant past.
What has never been explored in any way up until now are the polar regions of the moon - which have very different lighting and heating conditions and may very well have a very different geological background too.
It needs to be remembered that, after the last Apollo linar mission (Apollo 17 in December 1972), the Americans abandoned lunar research for the next 25 years. It's only in the past ten years or so that a number of American (and Indian and Japanese) missions have returned to the moon and started looking at areas that were not surveyed by Apollo or the Apollo precurser unmanned missions (Ranger, Surveyor and Orbiter).
Eric Mc said:
dr_gn said:
ErnestM said:
Water on the moon...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
So, the Americans actually put a man on the moon and took samples, yet it took another 41 years to discover this? Confused.http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-i...
...and some other stuff as well
Due to technical, safety and lighting restrictions, the six Apollo landing missions landed in a belt fairly close to the equator. This meant that, although the samples brought back did vary in detail, the general morphology of the rocks and dust collected were broadly similar and were all very, very dry and lacking in water or evidence of tghe effects of water in the distant past.
What has never been explored in any way up until now are the polar regions of the moon - which have very different lighting and heating conditions and may very well have a very different geological background too.
It needs to be remembered that, after the last Apollo linar mission (Apollo 17 in December 1972), the Americans abandoned lunar research for the next 25 years. It's only in the past ten years or so that a number of American (and Indian and Japanese) missions have returned to the moon and started looking at areas that were not surveyed by Apollo or the Apollo precurser unmanned missions (Ranger, Surveyor and Orbiter).
If the Moon was so interesting geologically, why not investigate it more fully 30 or 40 years ago, rather than sending more complex probes to places much further away? That's what I find confusing.
Logic doesn't always come into space exploration - politics, money and even the "fashion" and "sexiness" of a project all play a part in what projects get selected and which ones do not.
There have been very, very few sample returns from the moon. Apart from the Apollo missions, which returned over 800 lbs of samples, the Russians flew TWO unmanned sample return probes in the early 1970s which each returned a few ounces.
For similar reasons to Apollo, the Russian probes landed in the same general equatorial belt of the moon so their samples merely confirmed the Apollo findings.
There were a couple of unmanned landers which did on-site chemical analysis of the lunar soil. Yet again, they landed in equatorial areas and gave the same results. You also have to remember that this was im the years 1966 to 1972 or so and the ability to remotely check, analyse and transmit scientfic data from an object 250,000 miles away was ground breaking (literally) technology at the time.
It also needs to be remembered that the prime driver for all these early missions was not a scientific survey of the moon, but to provide solid data about the lunar surface and its characteristics in advance of the arrival of the manned landings which were coming up (and that was the Russian's motivation too - even though they later denied this).
No REAL science has ben carried out on the moon (apart from at the Apollo sites) since 1972 and we are only beginning to find out what a varied and interesting place it actually is.
After Apollo, the scientific community lost interest in the moon and wanted to go further with their unmanned ambitions. Don't forget also that Venus and Mars had already been visited by a number of fly-by probes between 1962 and 1969.
There have been very, very few sample returns from the moon. Apart from the Apollo missions, which returned over 800 lbs of samples, the Russians flew TWO unmanned sample return probes in the early 1970s which each returned a few ounces.
For similar reasons to Apollo, the Russian probes landed in the same general equatorial belt of the moon so their samples merely confirmed the Apollo findings.
There were a couple of unmanned landers which did on-site chemical analysis of the lunar soil. Yet again, they landed in equatorial areas and gave the same results. You also have to remember that this was im the years 1966 to 1972 or so and the ability to remotely check, analyse and transmit scientfic data from an object 250,000 miles away was ground breaking (literally) technology at the time.
It also needs to be remembered that the prime driver for all these early missions was not a scientific survey of the moon, but to provide solid data about the lunar surface and its characteristics in advance of the arrival of the manned landings which were coming up (and that was the Russian's motivation too - even though they later denied this).
No REAL science has ben carried out on the moon (apart from at the Apollo sites) since 1972 and we are only beginning to find out what a varied and interesting place it actually is.
After Apollo, the scientific community lost interest in the moon and wanted to go further with their unmanned ambitions. Don't forget also that Venus and Mars had already been visited by a number of fly-by probes between 1962 and 1969.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 22 October 09:43
jmorgan said:
Clocked that report yesterday but I was under the impression that they have discovered water in the Apollo samples but only recently as the detection technology has got better?
In fact, they did detect traces of water in some Apollo samples but the conclusion they came to was that the samples had veen contaminated after return to earth.Quite a lot of the Apollo material remains in unopened boxes - but after 40 years or so it may not be as pristine as it once was.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff