Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Date:
August 20, 2018
Source:
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Summary:
Using data from NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper instrument, scientists have identified three specific signatures that definitively prove there is water ice at the surface of the Moon.
Water ice on the moon has been suspected, but this is a confirmation. This ice is in the shadow of craters at the moon's poles which are never exposed to sunlight and the temperature remains at or under -250 degrees Fahrenheit. A sufficient quantity of ice could possibly be a source of water for future expeditions and manned lunar bases.
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-21-2018 at 10:36 AM..
Gotta love the moon. Without it, complex life would not have existed on earth. Our moon is very special. There is none like it in our solar system. If that protoplanet hadn't collided with the early earth and created the moon as a result, I wouldn't be here posting this.
Now it even has water that might help us in the future. How much more can we ask of our moon? If there is a guardian looking out for us, it is our moon.
I must be in error, but didn't a previous Lunar mission ... maybe Clementine or Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter ... detect water ice in craters near the poles? As the OP says, maybe the presence of ice was just suspected, but I thought it was a pretty firm thing more than 10 years ago.
I must be in error, but didn't a previous Lunar mission ... maybe Clementine or Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter ... detect water ice in craters near the poles? As the OP says, maybe the presence of ice was just suspected, but I thought it was a pretty firm thing more than 10 years ago.
Hmmn. I just checked and saw this article from Space.com dated Feb.2018.
In 2009, three spacecraft confirmed that water exists on the moon, but until now, astronomers thought most of that water was confined to "cold traps" at the moon's poles. Now, a new analysis of two lunar missions throws doubt on that theory and suggests that water could actually be spread across the moon's surface.
The article which I posted in the OP, says something different.
''Previous observations indirectly found possible signs of surface ice at the lunar south pole, but these could have been explained by other phenomena, such as unusually reflective lunar soil.''
Water on the Moon has been proposed by scientists since 1999, it is science folks wanting more proof which keeps other scientists using words like possibly, perhaps, maybe, may, in their articles because they are afraid of what other scientists will say and dont want to be outright wrong. It is very strange that STILL they dont want anyone to go there, poke about and look. MAYBE it is because they dont WANT to be certain.
It has made sense to build a base on the Moon from the start and as soon as a man landed there, it was more of a reality. Apart from the science which could have told us a huge amount about the geology of the Earth(since it is claimed the Moon broke off from the Earth) as well as other aspects of science which could be investigated if we had continued to go there.
No, from my point of view, there was some very very good reason why we did not continue with the Moon landings. Even sending robotic missions would have satisfied some of the scientists and expanded our knowledge but what did we do? We sent satellites to fly around, photograph and map it and now the government probably have better photos of the Moon than we do of Antarctica. Where's the logic in that?
Quote:
The article which I posted in the OP, says something different.
''Previous observations indirectly found possible signs of surface ice at the lunar south pole, but these could have been explained by other phenomena, such as unusually reflective lunar soil.''
So I don't know what to make of it.
Think of it a swamp gas or a balloon like Roswell was.
Water on the Moon has been proposed by scientists since 1999, it is science folks wanting more proof which keeps other scientists using words like possibly, perhaps, maybe, may, in their articles because they are afraid of what other scientists will say and dont want to be outright wrong. It is very strange that STILL they dont want anyone to go there, poke about and look. MAYBE it is because they dont WANT to be certain.
It has made sense to build a base on the Moon from the start and as soon as a man landed there, it was more of a reality. Apart from the science which could have told us a huge amount about the geology of the Earth(since it is claimed the Moon broke off from the Earth) as well as other aspects of science which could be investigated if we had continued to go there.
No, from my point of view, there was some very very good reason why we did not continue with the Moon landings. Even sending robotic missions would have satisfied some of the scientists and expanded our knowledge but what did we do? We sent satellites to fly around, photograph and map it and now the government probably have better photos of the Moon than we do of Antarctica. Where's the logic in that?
Think of it a swamp gas or a balloon like Roswell was.
There's nothing sinister or hidden about our not going back to the moon after the shortened Apollo ... it was all about money. And the little additional science that could be learned wasn't worth the cost, or at least it wasn't in favor with the public and congress.
When I retired 10 years ago, one scenario of manned missions to Mars included a stopover on the Moon. I haven't kept up with all the options since then.
I know one thing ... the ease and speed of computer simulations has allowed us to consider practically every option under the sun (so to speak), and that's not necessarily a good thing since we can't seem to make up our collective minds. Back when NASA was first started, almost 50 years ago, computers were in their infancy and things were done with an abacus , slide rules, and Friden calculators. Seemed to be easier to home in on a solution, and those solutions worked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, slide rules, and Friden calculators. Seemed to be easier to home in on a solution, and those solutions worked.
