So is that an official update to the reg units? Volume of liquid measured in mass of lunar surface?
I'll be down the pub, consuming a couple of tons...
Analysis of the lunar surface by three different spacecraft has provided "unambiguous evidence" of water on the Moon, Space.com reports. India's Chandrayaan-1, NASA's Cassini spacecraft, and the agency's Deep Impact probe have all detected the presence of either water or hydroxyl - one hydrogen atom and one oxygen atom linked …
Quote the BBC ...
"The Indian Moon mission was launched late last year but has already stopped working due to a fault. Nevertheless, the Indian space agency (Isro) will consider the water discovery a major triumph and a vindication of its endeavours."
No doubt the call centre it tried to contact failed to give the correct response as the operative didn't have the right flow-chart of responses in front of him/her/it and the supervisor refused to take any calls.
That's a curiously convenient yield-rate, isn't it? 1 ton is 32,000 ounces - i.e. one thousandth of the lunar surface (by mass) is water. By a more metric measure, that's a potential yield rate of 1 litre per cubic meter - which is surely rather higher than anyone would have thought likely, prior to this? I'll wait until they've shot a few probes into the surface, and analysed the dust thrown up, before reading much into that sort of off the cuff statistic, mind.
I can't be the only person to have read about the discovery of water on the moon many times before.
I have seen photographs of 'ice' - inches thich and there was a very successful, but under-reported, UK radar scan, that identified water or ice several feet thick, beneath the surface, a couple of years ago.
Is this latest 'news' really news or attempt by researchers to justify their grants? I would genuinely be interested in an answer.
"UK radar scan, that identified water or ice several feet thick, beneath the surface, a couple of years ago."
So the government put the data into a database of all planetary bodies , there children and anyone with in 100,000,000,000 miles of the scene of the offence. The data was obviously lost in the tube.
Hmmm, yield of 1 litre per cubic metre, about 1.5 tonnes. Daily drinking water requirement = 3 litres. So, they are saying that they will dig up, process and extract water from 4.5 tonnes of soil per person per day? Since the water is available only in the top 'few' (let's say 3) millimetres, they will have to scrape up 1000 square metres of moon surface per person per day. That's just for drinking. Assuming 100% efficiency in the processing.
Environmentally friendly? Feasible? My *rse!
@Water/hydroxyl - no, only water is "AKA dihyrogen monoxide"
@Alastair McFarlane - Yep, that's H-two-zero. Typo I'm sure, but it still provided me with a chuckle, you're a happy chap! you'll p155 yourself at this then.
@faceplant - I suspect that once consumed the water would be recycled, oh and 1000 square metres is "only" 31m square (whereas the moon is over 35,000,000,000,000 square metres), see what I did there? mixed metres square with square metres just to add to the confusion.
If there is a lot of hydroxyl then this *could* be used to develop energy as it's very reactive (and would produce water or perhaps useful hydrocarbons).
"That's a curiously convenient yield-rate, isn't it? 1 ton is 32,000 ounces - i.e. one thousandth of the lunar surface (by mass) is water. By a more metric measure, that's a potential yield rate of 1 litre per cubic meter - "
You might like to check your thinking on this. Your presuming the average density of the moon is that of water. IIRC the CRC Physics & Chemistry handbook reckons the average Earth density is about 5700 Kg/m^3. That's a bit over 2 metric tonnes. conversion factors can be a real pain.
> "there appears to be more water/hydroxyl at the poles"
Know the answer to this, and you are no longer a mere human. Not quite in the realm of the Gods, but a Hero certainly. Luther does, but it is not in his interest to disclose - too many darned jealous (small g) gods. (Hint: it's not water, and its temperature is not what is seems).
Great news indeed. Still, it's depressing to think that we're still using an ancient, dangerous, primitive and very expensive space transportation technology: rocket propulsion. One thing is sure; we'll never colonize the solar system with rockets at the rate we're going.
But rejoice. Soon, a new form of transportation will arrive, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel. Check it out.
The Problem With Motion
@Anonymous Coward Thursday 24th September 2009 10:50
Well, maybe they only show up when the story is actually at least slightly related to call centers, outsourcing operations, snake charmers, poverty, cows, caste system, etc. Why so pissed off? Angry about being a dalit or a boring day at the call center?
@ John Smith 19
"Earth density is about 5700 Kg/m^3. That's a bit over 2 metric tonnes."
Hm... as far as I know 1 metric ton (t) is 1,000 Kg.
Prove just little part of what you are saying, and you will be a VERY rich man.
Though I notice that you failed to mention vril, orgone, Aldous Huxley, ewige blumenkraft, perpetual motion, zero-point energy, the Time Cube or The Force; so I can't see how any of your theories will work.
As for water on the moon: hooray! Now to find intelligence on Earth.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Dude, c'mon. There _is_ no "dark" side of the Moon; there's the side that's always facing away from Earth owing to the Moon being in a "tidally locked" orbit.
Kinda' ruins it for Messrs. Gilmour and Waters, though.
"There is no Dark Side Of The Moon...matter of fact, it's _all_ dark..."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022