Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

news.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 284 posts

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#151

Post by fastball »

boznz wrote: post #134
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for building Lunar outposts, but colonization is not really practial. Luna simply doesn't have the natural resources to sustain a civilization. Yes there is water in the regolith, but nowhere near as much as on Mars. And critically, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur are only present in trace amounts. Nearly all of the elements essential to life will have to be imported, either from Earth, from Mars, or…

"Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur are only present in trace amounts" Is this because we havent found them yet, an educated guess or the moon somehow gets rid of these?

It's because the Moon lacks an atmosphere.

CO (and then CO2) form at high temps, so elemental carbon doesn't have much chance to condensate to a "rock" form in regards to non-stellar celestial bodies. These float off into space, no atmosphere to contain them.

At the temperatures/pressure of the moon, Nitrogen rapidly boils off and floats away as well.

Not sure about Phosphorus and Sulfur, but I'm sure they can be either directly or indirectly related back to the moon's lack of an atmosphere as well.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#152

Post by keenerd »

rory096 wrote: post #138
jacobush wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACKSHULLY - aerobraking on Mars is a chore. The atmosphere is dense enough to burn you to a crisp, thin enough it won't help you slow down - much. Look at the marvel that is the Skycrane. Not needed for the Moon.

>thin enough it won't help you slow down - much. No. It's thin enough you can't land with parachutes alone. It's still enough that Mars Global Surveyor used it to make up a 1,250 m/s delta-v deficit. Is landing on Mars more complex than a thick atmospheric landing on parachutes or an exoatmospheric landing on propulsion only? Yes. But the atmosphere still saves you a lot of delta-v. [0] https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/…

> It's still enough that Mars Global Surveyor used it to make up a 1,250 m/s delta-v deficit.

It took MGS 15 months (not counting delays) of aerobraking to do that. MGS only weighed 1000kg too. Maybe it could work for shipping large, pre-assembled, empty hab modules to Mars before people get there. (Low density, higher drag, no rush.) But not practical for actual human bodies or even resupply since the Hohmann transfer takes a mere 8.5 months. Adding an aerobraking maneuver could easily triple the transit time.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#153

Post by ryandrake »

Teever wrote: post #107
frandroid wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the one specialist in your mission dies and it takes 8 years to send a new one, that's not called an effective replacement.

Has it ever taken 8 years to send something to the moon?

At least in the US, if we urgently needed to send something to the moon in 8 years, we would not be able to do it. Between politically making it happen, deciding who spends the money on it, choosing a contractor that represents the right disadvantaged special interest group, years of contract negotiation, town hall discussions, environmental impact studies, project management failures, budget overruns, pork barrel carve-outs and jobs programs for various congresspeople's districts, etc. it would take way more than 8 years.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#154

Post by marcosdumay »

HugoDaniel wrote: post #38
lovelearning wrote: post #9

This was last month. Another analysis this month by a different organization reached the opposite conclusion. [1]: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/analysis-rusty-lunar-rock-sugg...

Lets hope they don't find oil there...

Non biological oil exist. It can't form on Earth since the algae completely change our atmosphere, but it can form in other celestial bodies.

It would be pretty useless there too, since there is no oxygen to burn it.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#155

Post by khedoros1 »

ars wrote: post #112
wellboy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survival of humanity isn't important universally. The universe doesn't care. But it's the most important thing for humans.

> The universe doesn't care. And that's exactly why it's important. > Survival of humanity isn't important universally. Unless there is something there that cares about it, there is little reason for the universe to exist - nothing would know the difference. Which is why it actually is important universally. > But it's the most important thing for humans. No, it's more important for the universe to have humans, than…

That seems like a circular argument. It's not important for the universe to have a purpose, or to "care"...except to us. Things don't need a reason to exist.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#156

Post by neaden »

logfromblammo wrote: post #147
neaden wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't Canada rebel? Australia? Falkland Islands? Malta? India? Nigeria? Belize? Tunisia? Samoa? Puerto Rico? The Philippines? Guam? Most of the Caribbean? In fact, off the top of my head the only times that you saw a colony rebel in a circumstance like that was the U.S and Haiti. Now you can point pout that most of the countries I mentioned are independent or quasi-independent today but most of them got that sta…

I'd guess that was because there are more factors in play than just distance. But I get the sense that you're trying to invert a logical implication somewhere. The comparison you should be making is the rebellion of a distant colony versus a more local rebellion. I.e. why did the American Revolution succeed, but the Whiskey Rebellion fail?

You said "You make the government local, or the local government that eventually forms will rebel. Then it will beat you, because it can react to the local situation more quickly. You might be able to control the Moon from Earth, but Mars will definitely be self-governing. It's all about the latency." Which sounds like you think distant colonies successfully rebelling is a rule of history that means Mars will inevitably be self-governing. I pointed out that in fact, most colonies did not rebel and only became self-governing in the 1900s it no longer took months or weeks to travel to them.

The Whisky rebellion was essentially an armed tax protest, of the kind that happened fairly often in American history and before independence. Its goal was never to topple the US government or create a separate nation.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#157

Post by keenerd »

s_kilk wrote: post #144
keenerd wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble thinking of catastrophes that could take out both. Well, I can think of a few (bio-weapon, nearby supernova) but they would take out a Mars colony just as easily.

I think they meant that if we have civilisation collapse on Earth then the Lunar folk are screwed too, because their supplies would be cut off permanently.

Why would the Moon be any less independent than Mars? It is only 20% less delta-V to ship something there. It is just as much in their interests to become self-sufficient.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#158

Post by khedoros1 »

Teever wrote: post #107
frandroid wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the one specialist in your mission dies and it takes 8 years to send a new one, that's not called an effective replacement.

Has it ever taken 8 years to send something to the moon?

Depending on how you count, e.g. May 1961 (Freedom 7 flight) to July 1969 (Apollo 11 flight), yes.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#159

Post by beaconstudios »

ribosometronome wrote: post #88
kbenson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the backup option is only for the wealthy, leaving the rest in a worse state. Like most technology, it flows from the rich to the poor eventually as it becomes cheaper. The important part you omitted is that it leaves the rest in a worse relative state. Their absolute state is no worse, and likely better. Arguing against a backup for civilization (or more appropriately, a backup for the species) because it will be…

Why is humanity's survival important?

why would it not be? Life exists to create more of itself. We inherently want there to be more of us.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#160

Post by wan23 »

ribosometronome wrote: post #88
kbenson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the backup option is only for the wealthy, leaving the rest in a worse state. Like most technology, it flows from the rich to the poor eventually as it becomes cheaper. The important part you omitted is that it leaves the rest in a worse relative state. Their absolute state is no worse, and likely better. Arguing against a backup for civilization (or more appropriately, a backup for the species) because it will be…

Why is humanity's survival important?

It's literally the definition of the word: of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being
Post reply on HN