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

201–210 of 284 posts

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#201

Post by ajmurmann »

woranl wrote: post #66
tambourine_man wrote: post #7

I've always been more excited about a Moon colony than a Mars one. I mean, compared to Mars, the Moon is ridiculously close. Many of the same benefits Musk seeks (backup for Civilization, excitement) for a fraction of the cost. Low gravity and atmosphere on a dome would be more complicated, but again, compared to Mars, it's right there . It would be a more humble and realistic first step, IMO.

I rather have Civilization backup in Mars. If the Earth goes, the Moon wouldn't be in a very good shape. Just like I wouldn't go hide in the kitchen, while the living room is burning down.

It's not necessarily a either or situation. I can certainly see this work out in a way where you can iterate quickly on the moon resulting in technologies maturing quickly that you will eventually need on Mars and ultimately get you there faster than trying to go straight to Mars.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#202

Post by [deleted] »

escape_goat wrote: post #183
sunflowerfly wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the real advantage of a moon base first is safety. If something goes horribly wrong while we are learning to live on other planets, a return to earth or a rescue mission takes far less time. I am not a space expert though, so perhaps this is wrong?

I have head that moon dust is reputed to be a consideration, as it creates a type of environmental problem that would not be as extensive a problem on Mars. My understanding is that, due to a lack of fluid and chemical erosion, it tends to be extremely fine and abrasive, and it clings to everything due to static charge, making it hard to keep out of compartments and machinery. They're both definitely too far for a re…

[deleted]

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#203

Post by [deleted] »

hnlmorg wrote: post #165
andyfal12 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meteor impacts and supervolcanoes seem to be the near-term worst case scenarios, neither which change the state of living on the moon. I don't know that the metaphor of them being under the same roof works.

I know the risks are astronomical (literally), but anything significant enough to alter Earth's mass would also alter the moons orbit. I just think if we are talking about an extraterrestrial base for the sake of "backing up" the human race then it is prudent to pick a location that isn't in any way dependant on the master copy. However I appreciate other concerns also take priority as well (cost, practicality, etc)…

[deleted]

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#204

Post by hwillis »

Mtinie wrote: post #196
Fej wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mars has the radiation problem while in-transit, which is still unsolved. We have already gone to the Moon. Given that the travel time is relatively short, radiation is far less of a concern. This is why the Moon is attractive. We know how to get there already and it's not too difficult, all things considered. The problem of how to get there and back with humans aboard has already been solved. It's never been done to…

Without a magnetosphere isn't solar radiation a problem, long-term on the Moon?

solved by piling dirt over the habitat

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#205

Post by ajmurmann »

fastball wrote: post #145
tambourine_man wrote: post #7

I've always been more excited about a Moon colony than a Mars one. I mean, compared to Mars, the Moon is ridiculously close. Many of the same benefits Musk seeks (backup for Civilization, excitement) for a fraction of the cost. Low gravity and atmosphere on a dome would be more complicated, but again, compared to Mars, it's right there . It would be a more humble and realistic first step, IMO.

The moon is a pretty terrible backup for Civilization. A lot of the things (majority) that would eradicate life on earth would also eradicate life on the moon.

Someone else asked this as well but I haven't seen a good answer: what scenario destroys moon and earth but leaves Mars fine? I can think either of stuff that only impacts earth like meteors, nukes etc on one hand and issues like a supernova or a stray planet coming through the solar system on the other hand.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#206

Post by njarboe »

sunflowerfly wrote: post #178
Robotbeat wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's questionable that it's really much lower cost. The Moon, as a vacuum body, doesn't give the option of aerobraking or atmospheric entry, which dramatically reduces delta-V. You can get a payload to Mars' surface with less propellant than getting it to the Moon's surface. And because atmosphere is everywhere (which includes oxygen in the form of CO2 and also water vapor), propellant is way easier to make, so it's…

For me the real advantage of a moon base first is safety. If something goes horribly wrong while we are learning to live on other planets, a return to earth or a rescue mission takes far less time. I am not a space expert though, so perhaps this is wrong?

As NASA has shown in the 30 years, "safety first" does not work as a prime directive, if you want to advance space travel. Musk stated in a recent talk with NASA,"Going to Mars is not for the faint of heart." and "If safety is your top goal, I wouldn't go to Mars."

[1] https://youtu.be/Jv5LjA62Uw8?t=3480 [2] https://youtu.be/Jv5LjA62Uw8?t=3644

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#207

Post by psyc »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #104
psyc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got a new laptop and hadn't got around to installing uBlock yet. I'm comfortable saying the mainstream web is literally unusable without ad blocking. I watched the download notifications in the status bar iterate through dozens of ad servers, for 1-2 minutes, per page. I could barely scroll at all. I couldn't tell where the actual content was. All 3 columns full of ads. You have to hunt for isolated paragraphs…

> a festering petri dish of promiscuous cookie-sharing Shouldn't that be impossible? What browser lets one site access another's cookies?

I mean tracking in general. I feel violated every time FB or Google reveal they clearly know where I've been recently.

Afaik, there may not be sharing across domains, but there surely is across pages.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#208

Post by pjmorris »

njarboe wrote: post #206
sunflowerfly wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the real advantage of a moon base first is safety. If something goes horribly wrong while we are learning to live on other planets, a return to earth or a rescue mission takes far less time. I am not a space expert though, so perhaps this is wrong?

As NASA has shown in the 30 years, "safety first" does not work as a prime directive, if you want to advance space travel. Musk stated in a recent talk with NASA,"Going to Mars is not for the faint of heart." and "If safety is your top goal, I wouldn't go to Mars." [1] https://youtu.be/Jv5LjA62Uw8?t=3480 [2] https://youtu.be/Jv5LjA62Uw8?t=3644

'Apollo: Race to the Moon' by Murray and Cox described how the Apollo engineers drew their priorities from Kennedy's speech: Man. Moon. Decade, in that order. There's a difference between genuine safety and bureaucratic safety, something NASA has admittedly forgotten.

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#209

Post by flashdance »

Mtinie wrote: post #196
Fej wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mars has the radiation problem while in-transit, which is still unsolved. We have already gone to the Moon. Given that the travel time is relatively short, radiation is far less of a concern. This is why the Moon is attractive. We know how to get there already and it's not too difficult, all things considered. The problem of how to get there and back with humans aboard has already been solved. It's never been done to…

Without a magnetosphere isn't solar radiation a problem, long-term on the Moon?

Fun fact incoming: there is a mini-magnetosphere centered around Mare Crisium on the Moon.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041721/abst...

It's only 360km across though...

Re: Water Found Deep Inside the Moon

#210

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

"In 2009, NASA crashed a rocket and a satellite into a crater on the moon’s south pole, in the hopes of picking up additional watery evidence. "

NO, In 2008 ISRO crashed Moon Impact Probe (MIP) into lunar surface as part of Chandrayaan-I mission. MIP didn't have any specific role, other than political agenda. The NASA's Moon Minerology Mapper M3 onboard of the Chandrayaan spacecraft was instrumental in providing the first mineralogical map of the lunar surface.

Quoting S. Pete Worden, center director at NASA’s Ames Research Center :

“NASA missions like Lunar Prospector and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite and instruments like M3 have gathered crucial data that fundamentally changed our understanding of whether water exists on the surface of the moon,”

National Geographic, having titled the article - 'Get the facts' and blatantly ignoring ISRO's contribution is not healthy.

The reason I brought this up is not to score nationalist brownie points, but a credit where it's due. In a country like India, where an organisation like ISRO instills scientific termparment over large population; ignoring it's contribution by global media focussed on science is an insult to entire scientific community.

Post reply on HN