Moon Water: Probes Find H20 Traces In Dirt

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Moon Water: Probes Find H20 Traces In Dirt stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | 09/23/09 05:42 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

WASHINGTON — The moon isn't the dry dull place it seems. Traces of water lurk in the dirt unseen.

Three different space probes found the chemical signature of water all over the moon's surface, surprising the scientists who at first doubted the unexpected measurement until it was confirmed independently and repeatedly.

It's not enough moisture to foster homegrown life on the moon. But if processed in mass quantities, it might provide resources – drinking water and rocket fuel – for future moon-dwellers, scientists say. The water comes and goes during the lunar day.

It's not a lot of water. If you took a two-liter soda bottle of lunar dirt, there would probably be a medicine dropperful of water in it, said University of Maryland astronomer Jessica Sunshine, one of the scientists who discovered the water. Another way to think of it is if you want a drink of water, it would take a baseball diamond's worth of dirt, said team leader Carle Pieters of Brown University.

"It's sort of just sticking on the surface," Sunshine said. "We always think of the moon as dead and this is sort of a dynamic process that's going on."

The discovery, with three studies bring published in the journal Science on Thursday and a NASA briefing, could refocus interest in the moon. The appeal of the moon waned after astronauts visited 40 years ago and called it "magnificent desolation."

The announcement comes two weeks before a NASA probe purposely smashes near the moon's south pole to see if it can kick up buried ice. Over the last decade, astronomers have found some signs of underground ice on the moon's poles. But this latest discovery is quite different. It finds unexpected and pervasive water clinging to the surface of soil, not absorbed into it.

"It is drier than any desert we have here," Sunshine said.

Story continues below
advertisement

The water was spotted by spacecraft that either circled the moon or flew by. All three ships used the same type of instrument that looked at the absorption of a specific wavelength of light that is the chemical signature of only two molecules: water and hydroxyl. Hydroxyl is one atom of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen, instead of two hydrogen atoms in water.

Because of the timing during the daylight when some of that wavelength disappears and some doesn't, it shows that both hydroxyl and water are present, Sunshine said.

This light wavelength was first discovered by an instrument on the Indian lunar satellite Chandrayaan-1, which stopped operating last month. Scientists initially figured something was wrong with the instrument because everyone knew the moon did not have a drop of water on the surface, Pieters said.

"We argued literally for months amongst ourselves to find out where the problem was," Pieters said. Sunshine, who was on the team, had a similar instrument on NASA's Deep Impact probe, headed for a comet but swinging by the moon in June. So Deep Impact looked for the water-hydroxyl signature – and found it.

Scientists also looked back at the records of NASA's Cassini probe, which is circling Saturn. It has the same type instrument and whizzed by the moon ten years ago. Sure enough, it had found the same thing.

The chance that three different instruments malfunctioned in the same way on three different spaceships is almost zilch, so this confirms that it's water and hydroxyl, Pieters said.

"There's just no question that it's there," Pieters said. "It's unequivocal."

Scientists testing lunar samples returned to Earth by astronauts did find traces of water, but they had figured it was contamination from moisture in Earth air, Pieters said.

Three scientists who were not part of the team of discoverers said the conclusion makes sense, with Arizona State University's Ron Greeley using the same word as Pieters: unequivocal.

Lunar and Planetary Institute senior scientist Paul Spudis called it exciting and said it raises the logical question: Where did that water come from?

Pieters figures there are three possibilities: It came from comets or asteroids that crashed into the moon, those crashes freed up trapped water from below the surface, or the solar wind carries hydrogen atoms that binds with oxygen in the dirt. That final possibility is the one that Sunshine and Pieters both prefer.

If it is the solar wind, that also means that other places without atmosphere in our solar system, such as Mercury or asteroids, can also have bits of water, Sunshine said.

___

On the Net

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov

WASHINGTON — The moon isn't the dry dull place it seems. Traces of water lurk in the dirt unseen. Three different space probes found the chemical signature of water all over the moon's surface,...
WASHINGTON — The moon isn't the dry dull place it seems. Traces of water lurk in the dirt unseen. Three different space probes found the chemical signature of water all over the moon's surface,...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
305
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 AM on 10/17/2009
- jer9848 I'm a Fan of jer9848 14 fans permalink
photo

Put Survivor Man on the moon for a week.I bet he will find water and maybe some food too. :P

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 10/12/2009
- effitol I'm a Fan of effitol 2 fans permalink

You people are so incredibly lost in fantasy... transmission complete.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

Duh....this is a blog. Please support your case with, for example, an example. Merely posting your opinion is like a Vanity license plate: it is just words

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 PM on 09/24/2009
- effitol I'm a Fan of effitol 2 fans permalink

Duh-see below Captain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 PM on 09/24/2009
photo

With the latest commentary coming out of the University of Hawaii about water bearing mineralogy. I picture the Mexican game of hitting the Pinata with a stick to see how much candy will fall out. With the taxpayer being the Pinata of course.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 AM on 09/25/2009
photo

HP chopped up my last thread which was vital to this discussion.

What Dr. Lucey from the University of Hawaii is saying about re-examining the notion that the Moon "may be wetter" than previously thought or contains water based minerals along this redundant study, is not only fallacious it contradicts the bare naked research of the last thirty years on meteorites and Apollo materials.

How is the public to resolve a 180 degree turnaround in scientific discourse and debate, where the issue can be solved by heating a handful of soil in your furnace at 200 deg F increments, noting that by the second increment all water has disappeared into the atmosphere. And if you do the same thing in the vacuum chamber of outer space for lunar materials surpassing their 2500 deg F crystallization history, there will be even less water in the sample....none. In early 2000 I received email from a UCLA scientist, a mineralogy and geochemistry expert who said in no uncertain terms "lunar meteorites do not contain water bearing mineralogy". (He meant native to the Moon not terrestrial contamination). With his statement, Dr. Lucey is inadvertently reversing established planetary science and millions of pages of data and research, or he is attempting to help spin and recycle a story for public con$umption by piling on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 09/25/2009

yes, yes, NASA is totally wrong and you are right. We get it.

But one of the apollo scientists has noted that they did detect water in the samples but thought it was earth or astronaut contamination from improperly sealed sample cases.

And this water is clearly not static, it comes and goes over the course of the lunar day. Either escaping to space to migrating to the poles. It's something you are only going to find in the top layer of soil at certain times.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 09/25/2009
- effitol I'm a Fan of effitol 2 fans permalink

let me just make sure I've got this straight...

So after we've screwed things up so badly on earth we're going to slam rockets with multi-megaton impact into the surface of the moon to look for water. And then we're going to deplete the mass of the moon by "harvesting" that water to bring back to earth or power the USS Enterprise.

Hey- what's the worst that could happen if we affect the orbit of the moon a little bit? What's the moon good for besides gravitational effect and romantic evenings anyway? We've already proven there's no cheese!

Then we're going to inhabit the moon (or should I say occupy). Oh yes- let me be one of the first to experience loss of muscle mass and bone degeneration! I can't wait until my brain structure begins to jellify and feel the warmth of unfiltered radiation and bound around in negative gravity- whoopee!

Oh yeah- then there's that "food" thing. Hey I'm always up for a challenge!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 09/24/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 27 fans permalink

Effitol asked:

"What's the moon good for"?

It's clear to me that the most relevant question isn't "What THE MOON is good for" but rather: What are HUMAN BEINGS good for? Who says that the existence of the moon (or anything else on or off the earth) is FOR anything related to what Human Beings do or don't want?

As things stand, Human Beings represent the most destructive force that the planet has had to withstand to date, a form of life that that the earth would be far better off without.

IF (on the other hand) humans were to recognize that their proper role on the planet was to ADMINISTRATE the exploitation of the planet's natural, human and institutional resources in favor of the public interest, that would make GOVERNMENTS truly useful entities rather than subject matter for blogs with subscribers that can't seem to agree about the proper role of humanity on the planet, (much less in government) anyway.

Aside from reflecting a greater or lesser degree of sunlight, I say forget about the moon - we've got work to do right here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 09/25/2009
- effitol I'm a Fan of effitol 2 fans permalink

Bingo!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 AM on 09/26/2009
- exPatPatti I'm a Fan of exPatPatti 37 fans permalink
photo

This is absolutely fascinating. I was a around 5 years old back in the lunar landing days and remember squinting up at the moon wishing I could see the astronauts. That was truly an era of future science.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 09/24/2009
- equianimi I'm a Fan of equianimi 12 fans permalink

Some of the assumptions in this article are reallly far fetched. It's a bit early to assume we're going to extract water from tons of moon dirt if we haven't done the same in the Atacama desert. It's hard to say the moon that that much more useful either since for most part (aside from mining) we don't even use our own deserts. So we might want to figure out how to handle the deserts right here close to us before we mess around with anything on the moon.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 09/24/2009

Well, its not as easy as shovelling it up on mars:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29232

But any local resource development makes space cheaper.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:03 PM on 09/24/2009
- Lochmon I'm a Fan of Lochmon 90 fans permalink
photo

Nobody's really proposing extracting water from lunar soil. The most promising source would be from large quantities of ice believed to have settled in the bottoms of craters that never receive sunlight. This discovery makes that a lot more likely.

As far as better handling our ecosystems here on Earth... agreed. There's no reason not to do both though, and many good reasons to put even greater efforts into space development. For a single example, if we can get the cost-per-pound to orbit low enough, we could begin to move some of the most poisonous industries off the surface of this planet. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 09/24/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 27 fans permalink

"As far as better handling our ecosystems here on Earth... agreed. There's no reason not to do both though",

It's a matter of priorities. Disease, Poverty, Intolerance, Religious Fundamentalism, Contamination of the Earth's Air, Waterways and Soil ...

These are the goals I consider important. And in a real sense, believing in the value of colonizing the moon detracts from the need to preserve the ecosphere we ourselves form part of.

"and many good reasons to put even greater efforts into space development."

Ms. Lochmon - The concept of accomplishing any worthwhile goal from "space development", ignores the tremendous cost of the investment already made here on earth, evolutionarily speaking - the time we've taken to get to the point where we are today, a point where homo sapiens still lack a clear idea of the role mankind should play. As things stand, human beings continue to destroy more of the planet than any other creature alive.

"For a single example, if we can get the cost-per-pound to orbit low enough, we could begin to move some of the most poisonous industries off the surface of this planet. Wouldn't that be nice?"

I would prefer to see those that contaminate pay the cost of the cleanup required; I'd rather see governments exercise oversight in the public interest rather than protect the industry they are charged with overseeing.

Without a doubt, the most contaminating processes can be replaced with less contaminating alternatives. As stated, it's a matter of priorities.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 09/24/2009
photo

How can we pollute it as soon as possible?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 09/24/2009
- RepugsOut08 I'm a Fan of RepugsOut08 113 fans permalink

Well, the Apollo astronauts dumped their garbage out onto the lunar surface before leaving the moon, and that included astronaut feces. I guess we've already begun the process.
Seriously, you make a great point, and let's hope that preservation and protection are as much a part of any exploitation plans in the works as we colonize our planetary neighbors.
Something tells me if I could live another hundred years, however, that I'd be looking up at a moon with a big American Express logo carved across it's face.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 09/24/2009
- effitol I'm a Fan of effitol 2 fans permalink

Don't worry- I think these guys have figured out the most effective ways. I'm sure well be amazed!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

The explanation of the moon is that it is a chunk of the earth blasted off by a major collision. Mars also is missing a big chunk of itself and the moon may have come from there.

Since Mars is smaller than earth, it cooled and possibly had life on it while Earth was still a red-hot potato. In fact some think that life on Earth was seeded with Martian life from this collision which all but destroyed life on Mars.

The point is that, since life is embedded even in the bedrock of our planet, and since the moon is actually a chunk of a planet, it is quite plausible that life exists in the rock of the moon.

Recent experiments with the Law of Thermodynamics and the basic building blocks of life seem to indicate that life is a natural consequence of energy, as very little energy is needed for the first five building blocks to form: a decent size meteor is all that is needed.

This lends support to the argument that life is not unique to our planet, and that the universe may in fact be teaming with life. Not only this, but that the 10 basic building blocks of life so closely follow the thermodynamics law, so as to suggest that life in the universe should closely follow our experiences with evolution on Earth.
continued....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

part2:

That means that the ending of the Battlestar Galactica is NOT far-fetched: it suggested that the genetic material from the Battlestar and Cylon survivors integrated with the humanoid beings found on the planet they ended up on to form what we now know as Humanity.

Now add the presence of water and you have an interesting conclusion: that it is quite plausible that life of some sort may exist on the moon.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

The most important piece of information that I got from this article was that water could form as a natural reaction of the Sun's fusion furnace. The solar wind is rich in hydrogen atoms that react with oxygen atoms that are found in the rock dust of planets.

This means that water is NOT something rare and special, but a natural consequence of any Star.

The problem is that we need an explanation of the oxygen atoms in the dust, considering that the theory is that the earth had no oxygen until bluegreen algae loosed it all. So was oxygen present 4 billion years ago on our planet, or not?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 09/24/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 27 fans permalink

CoYoTE2 wrote: "the theory is that the earth had no oxygen until bluegreen algae loosed it all".

As I understand it: The first living creatures on the Earth were Prokaryotes (single celled organisms lacking nuclei), some of which were photosynthetic and all preceded the existence of algae. ("Symbiotic Planet: a new look at evolution" by biologist Lynn Margulis; Basic Books, 1998. Also: "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origens of Species" - same author and publisher, 2002).

Photosynthesis releases oxygen from water by using hydrogen to form hydrocarbons. In other words, photosynthetic organisms were responsible for increasing the presence of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere and were preceded by the presence of water.

"So was oxygen present 4 billion years ago on our planet, or not?"

In free form, very little. James Lovelock was contracted by NASA to determine whether the Martian atmosphere was capable of supporting life as we know it. Lovelock knew that the presence of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere depended on the photosynthetic organisms responsible for a process that took 3.5 billion years to evolve. No other planet in the solar system has nearly the amount of oxygen present in the earth's atmosphere and that took time to create.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

right. Thanks for the biology lesson. The point is that oxygen was present and that Prokaryotes "loosed it all" or released it in to the atmosphere, thus poisoning the earth for all the non-oxygen life forms that had existed for the first 3.5 billion years.

The next part of my lack of knowledge is where is the oxygen in moon dust? Is it a component of rock?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 09/24/2009
- RepugsOut08 I'm a Fan of RepugsOut08 113 fans permalink

"This means that water is NOT something rare and special, but a consequence of any star."


You are correct. Water is far from special, and is in fact abundant in the universe. Many of the moons of the outer solar system planets, are heavily composed of ice. Europa, a moon of Jupiter, may have a liquid ocean 60 miles deep.
Uranus is considered an ocean planet, and icy comets are abundant in the far reaches of the solar system.
The trick is finding it in a liquid form that is stable over time. I was amazed when the Cassini probe, currently studying Saturn, found geysers of water vapor erupting from the moon Enceladus. An icy moon so small and far out in the solar system, that it should be frozen solid.
There is still some debate, but it looks likely that it harbors a salty ocean beneath it's icy surface.
Beyond the solar system, water molecules have also been found in the molecular clouds of dust, that are the nurseries of new stars and solar systems yet to be formed. That water driven life is abundant in the universe, I have no doubt. How complex it may be, is another story.
If the earth is a typical example, you have 3.5 billion years of nothing but microbes and algae. Then again, you also have us. I'll leave it to the jokesters to comment on which is more advanced. ;)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

Good posts all. Thanks

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 PM on 09/24/2009
- dhinds I'm a Fan of dhinds 27 fans permalink

"If the earth is a typical example, you have 3.5 billion years of nothing but microbes and algae."

Incorrect: We have 3.5 billion years of living cells BEGINNING with Prokaryotes (bacteria) and EVOLVING through Algae and other Protoctists, on to Fungi, Animals and Plants (all three of which contain organelles that began as bacteria).

"Then again, you also have us".

WE ourselves are nothing more than recombined bacteria with complementary capacities; evolved from bacteria that became Proctoctists first. (Check Serial Endosymbiotic Theory - SET, a process which has been clearly demonstrated to have occurred).

".... which is more advanced."

All we know for sure is that we're on the wrong track -but with the potential to do good- if and when we learn that the proper role of H. Sapiens on the planet is to study, comprehend and work WITH (rather than against) the myriad complementary life forms we share the earth with.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 AM on 09/27/2009
photo

I'm glad you pointed out this link because it provided a window into just how elastic this non-story can be stretched when commingled with wild eyed speculation and wishful thinking. Our sample data from at least two samples show the primordial lunar magma ocean reached a melting temperature far exceeding the boiling point of water and this continued to crystallization and cooling of the lunar surface. Results- water on the Moon would be different from terrestrial water just as lunar quartz and lunar phlogopite share some similarities but different from their terrestrial equivalents. But they all share one common thread having formed volatile free reduced conditions..........................no water.

Further the data show that halogens-odd number atoms replaced hydrogen where one would normally find H to form mineral structures resulting in an anhydrous phlogopite found only on the Moon. Result-lunar phlogopite is a high temperature three dimensional framework silicate while on earth it is a hydrated sheet silicate.....obviously.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 09/24/2009
- AtheistUS I'm a Fan of AtheistUS 79 fans permalink
photo

Thanks for explanations. I want to look into more detail, but I agree - seems these news do not throw away anything of what was known before. Low gravity, no atmosphere (hence no pressure), temperature extremes - it cannot be water in same condition as can be found somewhere under soil in Mars.

Not sure if this will be practically important either. Nobody gonna live on Moon except for short periods of time out of absolute necessity - like supporting in future some robotically managed mining of Helium-3, or (again ronotically managed) observatories. People will not live in conditions of low gravity, it is just too unhealthy. Rotational habitats at Lagrange points has much more chance as out of Earth settlements (just as insurance for humans against some big catastrophe).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 09/24/2009

They didnt note that it was a NASA instrument onbaord the Indian satellite but hey, they are British. Also they said it was confirmed by two other probes without mentioning NASA. heh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 09/24/2009
photo

World Net Daily reports......GOD PROVIDES THE GIFT OF WATER TO THE MOON IN RESPONSE TO RECENT DARWIN MOVIE BEING REJECTED BY AMERICAN DISTRIBUTORS!!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 09/24/2009
- somsoc I'm a Fan of somsoc 64 fans permalink
photo

Now what will the looney right wing fundies say, when will America become the educated nation that Thomas Jefferson envisioned and when will it shed the chains of religious anti-intellectual anti-education irrational posture?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 PM on 09/24/2009
photo

What you said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 09/24/2009
- C0Y0TE2 I'm a Fan of C0Y0TE2 28 fans permalink
photo

less than 25% of Americans have a college education
50% of Americans have literacy rates so low as to be barely functional.
14% - 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate, depending on who did the testing
-----------------------------

America is #27 down the scale of literacy rates in the world, Iceland being typically #1 or #2 at 99% to 100% literacy.

The problem is that the Republicans, conservatives and neoconservatives NEED an ignorant citizenry to survive as a political force in America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 09/24/2009
- equianimi I'm a Fan of equianimi 12 fans permalink

I never thought of it like that... good point though.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 09/24/2009
- somsoc I'm a Fan of somsoc 64 fans permalink
photo

We know where FAUX gets its audience from now. Did you read about the HS test scores in OK and AZ. Only 27% could name the 1st President of the USA and only 12% knew how many justices are on the Supreme Court.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 09/24/2009

The Man in the Moon just couldn't hold his water ... ;-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 09/24/2009
photo

maybe it's just Booty Sweat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 09/24/2009
photo

Well, if you take some types of meteorites and burn them, you do get a few drops of water coming out, so water on the moon doesn't seem that unlikely. And as far as sending people just to look for the trace water, it is far cheaper and definitely safer to send a probe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 09/24/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect