Yes, There's Water on the Moon

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Use Planck units. All quantities are dimensionless in Planck units. It is always necessary to specify the units. Density changes with temperature and pressure after all.


Niflmir, when it comes to density, it is even better to use specific gravity. It doesn’t have units, and its value is same regardless of the system of measurement (Metric, British etc.).

And what you say does hold true in scientific journals. There when one talks of density, one has to specify temperature, pressure, units etc. The language is very exact in scientific papers.

However, in common speech among scientists, one hardly specifies units, temperature, pressure etc. each and every time. When one says that density of water is 1, I assume most scientist would know what is meant. It is 1 g/cc under appropriate conditions (which would be 4 degrees C, or even room temperature, one doesn’t have to be exact).

We are not writing in scientific journals here, most scientists and engineers do understand when somebody says that density of water is 1.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Actually, Hillary said he climbed Everest not because it was there, but because he, "wanted to prove it could be done". There's a difference. I think it'd be best if you would just quit assuming things.
(those who have heard of the cgs system, that is)
For someone who claims to be an engineer and implies he knows everything there is to know about science and can speak for all science, he should realize that there probably isn't a scientist on the planet that uses the Imperial system ordinarily because the metric system is far better. So it's pretty safe to say that they've all heard of the cgs system.:roll:
They do recycle pee.
There are precautions taken concerning importing unknown and known pathogens back to Earth when people go into space. It's called quarantine. DUH! And yes, there is always a margin of error from quarantine procedures, but I bet quarantine for astronauts is pretty meticulous.
Water not bulky to ship? Bulky is a relative term. It is shipped because it is required to sustain life bulky or not.
But you are right, it is lighter than other materials sent into space; like a lot of plastics, metal, etc. But it is the heaviest item by volume shipped that sustains life. Dried food is lighter, as is air.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Units are implied, Tonington, all the scientists and engineers know the units of density. I am sure most scientists and engineers would figure out that when somebody says that density of water is one, what is meant is 1 g/cc (those who have heard of the cgs system, that is). I wouldn’t have thought that it is necessary to specify the units of density. Density of water 1 means 1 g/cc, 1000 means K/M3.

At least I haven’t come across a scientist or an engineer who didn’t know the units of density (of course, with falling education standards these days, one never knows).

You're right of course. What's the point. :roll:

Oh, maybe things like:
CNN - Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter - September 30, 1999

And how many manned flights are of one year duration? The only manned missions have been to moon, lasting perhaps one week, and the cost of carrying water is minimal (compared to overall costs). For manned mission to Mars etc., the water on moon won’t be of any help.
No $hit. Water on the moon means jack to those going to Mars. Water on the moon could be very valuable to astronauts going to the moon. The savings in weight could mean more hydroponic units. It could mean all sorts of extra supplies. How you can denigrate savings in weight on a limited payload is incomprehensible.

Water costs money, but is by no means bulky. Cost of carrying water is insignificant when compared with the overall costs. On a manned mission to the moon (which is the only trip where water on moon’s surface would be relevant), cost of carrying water is small compared to the overall costs.
Do you even know what an opportunity cost is? And what's wrong with saving a few million tax payer dollars?

Do you think they create machines to purify urine for $hits( or pisses) and giggles?

I thought I was stubborn...
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Niflmir, when it comes to density, it is even better to use specific gravity. It doesn’t have units, and its value is same regardless of the system of measurement (Metric, British etc.).

Again, you are just being silly. Specific gravity is just giving the numeric value of the density in units where the reference density (water) equals 1. There is a big difference between unitless and dimensionless. Specifically, specific gravity is dimensionless but not unitless.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Again, you are just being silly. Specific gravity is just giving the numeric value of the density in units where the reference density (water) equals 1. There is a big difference between unitless and dimensionless. Specifically, specific gravity is dimensionless but not unitless.


And just what is the difference between unitless and dimensionless? Tell me, which units does specific gravity have? Those of length? Weight? Time? Which? Specific gravity is density divided by density and as such has no units. Specific gravity is just a number (like say, Mach number)
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Water on the moon could be very valuable to astronauts going to the moon. The savings in weight could mean more hydroponic units.

And why would water be valuable to astronauts on the moon, Tonington? Is anybody planning for colonization of the moon? And even if they were, do you think astronauts are crazy enough to drink the water on the moon untested? As I said, it will require very detailed and meticulous testing to make sure that it is safe, that there are no unidentified pathogens in the moon water. If NASA mandated that astronauts drink the moon water after minimal testing, there would be rebellion.

The moon water would have to be brought to earth, a lot of time would have to be spent testing it, and only then it may be suitable for consumption. To say that manned colonies on Moon would be able to drink the water on the moon is a big stretch.

It could mean all sorts of extra supplies. How you can denigrate savings in weight on a limited payload is incomprehensible.

Again, how much? The trip to the Moon lasted maybe a week. What is the percentage of cost of transporting water for a week as compared to the total cost? I haven’t looked it up, but my guess would be that it is minimal ( a few million as opposed to a tens of billions total cost). The money saved probably would not justify the risk associated with drinking moon water.

Do you think they create machines to purify urine for $hits( or pisses) and giggles?

Say what?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Anyway, if we are discussing space flight (I think we have established that water is not really all that heavy compared to other materials), who in their right mind would drink water obtained on the surface of the moon? Who knows what unknowns pathogens, bacteria it contains?

It would have all the potential of unleashing something like Ebola virus, or the Black Plague into the world. The purification methods are not foolproof, there is no ironclad guarantee that some kind of pathogen will not slip through.

Water on the moon won’t be fit for drinking for years or even decades, until there has been thorough research on it to make sure that it is not going to introduce any unknown and malignant pathogens or germs on earth.

No, I don’t see the water on the moon making much difference to the space travel, at least not in the short term.

Fact is, water is a key ingredient for fuel and space travel. So even if we can't drink the water on the Moon, it can be used for fuel. This is no minor deal.

How do people get this idea that water is not heavy? Carry a knapsack of it around all day long and get back to me.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Water on the moon changes everything this article says.

How astronauts could 'harvest' water on the moon - space - 25 September 2009 - New Scientist

How astronauts could 'harvest' water on the moon

Newly confirmed water on the moon could help sustain lunar astronauts and even propel missions to Mars, if harvesting it can be made practical. A microwave device being developed by NASA could do just that.
Three spacecraft – India's Chandrayaan-1 and NASA's Cassini and Deep Impact probes – have detected the absorption of infrared light at a wavelength that indicates the presence of either water or hydroxyl, a molecule made up of a hydrogen and an oxygen atom. All found the signature to be stronger at the poles than at lower latitudes.
Some of these molecules may be created continuously when solar wind protons – hydrogen ions – bind to oxygen atoms in the lunar soil. Comet impacts may also have brought water to the moon.
Water delivered by comets or generated by the solar wind could randomly diffuse over time into permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles, which were recently measured to be colder than Pluto
.
"Once it gets in there, it's not going to come out," says Carle Pieters of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, lead scientist for the NASA-built instrument that made the Chandrayaan-1 measurements.
'Railroad to space'

So far, the water does not appear to be very abundant – a baseball-field-sized swathe of lunar soil might yield only "a nice glass of water", Pieters told New Scientist.
But if it could be harvested, lunar astronauts could use it as drinking water and split it into oxygen and hydrogen to make rocket fuel for their return journeys. That would slash launch costs, since it would reduce the amount of fuel they would need to lug with them from Earth.
Rocket fuel produced on the moon might even help mount a human mission to Mars. Because of the moon's weaker gravity, it would take less energy to loft fuel into space for a Mars mission from the lunar surface than it would from Earth.
"It completely changes the spaceflight paradigm," says Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. "It's like building a transcontinental railroad to space."
Cold plate

But how do you extract water that is likely locked up as small concentrations of ice in the lunar soil? Microwaves could provide the key, according to work by Edwin Ethridge of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and William Kaukler of the University of Alabama, both in Huntsville, who first demonstrated the technique in 2006.
They used an ordinary microwave oven to zap simulated lunar soil that had been cooled to moon-like temperatures of -150 °C.
Keeping the soil in a vacuum to simulate lunar conditions, they found that heating it to just -50 °C with microwaves made the water ice sublimate, or transform directly from solid to vapour. The vapour then diffused out from higher-pressure pores in the soil to the low-pressure vacuum above.
On the moon, the vapour could be collected by holding a cold metal plate above the soil. The rising water vapour would then condense as frost onto the cold plate and "you could scrape it off", Kaukler says.
Baking and processing dry lunar soil at high temperatures could also release oxygen and hydrogen for rocket fuel or other uses. But that would take about 100 times as much energy as extracting them from native lunar water, Spudis says: "Everything becomes easier and cheaper and quicker."
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
It doesn't sound like the water on the moon would be readily available to astronauts on the moon, at least in the early going. The machinery to extract tiny amounts of water from huge amounts of soil would be far too bulky and costly to be effective.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
It doesn't sound like the water on the moon would be readily available to astronauts on the moon, at least in the early going. The machinery to extract tiny amounts of water from huge amounts of soil would be far too bulky and costly to be effective.

In terms of known technology, you'd be right. 40 years ago did you ever think you'd be comfortable with a computer resting on your lap?