....The links to the data and leaked studies showWhy a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will free up cash for Flexible Exploration ....
Quote ... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...I thought we were looking for a place to live so to spread the risk of living in one place, and for resources with which to generate wealth in order to live comfortably. But we need more data. ...What would be the keystone piece of data about the Moon? Do we need to know whether or not liquid water exists at some depth, or is it enough to know whether or not near surface ice exists in the polar craters? Do we need to know whether or not mankind on the moon will spread across the surface living in surface habs, like houses, or will bore down under the protection of the surface living in underground (?) cities. ...But do we need to know this next? If so, then how do we find out? Can it be done remotely or do we need to dig, drill or blast? Where should we look, and how deep should we look irrespective of the required technology and equipment? If this is not next on the agenda, what is?
... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...
Quote ... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...But we need more data. ...But do we need to know this next? If so, then how do we find out? Can it be done remotely or do we need to dig, drill or blast? Where should we look, and how deep should we look irrespective of the required technology and equipment? If this is not next on the agenda, what is?
Quote from: HappyMartian on 07/30/2012 08:13 amYes Warren, I too appreciate "The Emperor's New Clothes" and since 1837 that simple story by Hans Christian Andersen has taught the lesson of how some folks in various leadership positions don't want to appear foolish or think too deeply or ask any questions at all about the obviously nonsensical behavior and illogical proclamations of their Grand Pooh-bah. From such grandiose and easily duped Grand Pooh-bahs we get tragic wars, bankrupt nations, misdirected space programs, and various other types of goofy zig zagging national policies.Further human field work research to prioritize the tapping of the strategically located Lunar water, volatiles, and other resources would be the logical and commercially smart thing to do, if logic and commerce had anything to do with the vague blind alley asteroid and Mars space policy formulated and articulated by our Grand Pooh-bah.Unfortunately, our current Grand Pooh-bah continues to display his disdain about the commercial prospects of our lovely and resource rich Moon. We Americans routinely install a new Grand Pooh-bah every four or eight years, so hopefully we will eventually get a Grand Pooh-bah that is actually interested in science instead of displaying an ongoing dismal ignorance about what is needed for a functional and commercially robust space exploration architecture. Oh really?Quote above leaves in sentences with GPB: Grand Pooh-bahGPB circa 2001-2009 along with the same Congress and forced NASA to build a HLV (Constellation)--throwing out the depot centric architecture. The budget impact of this choice was ~$3B/year. Robotic missions?!The links to the data and leaked studies showWhy a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will free up cash for Flexible Exploration GPB circa 2009- threw out Constellation, but *Congress* mandated the 70 to 130 metric tonne LV SLS as part of a compromse--no cash savings. SLS => something << envisioned HSFThe great news for those at NASA who want to start addressing the key Challenges and developing Exploration Hardware is that SLS now has a half life of 4 months. This will free LV dollars for hardware to explore for water and to start working on technologies for other BEO missions.Visiting an asteroid is only a step in the process and has nothing in common with the Constellation flags and footprints 2X/year 6 day lunar sorties. A asteroid mission requires most of the technologies needed for Mars, but with substantially less energy required. Think of the asteroid mission as a lunar flyby--a step in the overall process.But its flexible, if one does find a economically retrievable resource.....asteroid or lunar or ....One remaining key to the puzzle is a reasonable, cheap yearly IMLEO required by NASA to aid the so called 'commercial' lv sector, because as we all know, increasing the flight rate reduces costs. Again, this is accomplished by removing unneeded product lines, and using the cash for BEO hardware.Most people at NASA want to move *forward* to the proper, flexible architecture.
Yes Warren, I too appreciate "The Emperor's New Clothes" and since 1837 that simple story by Hans Christian Andersen has taught the lesson of how some folks in various leadership positions don't want to appear foolish or think too deeply or ask any questions at all about the obviously nonsensical behavior and illogical proclamations of their Grand Pooh-bah. From such grandiose and easily duped Grand Pooh-bahs we get tragic wars, bankrupt nations, misdirected space programs, and various other types of goofy zig zagging national policies.Further human field work research to prioritize the tapping of the strategically located Lunar water, volatiles, and other resources would be the logical and commercially smart thing to do, if logic and commerce had anything to do with the vague blind alley asteroid and Mars space policy formulated and articulated by our Grand Pooh-bah.Unfortunately, our current Grand Pooh-bah continues to display his disdain about the commercial prospects of our lovely and resource rich Moon. We Americans routinely install a new Grand Pooh-bah every four or eight years, so hopefully we will eventually get a Grand Pooh-bah that is actually interested in science instead of displaying an ongoing dismal ignorance about what is needed for a functional and commercially robust space exploration architecture.
Quote from: muomega0 on 07/30/2012 01:50 pm....The links to the data and leaked studies showWhy a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will free up cash for Flexible Exploration ....Hi muomega0!See the comments by Removed User« Reply #110 on: 12/29/2011 08:49 PM »His post is slightly below the one you referenced.Cheers!
Quote from: aero on 07/30/2012 01:33 pmQuote ... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...I thought we were looking for a place to live so to spread the risk of living in one place, and for resources with which to generate wealth in order to live comfortably. But we need more data. ...What would be the keystone piece of data about the Moon? Do we need to know whether or not liquid water exists at some depth, or is it enough to know whether or not near surface ice exists in the polar craters? Do we need to know whether or not mankind on the moon will spread across the surface living in surface habs, like houses, or will bore down under the protection of the surface living in underground (?) cities. ...But do we need to know this next? If so, then how do we find out? Can it be done remotely or do we need to dig, drill or blast? Where should we look, and how deep should we look irrespective of the required technology and equipment? If this is not next on the agenda, what is?Your line of thinking here is pretty good.My indictment of NASA's efforts over the last forty years has been summarized as the preference for profit over accomplishment. Although the word "pork" does not generally cross my lips in this regard, I am not unaware of the concept.We are looking for a place to attempt the experiment of living off planet. That's "we", as in we who are looking for that place to live. Water is one of those resources which could enable wealth generation, if a lot of other things go right. Water might be that "keystone piece of data" for Luna. It will be easier to live on the surface, even if we have to use some meters of regolith for radiation shielding. Windows and distant views are crucial for most people, and quite enticing if the views would be alien and wild.I think we do need to know more about that water next. Unfortunately, the current Pooh-bah and the aspiring Pooh-bah are not interested in Luna, thus have no interest in searching for a site for an outpost.
....Hap, I knew this would happen. Thanks a lot. 1000 words between you all, and the word "liquid" appears nowhere. Let's leave the Presidential politics out of it, please. There is the Space Policy subforum for that if you like. If you must discuss politics, then let's talk about the scientific politics of the astrobiology and planetary science community. Why is it politically incorrect to discuss the possibility of life on the Moon? Why is it career suicide to discuss the possibility? What happened to the ISRO leak that Chandrayaan found "signs of life"? There was no follow up. It disappeared down a black hole. E.g., the latest article quoting a lot of astrobiology rock stars: no mention of the Moon.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/alien-life-enceladus-saturn-moon
.....True, but for the practical purposes of this thread, we are only interested in the top 10 to 100 meters of the surface. It's not clear to me that there is a sharp dogleg in the thermal gradient where it drops down to 20 K/km immediately after the first 2 meters. I'm still researching this issue. Main point remains that it's possible, indeed likely, that liquid water in certain circumstances may reach as high as the base of the regolith is some locations. ....
Quote from: Warren Platts on 07/30/2012 08:27 pm....Hap, I knew this would happen. Thanks a lot. 1000 words between you all, and the word "liquid" appears nowhere. Let's leave the Presidential politics out of it, please. There is the Space Policy subforum for that if you like. If you must discuss politics, then let's talk about the scientific politics of the astrobiology and planetary science community. Why is it politically incorrect to discuss the possibility of life on the Moon? Why is it career suicide to discuss the possibility? What happened to the ISRO leak that Chandrayaan found "signs of life"? There was no follow up. It disappeared down a black hole. E.g., the latest article quoting a lot of astrobiology rock stars: no mention of the Moon.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/alien-life-enceladus-saturn-moonWarren, the topic of this thread is Liquid Water IN The Moon!, not life in the Moon.
I am willing to encourage folks to drill deep for that liquid Lunar water, and have done so in some of my previous posts, . The current Pooh-bah and the Pooh-bah wannabe don't seem inclined to do any drilling on the Moon for liquid water or evidence of life. Luckily, a bipartisan Luna first attitude in Congress seems to have us headed back to the Moon, and once we eventually get there we will do some drilling, and maybe even some very deep drilling for liquid water. Yep, for water, and maybe even life, we should drill deep and not just be "interested in the top 10 to 100 meters of the surface".
"Back in 1998, Onstott made the astonishing discovery that bacteria can thrive in pockets of hot water miles underground far below the depth at which living organisms were known to exist before. Ever since then, he's been spending his summers thousands of feet beneath the earth, in the bowels of South Africa's deepest gold mines, prospecting for other kinds of life in this lightless, hidden biosphere."And, "To prove the critters were truly worms from hell (rather than worms just visiting hell), Onstott and Borgonie had to tap into veins of water that had never been exposed to air. Sure enough, they found worms there as well."From: Could 'Worms from Hell' Mean There's Life in Space? By Michael D. Lemonick Wednesday, June 08, 2011At: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2076281,00.htmlDrill many kilometers deep into the Moon and find "veins" of liquid water and maybe life as well.Cheers!
{snip}That is so awful it's making me begin to get suspicious that the astrobiology rock stars really don't want to find life on another world. Maybe they're afraid that once they find it, the funding will dry up, so a nice 30 year mission to the Far Side of the Solar System is a good way to keep the cabbage flowing. But that's being really cynical on my part. We should have HSF capability to Lunar surface within the decade (it's still the law of the land to have a man on the Moon by 2020). We should start developing drilling technology now. {snip}
...So long as the President does not know the project is there he will not bother to cancel it.
That is so awful it's making me begin to get suspicious that the astrobiology rock stars really don't want to find life on another world. Maybe they're afraid that once they find it, the funding will dry up, so a nice 30 year mission to the Far Side of the Solar System is a good way to keep the cabbage flowing. But that's being really cynical on my part.
Until then NASA has to quietly develop landers, prospecting equipment, drills and refining machines. So long as the President does not know the project is there he will not bother to cancel it.
The exploration technology budget was radically large.
Speaking as an astrobiologist (though not yet a rock star), I have a hard time conceiving of an astrobiologist who didn't want to find life on another world- aside from the nice benefit of having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens, finding exolife would represent just the start of funding- after all, you're going to need multiple samples, a thorough investigation into the ecosystem of the organisms, lots and lots of gene sequencing, assuming there are genes to be sequenced. The reason Enceladus is getting a lot of attention is because we know with absolute certainty that there is both liquid water and organics there (although personally I'm skeptical that there is enough chemical energy in Enceladus's hydrothermal systems to support life, but I certainly could be wrong).The problem with going after the Moon for astrobiology is that, truth be told, it's not just a matter of following the water- you also need a lot of organics (and easily assimilated organics at that), and a source of energy. Organics have only been definitively detected in relatively trace amounts on the Moon's surface, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll necessarily be found in the subsurface (as they are believed to the result of micrometeorite and solar wind deposition). And as for energy, terrestrial biology uses a relatively narrow range of sources (although it's still surprisingly wide by everyday standards)- the most likely metabolic pathway for the Moon, based on simple availability, would be the reduction of iron, but you'd eventually run out of of Fe(III) to reduce, since there's no volatile oxygen available to reoxidize the Fe(II) and cycle it. It doesn't help that the Moon (at least at the surface) is predominantly silicon dioxide, which is about as biologically inert and inaccessible as you can get.The terrestrial deep subsurface bacteria mentioned earlier get by through an extremely slow metabolism (they may not reproduce for centuries, and it has been suggested that they may be effectively immortal), and by (we think) metabolizing high energy compounds produced by radioactive decay. And even then, the colonies that support nematodes are specifically mentioned as not being entirely isolated from the surface biosphere.Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much more of a stretch compared to Mars (where water and organic carbon are known to have existed in the past, and may still exist in some form), Europa (strongly suspected to have water and probably organics), and Enceladus (definitively known to have water and organics).
...Speaking as an astrobiologist (though not yet a rock star), I have a hard time conceiving of an astrobiologist who didn't want to find life on another world- aside from the nice benefit of having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens, finding exolife would represent just the start of funding- after all, you're going to need multiple samples, a thorough investigation into the ecosystem of the organisms, lots and lots of gene sequencing, assuming there are genes to be sequenced. The reason Enceladus is getting a lot of attention is because we know with absolute certainty that there is both liquid water and organics there (although personally I'm skeptical that there is enough chemical energy in Enceladus's hydrothermal systems to support life, but I certainly could be wrong).The problem with going after the Moon for astrobiology is that, truth be told, it's not just a matter of following the water- you also need a lot of organics (and easily assimilated organics at that), and a source of energy. Organics have only been definitively detected in relatively trace amounts on the Moon's surface, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll necessarily be found in the subsurface (as they are believed to the result of micrometeorite and solar wind deposition). And as for energy, terrestrial biology uses a relatively narrow range of sources (although it's still surprisingly wide by everyday standards)- the most likely metabolic pathway for the Moon, based on simple availability, would be the reduction of iron, but you'd eventually run out of of Fe(III) to reduce, since there's no volatile oxygen available to reoxidize the Fe(II) and cycle it. It doesn't help that the Moon (at least at the surface) is predominantly silicon dioxide, which is about as biologically inert and inaccessible as you can get.The terrestrial deep subsurface bacteria mentioned earlier get by through an extremely slow metabolism (they may not reproduce for centuries, and it has been suggested that they may be effectively immortal), and by (we think) metabolizing high energy compounds produced by radioactive decay. And even then, the colonies that support nematodes are specifically mentioned as not being entirely isolated from the surface biosphere.Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much more of a stretch compared to Mars (where water and organic carbon are known to have existed in the past, and may still exist in some form), Europa (strongly suspected to have water and probably organics), and Enceladus (definitively known to have water and organics).
...having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens...
Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- (1) we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much (2) more of a stretch compared to Mars (3) ... Europa ... and Enceladus ...
Quote from: KelvinZero on 07/31/2012 03:49 amThe exploration technology budget was radically large.Yep. Most people who can't understand why anyone would be against SLS seem to be completely unaware of what they gave up to have it.
5. Your point about iron reducing forms running out of iron is well taken, but I was thinking the most likely form would be methanogens feeding off of primoridial carbon dioxide and hydrogen released by the serpentinisation of olivine. (Alternatively, they could get hydrogen from water, and release oxygen--and this could in turn reoxidise Fe(II) and cycle it.) These are the sorts of organisms that live deep within the Earth's basalts (which are primarily composed of olivine). And there is actually a bit of empirical evidence to support this view: there is a mysterious diurnal pulse of methane that the Apollo science packages consistently detected; this is consistent with methanogens releasing methane that slowly makes its way to the surface. During the night it accumulates in the regolith, and then when warmed up by the Sun, it is released to the Lunar exosphere.Any thoughts you have on this subject are very welcome spacermase. Astrobiological expertise is definitely in short supply around here!
Actually, your serpentinization hypothesis is really intriguing- it's not something that had occurred to me, but you are correct, that would be entirely viable (although Fe cycling works better if you have sulfur available to act as an intermediary- the subglacial ecosystem I work on uses exactly that system, and has been stable for the last three million years or so despite being more or less cut off from the rest of the biosphere). The one tricky thing with it, however- and this has been a major bugaboo with the much-debated Martian methane findings- is that serpentinization can also generate methane abiotically. Either way, though, it does definitely suggest the presence of liquid water.Additionally, it occurred to me today that this could actually be a great opportunity for collaboration between lunar and Mars science- it is my personal suspicion, one that is shared with many others in my field, that if there's anything still kicking around on Mars, it's probably going to be buried either in the deep subsurface, or underneath the polar icecaps. Therefore, if we're going to go hunting for Martians, we're going to need some pretty serious drilling equipment, designed for non-terrestrial environments. I think you could make a good argument for the same approach on the Moon (if to practice for Mars, if for no other reason), and if any Selenites happen to serendipitously turn up, so much the better. (Although, with that said, a major obstacle with the previously mentioned idea of life being seeded from Earth on the the Moon occurred to me as well- on Earth, microbes probably infiltrated the deep subsurface using groundwater; on the Moon, no such route would be available, so anything that managed to make it to the Moon's surface would be pretty much stranded there until it either starved or was cooked. Alternatively, if lunar life exists, it may have a separate indigenous origin (which admittedly, from the astrobiological perspective, would be all kinds of awesome)- but that gets into the debate on how easy is it for life to form (do you just need water, organics, and energy, or is life more finnicky than that?), and we really don't know enough to say one way or the other).
...it is my personal suspicion, one that is shared with many others in my field, that if there's anything still kicking around on Mars, it's probably going to be buried either in the deep subsurface, or underneath the polar icecaps.
if lunar life exists, it may have a separate indigenous origin (which admittedly, from the astrobiological perspective, would be all kinds of awesome)- but that gets into the debate on how easy is it for life to form (do you just need water, organics, and energy, or is life more finnicky than that?), and we really don't know enough to say one way or the other).