The paper specifically offered the criteria for being reviewed by the paper’s analysts, namely they “tested” permanently shadowed regions (PSRs)…“The set selected for analysis in this study all have areas >100 km^2. The list of tested PSRs is presented in Table 1.“

So, if you examine this Table 1 list, you find 29 South Pole PSRs and 17 North Pole PSRs, which are ALL the PSRs they “tested” for that study (at least offered in the paper’s results). If you look at the list, there is no Shackleton Crater (which has an area of 350 km^2, well over the criteria limit of 100 km^2).

Also, if you look carefully at the locations, they get no closer than -88.6 deg latitude to the South Pole. They “test” craters AROUND Shackleton namely Shoemaker, Faustini, Sverdrup and de Gerlache, but not Shackleton. Curious.

They do offer polar maps of epithermal neutrons, but it is hard to correlate their “tested” results to the map based on the colors and PSR locations.

Whats the temperature of the moon twenty feet down. In the sunlit areas?

Interestingly the team of scientists behind the LEND instrument published a new paper this weekend. I will be writing about sometime in the next few weeks. They agree completely that there is evidence of water ice on the Moon, but their data does not place it in as many places or even in the same places as other instruments have suggested. They even detect evidence of water in non-permanently shadowed areas, and outline a scenario whereby water molecules might survive in such circumstances. And, as I have already noted, they generally find less evidence of water than past studies.

It is all very intriguing. I really don’t know if their data is definitive or trustworthy, but if I had to commit a large amount of funds for any missions to the Moon, I would be remiss if I simply dismissed it. Since they do find evidence of water in some of the same places as other instruments (Shoemaker and Cabeus craters for example), it seems logical to make those locations the high priority targets.

Hi Patrick,

“How long will unprotected ice last on the moon?”

The point is that the ice in the lunar Polar Regions is not “unprotected”. It is protected by virtue of being in permanently shaded areas that are referred to as Cold Traps. In these areas in the moons vacuum environment the temperatures are very cold and thus allow any ice there to be protected.

Hope this helps.

Joe

How long will unprotected ice last on the moon?

How long will ice protected by a meter of rigolith(sp?) survive one the moon?

A simple test should be able to be sent to the moon real cheap. We already have a place to do it and something could designed for a simple experiment.
Two sizable blocks of ice sent to ISS. One insulated and one not. Installed on a cheap platform outside the station. A camera on each to watch what happens.

Obviously the unprotected one will not last as long as the protected one but just how long will the protected one last. If it can’t last basically forever in the vacuum of space next to the station then it has little chance of lasting on the moon for a thousand years.

In my opinion the only ice available on the moon could only be pretty deep. Deeper than a meter at least.

Robert,

If any sarcasm I may have used irritates you I am truly sorry.

But the fact remains that (in this case for example) the “Spudis/Lavoie Plan” definitely calls for robotic precursor missions to analyze prospective sites. When individuals ignore that fact and state that they want robotic precursors done first it also irritates me. I will admit that kind of thing brings out the “worst” in me; however the original provocations might also bear a little scrutiny.

I know you disagree that there is significant water on the moon, but that should not extend privileges to others to repeatedly misstate someone’s (in this case Spudis) opinions and positions.

You might look at the post by pathfinder_01 below. First he accuses me of trying to dodge the subject (which was whether or not the proposed precursor missions would characterize the amount and nature of lunar ice at the selected locations) and then starts talking about diamond mining.

Ah nice way to dodge, but it states: “prospect the polar regions to identify suitable sites for resource mining and processing”

Suitability is more than is there ice present or not. There are resources on earth that are present but not easily mined like say diamonds in earth’s mantle. You can’t tell what is or is not a suitable place to mine without some detail (or idea) of how you plan to mine it. I mean for instance if you are expecting a rover to drive in and out of a crater, then the crater walls probably should not be too steep. If you are planning to lift material out the crater using a crane then the crater’s walls are less a problem, but the crater itself should not be too deep. Can the ground support the weight of the equipment or not? How much power do I need and how will it be supplied are all factors in just how suitable an area is.

“If you really believe you know more about what is required to do practical lunar geology by tele-roboitcs than Spudis and Lavoie (who headed up the Constellation Systems Robotic Precursor program) maybe you should educate them.’

I know enough to know that putting communications and navigations assets in lunar orbit ahead of determining if you can mine the stuff or not is a waste. It would be like building a mining town in Kentucky before determining if there is coal present.

Joe,

Let me quote from each and all of your recent comments in connection with the water-on-the-Moon story:

“Ah step two is to do exactly what you say. If you want misunderstand short declarative sentences that is of course your choice.”

“If you really believe you know more about what is required to do practical lunar geology by tele-roboitcs than Spudis and Lavoie (who headed up the Constellation Systems Robotic Precursor program) maybe you should educate them.”

“Yet Coastal Ron continues to try to create an argument on the subject. That should tell you what you need to know about how seriously to take Coastal Ron’s comments.”

“Yes, that would mean there is no bottom line only points of contention to be endlessly debated. I am sure that works for you as that is what you like to do. Have fun.”

“Basing a ‘scientific’ judgment on ‘intuition’ and a ‘skeptical’ nature is in large part how people for centuries remained convinced that the earth was flat.”

Do you see a pattern? I do. Rather than debate these points rationally, based on your knowledge and opinion, you seem to relish putting everyone down, insulting them in a sarcastic and sometimes childish manner. This is not helpful and does your arguments no good at all. If anything, it discredits you. And I do not mean this as an insult. I think you are better than this.

I really appreciate your contributions to Behind the Black. You know your stuff and provide a good voice for opposing points of view. I would appreciate, however, if you would cut back on the sarcasm and insults and focus instead on simply proving your points based on actual data. I want the discussion here to rise up above the typical troll-like flamewars we see on too many other websites.

Thank you.

“Ah step one should have been verify that there is ICE there and that the quantity is sufficent to mine.”

Ah step two is to do exactly what you say. If you want misunderstand short declarative sentences that is of course your choice.

“That does not need a fleet of communications and navigational assets. …”

If you really believe you know more about what is required to do practical lunar geology by tele-roboitcs than Spudis and Lavoie (who headed up the Constellation Systems Robotic Precursor program) maybe you should educate them.

Ah step one should have been verify that there is ICE there and that the quantity is sufficent to mine. That does not need a fleet of communications and navigational assets. (i.e. The probe could communicate directly to earth or use a lunar orbiting probe to relay the information).

Step 2 depends alot on information gathered from step three. How do you know what regions are suitable when you don’t know what steps you are going to take to mine it? On earth there are mulitple methods of mining things.

Below is a link to what Coastal Ron refers to as the “Spudis/Lavoie” Plan.
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Bibliography/p/102.pdf

On page seven you will find a section titled: A. Phase I: Resource Prospecting

The first paragraph reads:

“To begin our return to the Moon, we first launch a series of robotic spacecraft to: 1) emplace critical
communications and navigational assets; 2) prospect the polar regions to identify suitable sites for resource mining and processing; and 3) demo the steps necessary to find, extract, process and store water and its derivative products (Fig. 2).”

This fulfills everything Coastal Ron says he wants. Yet Coastal Ron continues to try to create an argument on the subject. That should tell you what you need to know about how seriously to take Coastal Ron’s comments.

“The converse is true too Joe.”

Yes, that would mean there is no bottom line only points of contention to be endlessly debated. I am sure that works for you as that is what you like to do. Have fun.

“Basing a “scientific” judgment on” intuition” and a “skeptical” nature is in large part how people for centuries remained convinced that the earth was flat.”

The converse is true too Joe.

And because there is so little hard evidence, it makes no sense to fund a $87B program (the Spudis/Lavoie plan) around mining lunar water until 1) we know there is enough water to mine (i.e. hard evidence, not conjecture), and 2) we know there is a reason to mine and process large volumes of water (i.e. demonstrated demand, not wishful thinking).

Basing a “scientific” judgment on” intuition” and a “skeptical” nature is in large part how people for centuries remained convinced that the earth was flat.

But until we get there and find out, we won’t know. The least risky way of doing that is with robotic explorers, maybe even cousins of the MSL currently on it’s way to Mars.