DIY News writes "Lunar scientists have already returned to the moon, using the Hubble Space Telescope and old Apollo Program rock samples to begin prospecting for useful ores. Locating ores rich in oxygen and metals is seen as the first step in making the next decade's human return to the moon more self sufficient and cost effective. Some wavelengths of UV are filtered out by Earth's atmosphere, which is why Hubble can do the job better than a ground-based telescope." Hubble Zooms In On Moon Minerals Log in/Create an Account | Top | 151 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 151 comments 0: 148 comments 1: 120 comments 2: 86 comments 3: 26 comments 4: 16 comments 5: 8 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Hollywood basement ? (Score:5, Interesting) by bushboy (112290) <sturdybigchairs@furniture.for.satan.com> on Thursday October 20, @02:56PM (#13838255) (https://furniture.for.satan.com/) So how about a hires shot of the flag and footprints so we can all say "I TOLD YOU SO !" [ Reply to ThisRe:Hollywood basement ? by boldtbanan (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:59PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by cloudmaster (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @03:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Hollywood basement ? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:04PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by advocate_one (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:13PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by Viper Daimao (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:16PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by rleibman (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:18PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by kmhebert (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:19PMWhy so long? by Wyatt Earp (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:15PM Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution (Score:5, Informative) by fizzup (788545) on Thursday October 20, @03:15PM (#13838433) The HST does not have sufficient resolution for this. The biggest thing that astronauts left on the moon is on the order of 1m, and the moon is 4e8 meters away, for an angular size of about 2.5e-9 radians. To resolve this at a wavelength of 800nm, you need a circular mirror with a diameter of 390m = 1.22 * 8e-7 / 2.5e-9. It would be cheaper to go and look, rather than to build a mirror that big. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution (Score:4, Funny) by Cheapy (809643) on Thursday October 20, @03:29PM (#13838545) You sir, need to find a wife. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution (Score:5, Funny) by EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) * on Thursday October 20, @05:01PM (#13839382) (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll414.xml | Last Journal: Friday July 22, @05:57PM) "Honey, I love you, but I'm tired of you talking about this stuff. Why don't you talk to your nerd friends on Slashweb or whatever it's called". [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution (Score:4, Funny) by DigiShaman (671371) on Thursday October 20, @03:54PM (#13838755) (http://www.contoso.com/) Your uber knowledge of napkin math makes me feel stupid :(I'm not worthy...I'm not worthy...I'm not worthy! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by AndyG314 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:34PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by mfrank (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by hikerhat (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:53PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by EntropyEngine (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:03PMTotally sufficient resolution, you are on crack by Medievalist (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @06:31PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by ajpr (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:34PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by feijai (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @07:27PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by nurb432 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:37PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by MrScience (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @08:10PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by toddestan (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:15PMRe:Hollywood basement ? Insufficient resolution by mbrother (Score:2) Friday October 21, @12:21AM Re:Hollywood basement ? (Score:5, Informative) by Smidge204 (605297) on Thursday October 20, @03:38PM (#13838617) The highest resolution Hubble is capable of is 0.0072 arc-seconds.An arc-second is defined such that a 1 meter object will appear as 1 arc-second at a distance of 206,256 meters.The distance from Hubble (~600km orbit) to the moon (~384,400km) is ... well, about 383,800 kmSo if Hubble produced an image with 1 pixel-per-arcsecond resolution, a pixel would be 1.86 kilometers. But the highest resolution is 0.0072 arc-seconds, or about 140 times better than that.So the smallest object Hubble can see on the moon is 13 meters wide.Neither the lander module or the rover are that big. Not even close. Good luck finding something that's less than a pixel wide!=Smidge= [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Hollywood basement ? by Ticklemonster (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:49PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by Mente (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:02PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by shis-ka-bob (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:41PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by timster (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:34PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by mfrank (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:52PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by Medievalist (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:44PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by uberdave (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:16PMRe:what? by imsabbel (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Hollywood basement ? by Jugalator (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:50PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by VENONA (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:42PMRe:Hollywood basement ? by mfrank (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:56PM Thank goodness (Score:5, Interesting) by no reason to be here (218628) <todd DOT ferguson AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday October 20, @02:56PM (#13838259) (http://www.mypetmachine.com/) I sure am glad that such a waste of valuable resources like the Hubble is going to be scrapped soon. The sooner we stop doing such useless things with it like valuable research that will directly result in more efficient space travel, the better. [ Reply to ThisSarcasm appreciated. by Karma_fucker_sucker (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:05PM Re:Sarcasm appreciated. (Score:4, Funny) by Martin Blank (154261) on Thursday October 20, @03:18PM (#13838460) (Last Journal: Tuesday November 26, @08:28PM) they would have to bring ... troupsThere's going to be a circus?Sign me up! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Sarcasm appreciated. by ZachPruckowski (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @03:27PMRe:Sarcasm appreciated. by Martin Blank (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @06:10PMRe:Sarcasm appreciated. by CheshireCatCO (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Thank goodness by Hans Lehmann (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:33PMRe:Thank goodness by no reason to be here (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @09:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Time to set up a mining colony (Score:3, Funny) by EmperorKagato (689705) * <sakamura@gmail.com> on Thursday October 20, @02:58PM (#13838274) (http://www.icstars.org/) "We require more minerals" [ Reply to This Re:Time to set up a mining colony (Score:4, Funny) by Rude Turnip (49495) <{rudeturnip} {at} {valdot.org}> on Thursday October 20, @03:05PM (#13838342) (http://valdot.org/) SCV good to go, Sir! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Time to set up a mining colony by paco3791 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:18PMRe:Time to set up a mining colony by Viper Daimao (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:06PMRe:Time to set up a mining colony by wan-fu (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:31PM cool, took long enough (Score:1) by globaljustin (574257) on Thursday October 20, @03:00PM (#13838288) mine the moon already!Seriously, this is good news.  The rovers planned later should send some nice live pictures for the kids at home.  The sooner we use resources off-planet the better.props to the NASA team. [ Reply to ThisRe:cool, took long enough by sillybilly (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @10:40PM Article was light on images... (Score:3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @03:00PM (#13838289) here's some more [google.com]. [ Reply to This Zoom (Score:3, Interesting) by mboverload (657893) on Thursday October 20, @03:00PM (#13838290) (Last Journal: Tuesday July 13, @02:54PM) I wasn't aware Hubble could focus to so close of an object. Anyone have details about this? [ Reply to ThisRe:Zoom by cloudmaster (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:02PMRe:Zoom by RapidEye (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:05PMIt's all relative by benhocking (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:08PM Re:Zoom (Score:5, Insightful) by WhiteBandit (185659) on Thursday October 20, @03:16PM (#13838443) (http://rockbandit.net/) Define close???The Hubble orbits 350 miles above the earth and the average distance to the moon is 238,857 miles.I'd hardly consider 238,500 (apprx) miles very close =-)Considering the Hubble routinely examines objects hundred of millions to billions of light years away from Earth (See the See the Hubble Deep Field survey [stsci.edu]), I'd consider ~239K miles to be right the fuck on top of. ;) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Zoom by RapidEye (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @08:59PMRe:Zoom by WhiteBandit (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:19PMRe:Zoom by RapidEye (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @09:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Zoom (Score:5, Informative) by twiddlingbits (707452) on Thursday October 20, @03:11PM (#13838400) I worked on HST software but it was years ago so I may be a bit off base but here is what I recall.The Cameras on the Hubble don't really focus like we think of with a 35mm camera. They take exposures of various durations and with certain filters in place. Then the raw data is postprocessed on the ground and based on the raw data, the wavelength filters, etc. then "image" is constructed.With the UV "camera" what they would be doing is taking a (TBD time) open shutter picture of the moon with the filters set to only let UV wavelengths pass to the detectors. The detectors will record the intensity of the light hitting each "pixel" of the camera ("binning") and send that data to the ground for processing. If you go to NASAwatch.com there is an article about this that actually links to the experiment definitions, process, etc that was submitted by the researcher in order to get the (very limited) time with the Instrument. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Zoom by WormholeFiend (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:15PMRe:Zoom by X-rated Ouroboros (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:53PMRe:Zoom by uberdave (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. You just know.. (Score:1) by MaXiMiUS (923393) on Thursday October 20, @03:00PM (#13838291) (http://null.dudewitha.com/) They're going to use the moon as some sort-of nuclear byproduct dumping site or something eventually. At least, once Microsoft buys half of it and McDonalds 1/4 of it. Wait.. I remember a site where you could buy land on the moon.. wtf? [ Reply to ThisSpace 1999 by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:12PMRe:You just know.. by civilizedINTENSITY (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:32PMRe:You just know.. by Dan Ost (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:51PM The worlds most boring holiday snaps... (Score:4, Funny) by MosesJones (55544) on Thursday October 20, @03:02PM (#13838317) (http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/) I've always liked Hubble, not only for pushing back the bounds of our knowledge (and more importantly our ignorance, its made us realise there is much more we don't understand) but also for the very very cool pictures that get people interested in science.This is a very useful and productive use of Hubble... but will it help it get more funding? I'm not sure that the chaps in the Whitehouse will get excited about finding rocks on the Moon unless they can claim that THIS was where Saddam had is WMDs.Rock A - No oxygenRock B - No oxygenRock C - No oxygenRock D - A bit of metalRock E - A bit of oxygenRock F - No oxygenWhen they find something the photo is going to be rubbish, even worse than when scientists try and get people excited about red dust on Mars.I suggest that they do the colouring job on the Moon that they always do on the star systems, and make it look way cooler..."Rock X not only has a large amount of gold, shown in gold, and oxygen, shown in blue, but also various other minerals, show in pretty rainbow colours and is resting on a mauve background which represents the futility of mans existance and the desire to expand our knowledge" [ Reply to ThisRe:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by Mr2cents (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:21PM Re:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... (Score:4, Insightful) by SengirV (203400) on Thursday October 20, @03:23PM (#13838502) What are you going to complain about when W is not longer in the whitehouse? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by civilizedINTENSITY (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:36PMRe:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by StupidHelpDeskGuy (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:52PMRe:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by slashname3 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by Somegeek (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:34PMRe:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by toddestan (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:19PMRe:The worlds most boring holiday snaps... by TummyX (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @10:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. A little OT but... (Score:1, Offtopic) by Create an Account (841457) on Thursday October 20, @03:04PM (#13838332) I wish we could have a hybrid approach to space flight. Start with an electro-magnetic rail gun to launch bulk supplies and massy stuff (girders, sheet metal, oxygen, water, spare fuel) into orbit, coupled with rocket launches to carry fragile stuff (people, computers). With cheap bulk-to-orbit, put together a real space station and get working on the space elevator from the top down. While we're up there, how about we start work on power satellites? We can reduce the cost of electricity, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and fight global warming in one fell swoop! Once we have cheap bulk-to-orbit lots of things become feasible. The first private company to achieve this cheaply will be disgustingly profitable. Why, oh why could't I have been born filthy rich? [ Reply to ThisRe:A little OT but... by Admiral Ackbar 8 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:08PMRe:A little OT but... by everphilski (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @03:09PMRe:A little OT but... by DougWebb (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:49PMRe:A little OT but... by civilizedINTENSITY (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @03:57PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A little OT but... by Usquebaugh (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:12PMRe:A little OT but... by Create an Account (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:20PMRe:A little OT but... by Somegeek (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @06:39PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Polishing Up A Mistake? (Score:1) by chromozone (847904) on Thursday October 20, @03:17PM (#13838450) After NASA's new directore Michael Griffin recently called the space shuttle and space station "mistakes" I would bet that this story was cultered-up to soften his comments.From http://www.wftv.com/news/5032927/detail.html [wftv.com]KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. -- There were stunning comments made Wednesday by NASA's new leader: Michael Griffin believes the space shuttle and the international space station programs were mistakes. Now, Space Coast workers are firing back.People at Kennedy Space Center were generally shocked to read what Griffin said. NASA's administrator has said before he believed the shuttle was flawed, but 14 people gave their lives to the shuttle program and other people who devoted their lives said Griffin went too far."I saw that this morning and immediately spilled coffee all over myself," said Charles Mars.Mars spent years working on the planning and development of the space shuttle and the space station and when he read NASA's administrator called the programs a mistake, he took it personally."You know, I get angry. I can't believe I was working on a mistake. Two mistakes, shuttle and the space station. No, not a mistake," Mars said. [ Reply to ThisRe:Polishing Up A Mistake? by Scott7477 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:52PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. "Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" (Score:2) by kmahan (80459) on Thursday October 20, @03:17PM (#13838451) A classic cartoon: http://dennisglass.com/cartoons15.html [dennisglass.com]So did they have to use a flash to get a pic of the dark side of the moon? [ Reply to ThisRe:"Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" by fishybell (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:19PM Mooninites (Score:1) by waterlogged (210759) <crusseyNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday October 20, @03:17PM (#13838459) And the only thing we get a clear image of is a blocky looking dude flicking us off as hard as he possibly can. [ Reply to ThisRe:Mooninites by nb caffeine (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:41PM Is NASA trying to make geeks look bad? (Score:1) by saskboy (600063) on Thursday October 20, @03:27PM (#13838532) (http://www.abandonedstuff.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 20, @11:44AM) All this time, geeks on Slashdot have been telling people that the Hubble isn't equipped to look at the Moon, and that it can't resolve a detail as fine as the Apollo landers.I haven't RTFA, so I assume it's looking for minerals through some sort of spectographic analysis, much like we use telescopes to determine the matter composition of distant light sources like stars? [ Reply to ThisNo, NASA is not trying to make geeks look bad. by douglips (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:03PMRe:Is NASA trying to make geeks look bad? by CheshireCatCO (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:14PMRe:Is NASA trying to make geeks look bad? by saskboy (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:25PMRe:Is NASA trying to make geeks look bad? by CheshireCatCO (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:53PM The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:4, Funny) by goldspider (445116) on Thursday October 20, @03:33PM (#13838575) (http://goldspider.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday March 18, @11:54AM) It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down. [ Reply to ThisRe:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by CapnGrunge (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. I remember... (Score:4, Interesting) by Anonym1ty (534715) on Thursday October 20, @04:03PM (#13838818) (http://www.w9udu.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 18, @01:28PM) What happened? I remember when we were told that aiming Hubble at the Moon or the Earth would destroy it's sensitive instruments. [ Reply to ThisRe:I remember... by faxafloi (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @04:50PMRe:I remember... by Anonym1ty (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @06:03PM Key points from the actual article (Score:5, Interesting) by Scott7477 (785439) on Thursday October 20, @04:04PM (#13838832) (http://walkingencyclopedia.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 27, @12:12AM) "The latest lunar prospecting first required aiming Hubble at Apollo landing sites and looking with special filters that showed only subtle UV signatures reflected by soils there.By then comparing the Hubble data to actual laboratory-studied samples that astronauts brought back from the same sites, they were able to get a clear idea just how these same minerals look through Hubble's eye. The Hubble Space Telescope can discriminate very subtle color differences on the surface," said planetary scientist Mark Robinson of Northwestern University. So subtle that Hubble can see mineralogical differences in rocks that look identical in color to the human eye, he said."So the Hubble can in fact discern with a usable degree of precision...."At Aristarchus, Hubble detected what appeared to be an abundance of the mineral ilmenite, which is good news, said NASA lunar scientist Michael Wargo. By heating or passing an electrical current through ilmenite, it's a simple matter to release oxygen, which can be used for breathing and for rocket fuel, he explained."It will be easy to extract at least one useful element....Ahhh...I'll just include the rest of the article."In some ways the Hubble prospecting is just the bare beginning of the next phase of lunar exploration, said Garvin. The next step will be taken by the robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is being built to map out the moon's resources in details.A second lunar probe is also being planned, all before the planned return of humans to the moon by about 2018, as directed by President George W. Bush's vision for humans in space.In a sense, said Robinson, the Hubble prospecting experiment is giving scientists the first taste of how to interpret the deluge of lunar data that will be coming from those spacecraft."It will be a Niagara Falls of data," he said. "This is really going to jump start our ability to understand this data.""So this Hubble use is part of what seems to me to be a sound plan for preparing to build a base on the moon. [ Reply to ThisRe:Key points from the actual article by VENONA (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:17PMRe:Key points from the actual article by khallow (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:41PM Make the Moon into Swiss Cheese? (Score:2, Informative) by BoldAndBusted (679561) on Thursday October 20, @04:19PM (#13838992) (http://www.boldandbusted.com/) So, has there been any substantive discussion about how we might not want to look up at the Moon and have it begin to actually look like Swiss Cheese? Why would we want to destroy such an object that we have seen the same face of since Humans began (whether that's 10,000 years ago, or 1 million...)? Do we really want to see strip mines when we look up at the Moon? Or the lights of night mining operations breaking the apparent illusion of "phases of the Moon"? Will we only mine the side of the moon facing away from Earth?Many people were very upset when the Taliban in Afghanistan blew up the great Bamiyan Buddha statues, carved over 2,000 years ago. The Moon was made over 4 billion years ago. Isn't it worth decrying defacement of the Moon *even more* than those comparatively young works of art? [ Reply to ThisRe:Make the Moon into Swiss Cheese? by The Queen (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:03PMRe:Make the Moon into Swiss Cheese? by Microlith (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @07:23PMRe:Make the Moon into Swiss Cheese? by BoldAndBusted (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:43PM If we pointed it at England could I say... (Score:1) by Astronomypete (794675) on Thursday October 20, @04:21PM (#13839007) I can see my house from here! [ Reply to This He3 is the key (Score:2, Interesting) by Dollyknot (216765) on Thursday October 20, @05:02PM (#13839388) (http://dollyknot.com/) There is something worth $40000 an ounce on the moon, read about it here.http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/ [wisc.edu]and herehttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283 056.html?page=1&c=y/ [popularmechanics.com] [ Reply to ThisRe:He3 is the key by Dollyknot (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @09:04PM