Rocket fuel dominates logistics in space. The tyranny of the rocket equation is that it takes an exponential (literally exponential, not in the colloquial sense) amount of fuel for a linear increase in velocity. This is why it's so hard to go to Mars, and why we need to slingshot around Jupiter to go anywhere else.
A source of rocket fuel above Earth's gravity well would break the tyranny of the rocket equation, and serve as a stepping stone to other parts of the solar system where water is abundant (i.e. Ceres, Mars). Until we have nuclear or other exotic propulsion, water is the oil of space.
To paraphrase the lunar anthropic principle, if the universe had wanted humanity to become a spacefaring species, it would have given us a Moon, and it would have put water on it.
We're just scratching the surface of what these lunar water deposits mean.
Earthers find it hard to kick the idea that hydrogen and hydrocarbons are fuels, but that is because oxygen is free on the surface of the Earth.
On Luna you might use that hydrogen to reduce hematite ore (found in commercial quantity by astronauts) to Iron and Oxygen. Oxygen is like 7/8 the mass of the fuel you need, you can make storage tanks, residential neighborhoods, whatever you want out of steel if you can find a small amount of carbon. You can recycle the hydrogen, it's not lost as it would be if you burned it.
Lunar oxygen mining to refuel something like the SpaceX Starship faces tough competition from Earth via the SpaceX Starship -- a 1990s study looked at 5 Earth to Mars mission scenarios with and without lunar materials and it wasn't clear you could win with lunar oxygen.
The moon is close in configuration space to the Earth but far away in phase space (including energy differences) NASA figured Apollo hardware could make it to Venus
because you can use resonances around the moon to get a kick away from the Earth as opposed to fighting the gravity well with a low-ISP rocket on the way up and down from La Luna (no, atmospheric reentry on Earth is not "a problem" but rather free delta-V and one hell of a preimage for your landing site)
A good main belt asteroid might be like Saudi Arabia but with the relative proportions of sand and hydrocarbons reversed. You would be looking at a solar 5km/sec mission unless we got lucky and found a medium rare asteroid in the "near earth" area.
Either way if you could build a chemical factory that can make things like Kapton, Mylar or sheet graphene it shouldn't be that hard to handle giant films to make a solar sail factory, install sunshades at L1, beam solar power to moon bases at night, etc.
There are interplanetary 'highways' where you can spend barely any deltaV to go everywhere, provided you have patience.
Probes are already transiting Earth and Venus multiple time to get slingshots to outer solar system.
The ideal space base is a manufacturing hub in the asteroid belt. Where deltaV to go to anywhere else is ~0 and deltaV to launch stuff from base is also ~0. That's the only way to have star wars sized ship. Launching one from gravity well of the Earth or even Moon is just lunacy.
Perhaps the "How" should be added back in?
Edit: The title has been changed. Originally, it was "NASA and ISRO discovered water on the Moon".
Edit: when I posted this the title was "NASA and ISRO discovered water on the Moon"
i.e. "Apple quietly drops case against X" => "Apple drops case against X"
However, I do think "quietly" provides extra context - it indicates Apple (in this fictitious scenario) did not issue an official statement on what they did or why; a 3rd party just happened to notice by reviewing public legal documents.
The whole question of what is or is not news necessarily takes a certain perspective, though, so I guess this is always going to be a gray area.
In one case, it's an article about an amazing new discovery, in another case it's an explanation about the method of something we already know.
For scale, the Earth has enough water to fill ~532 trillion pools.
USA uses 322 billion gallons of water everyday. 
240,000 swimming pool contains 120 billion gallons.
USA would survive approx 8 Hrs on the moon.
[Edit: Corrected. Thanks SamBam]
(There's also some conversion problems because the article took the amount of water on the moon and estimated a number of swimming pools, and you've taken the number of swimming pools and estimated the amount of water. From the article, the moon has 600 billion kg of water, or 159 billion gallons.)
It's probably mostly like any bulk freight lifted to orbit/escape: you could pump it up space elevators, assuming you could get around the problems of making those; An orbital ring is more physically plausible but has a much higher initial outlay. Maybe you could accelerate a stream of it accurately enough that the resulting hail of ice would reach, say, an earth-moon l3/4 point slow enough to be continuously captured and processed.
The most interesting was combining earth hydrogen with lunar oxygen freed up by reduction operations on moon regolith.
More pedestrian was having ships sell their surplus fuel to a transfer station in orbit. If your mission is completely nominal, you will have reaction mass that you no longer need. Better to leave it for the next guy. I'm not sure how you do that in a failsafe way, though. A burst line or a stuck valve could ruin everybody's day.
It might require aux tanks that can be removed. For longer missions that might be worth the complexity.
Is a really intriguing discovery. Maybe supporting the panspermia theory. Maybe leading to one of the biggest discoveries in our recent history. Maybe they could find several types of ice, if they came from different comets.
I hope that we could analyze this water before to burn it as fuel.
Article can’t even get that part right....
It's a bit of a contentious issue because loonies had trouble getting NASA interested in the Moon again, and NASA rejected without evidence the notion of cold trap volatiles. So they went around NASA and used defense money to get an early version of Lunar Prospector launched, which was the Clementine mission, and gave the evidence necessary to prove the value of the poles as potential sources of in-situ resources.
(I got all the details of this from a talk given by a retired Air Force general who was involved, so I mistakenly thought it was the Air Force that ran it. Looks like it was actually a research division within the Navy.)
The issue is doing it multilaterally, and in such a way that the proceeds are vaguely available to everyone. I don't mean space communism - consider Starlink: Currently it looks useful, but if they were to pollute space (e.g. astronomy) solely for the benefit of the US mainland I think you could easily argue it isn't justifiable internationally.