Russians found water on the Moon.

Void · 2012-06-03 15:27:23

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-soviet-moo … l#firstCmt

The Soviet Luna 24 mission of 1976 drilled two meters down and extracted 170 grams of lunar soil, which it brought back to Earth for analysis, taking every possible precaution to avoid contamination. The scientists found that water made up 0.1 percent of the mass of the soil, and published their results in the journal Geokhimiia in 1978. The journal does not have a wide readership among Western scientists even though it was also available in English, and Crotts said the work was never cited by any scientist in the West.

If true, I will stick my neck out and say and speculate on an alternate theory for the formation of the Moon.

I think that the Earth might have been surrounded by a tempory atmosphere that extended all the way to geosynch while it was forming, and that the early moon might have been an icy object condensing like a hail stone in that atmospheric orbit.

I suggest that at that time the Earth could still have been not that much more than a proto planet. Therefore geosynch was not that far from the surface, similar to Vesta or Ceres.

I think that the temperatures could have been cold enough to allow it, since the atmosphere would surround the orbiting moon.

I think that eventually most of the ice was replace by rocky materials, as acumulation from the solar disk continued, and that the Earth and Moon each would have been places for the incomming dust and rock to stick to in the case of the Moon, a dirty orbiting hail stone.

Venus perhaps was too hot for such a moon to form, or it's moon eventually crashed. Mars? Don't know Phobos and Demos a remnants? Don't know.

Yes a very wild idea, but apparently if the Moon is not bone dry inside, it interfers with the theory that it was solely formed from dried out ejecta from a large object impacting Earth. I am willing to entertain a hybrid of the idea. The Moon existed previously as a hydrated object, and when the Mars sized object hit the Earth, then it did collect dry ejecta, but then water migrated towards the surface from the core.

I am not a proffessional in any way, so I guess I can speculate without distroying my career, I don't have one. Not for such a thing anyway.

Last edited by Void (2012-06-03 15:33:25)

Terraformer · 2012-06-04 02:32:21

Alternatively, Luna could have simply accreated from the same part of the disk as Terra, growing together. It would explain their similar isotopic ratio's.

Do any models predict the direct formation of binary objects?

Or Luna formed from a disk that was already around Terra, no need for Theia.

Void · 2012-06-05 23:42:55

I suppose the disk notion is more conventional, and perhaps more correct.

However, consider the desalination of water. I will mention two methods. 1) One is more familiar to logic, where you boil water with heat, and then condense it with cold. 2) Two is a method where you use a rotor (Actually two that have a cross-section like a peanut), and pull a vacuum on water which is briny, and then compress the vapors into a liquid.

So, I consider the formation of the Earth to be 2), and the formation of the Moon to be 1).

If a protoplanet has an extended atmosphere, then the zone of condensation is in two places. 1) The upper atmosphere, where the cold of space penetrates, and 2) The forming core, where pressure causes materials which might alternately in a vacuum become vapor, to become liquid, even at high temperatures.

It is to be understood that during the formation of such a binary world, there would be a continuous input of falling materials which would provide heat to the core, and a coninuous radiation of heat out of the atmosphere, which would provide the opportunity for very dirty, very large hail stones to form in a geosynchronous orbit inside of a temporary atmosphere surrounding a protoplanet. Further, the forming hail stones would tend to gravitate to each other, sticking together into one mass.

When the infall of small materials from the disk ceased, then the temporary extended atmosphere would dissipate, and the Moon would be left in a Vacuum, and would be gradually spiraled outwards into a more distant orbit by tidal interactions with the Earth.

Then afterwards if there were a heavy bombardment of Earth, by asteroids, some of that ejected material would pile up on the giant hailstone Moon.

I suggest a variation of this process for many other planets, and there moons.

Or yes perhaps many moons condense outside of a temporary planetary atmosphere from planetary disk materials.

SpaceNut · 2012-06-06 18:57:21

While it appears that Russia believed that it had actually found water in even earlier samples by the three Soviet lunar sample return missions from 1970 to 1976. The six Apollo lunar landing missions in between the years 1969–1972 returned soil and rock and it was widely held that the Apollo samples contained virtually no water.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1485/1
http://www.universetoday.com/88295/rewr … r-history/

Of course with more modern techniques and some follow up missions

http://carlkop.home.xs4all.nl/moonret.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

The impactor was less than a hit for viewing by did yield valuable data on water that is in the creators which are shaded from the solar heat.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-07 08:00:33

For Void re topic ...

Now Americans have found rust on the Moon.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/moon-ru … ts-stunned

There seems to be a flow of material from Earth that includes oxygen, in sufficient quantity so rust can be detected.

(th)

Void · 2020-09-08 09:01:48

(th)

Interesting. I think that there is a whole lot more to learn about the Moon, obviously.

I think that future evidence may require the "Theia-ology" be modified. Over time, many different processes may have modified the Moon.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-09-08 09:02:33)

Calliban · 2020-09-21 18:31:40

Maybe the Earth already had a small moon when Thea collided with it. The present moon could be a hybrid of the original moon and crustal material ejected by Theia. This would explain the water in the lunar mantle, even if the majority of the lunar mass was dehydrated by the impact.

Last edited by Calliban (2020-09-21 18:31:56)

SpaceNut · 2020-09-21 19:04:50

Much like the accumulation of He3 on the moons surface the same path starts from the suns blasting of hydrogen in the solar wind that ends up coming in contact with the moons very oxidized surface. It ends up making water in the dark craters with in the base of them.

Calliban · 2020-09-21 19:50:01

Actually, 0.1% by weight is consistent with Apollo Mare findings. These recorded an average of 100ppm hydrogen in lunar regolith. If you heat the regolith hot enough for the hydrogen to react with iron II oxide, the result would be ~0.1% by mass water vapour. Not at all surprising. And by the way, still very dry by Earth standards.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-13 04:47:03

Seems there are statements that Russia will Moon missions once again or so says Putin amid crippling sanctions

Russia will launch a lunar probe and deepen space links with Belarus- Putin
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-launch-lu … 06606.html

The crashed Mars 96 spacecraft launched in 1996 carried plutonium-238, after launch it lowered its perigee back into the Earth's atmosphere.

Luna 25 - Making JWST Development Look Smooth
https://odysee.com/@ScottManley:5/luna- … ent-look:3

'Russia has not had a great deal of success with the Post-Soviet exploration program'

Scott Manley
its two planetary missions both failed

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-22 15:33:17)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-19 16:57:08

Putin truly seems to have set Russia on a backward path, the Ukraine invasion with Russians dying but a brain drain of Russians moving out of the country and a space program in trouble and short of cash

Is Luna 25 alive? Russia says an “emergency situation” has occurred
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/r … a-century/
"The management team is currently analyzing the situation."

It might be too early to call the mission a loss but Russian can no longer land craft on the Moon. Meanwhile China, India, Japan and Europe are sending stuff to Mars and NASA maybe land people and perhaps will explore Mars and beyond.

Today at 11:10 UTC, an impulse was given to transfer the spacecraft to a pre-landing orbit.
https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/ … 5780932881
During the operation, an emergency situation occurred, which didn't allow the maneuver to be performed as planned. Currently, the specialists are analyzing the situation.

if they can not find the spacecraft would they ask for people in Brazil, South Africa, China and India to help them re-establish radio contact or would that be too embarrassing?

Luna-25 would have been a follow on to the old Soviet Luna 24 mission of 1976 mentioned int he first post
It might still recover, so it could be too early to declare the mission over.
Russia shows they can reach lunar orbit but they are no longer landing spacecraft?

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-19 17:01:05)

RGClark · 2023-08-22 07:59:51

It has been confirmed by Roscosms that Luna-25 crashed into the Moon.

In keeping with the original theme of this thread, way back in 2012, could the impact have thrown up water in the ejecta? Recall that’s how the LCROSS mission was able to detect water at the lunar South Pole.

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2023-08-22 08:45:09

If that lunar soil at 0.1% water were here on Earth, we would not attempt to recover the water, because the resource is too dilute to make the effort worthwhile. The "0.1%" figure is your clue. That's about factor 10 to factor 100 too low a percentage.

Iron ore here on Earth ranges from about 48 to 72% iron by mass. That is a resource concentration that is worth expending the effort to recover. Similar percentages apply to the usable hydrocarbons in crude oil: 3 to 60%, with the crudes having higher percentages more desirable.

Just food for thought, when evaluating some of these ideas.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2023-08-22 09:07:00

For GW Johnson re Post #13

The energy supply on the Moon is not the same as on Earth.

The energy needed to extract tiny quantities of an element from regolith is available.

One of the (relatively recent) presentations at NSS North Houston showed how to extract valuable atoms by using a magnetic field to bend the charged particles so they would land in buckets assigned to them by mass.

This concept would be ridiculous on Earth, but it will (without a doubt) become quite common in space, where the vacuum is pure, and power supply is unlimited.

If you would be interested in the presentation, I ** think ** it was saved on YouTube, and I'd be willing to try to find it.

The work was done at the University of Texas at El Paso. (as I recall)

(th)

Calliban · 2023-08-22 15:26:31

'In March 2010, it was reported that the Mini-SAR on board Chandrayaan-1 had discovered more than 40 permanently darkened craters near the Moon's north pole that are hypothesized to contain an estimated 600 million metric tonnes of water-ice.'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_w … st_century

As a potential resource, this is actually quite poor. A volume of 600 million tonnes sounds like a lot. But it is only 0.6km3, about the size of a small lake here on Earth. And not all of it will be recoverable. If the various nations of Earth begin mining it on an industrial scale and turning it into rocket fuel, it won't last long. But it may be sufficient to support the beginnings of industrialisation in space, whilst we develop new resources further afield. Eventually, Martian of Ceres water could be exported to high Earth orbit. Maybe lunar water is simply the starter course to the banquet.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-08-22 15:27:36)

Void · 2023-08-22 20:26:20

I think that it is fair to say that nobody really knows.

But that there is some water.

I think one thing to consider is that post Apollo, it was presumed that lifting water from the Earth would be about ~$10,000 per pound or some other ridiculous amount. And for whatever political reason it was decided to say that the Moon had no water.

$2,720/kg for Falcon 9 is better, but not at all cheap.

This looks pretty good: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-co … ce-flight/
Image Quote:

Well anyway the case for lifting Hydrogen to LEO does get considerably better. And that may reduce the need to obtain water on the Moon.

So, the relative values of Earth, Moon, and Mars for materials to space may need reevaluation as to things that have by now become and obstructive dogma, left over from a previous era.

We may find more water on the Moon, but will it be cheaper to bring in Hydrogen from Earth or Mars?

For Starship, could depots bring Methane to Moon orbit, and Oxygen from the surface of the Moon more easily maintain shipping needed?

And with robotics and AI advancing, shouldn't we be looking at that arm of a Lunar effort to carry more of the Load?

That probably indicates less water needed for activity for the Moon.

In addition, if Depots were to move Hydrogen or Methane to Lunar orbit maybe they should be some type of electric for efficiency.

The LEO Space Station action is where it is going to be at as far as I can see, and that needs far less orbital refilling.

But on occasion when research merits it perhaps there could be a crewed mission to the Moon.

Now, back to "We really don't know", a few things to think about.

Recently a notion of the formation of the Moon had it forming with part of the Earth's atmosphere taken with it.

There is a lot of thinking that the Earth formed early on with water dissolved in its magma ocean.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … omposition. Quote:

Measurements of hydroxyl or water in lunar materials are being used to suggest that melting source regions within the Moon contained tens to hundreds of ppm water. The compositions of magmatic source regions in the Moon can be calculated using magma ocean fractional solidification models, given an initial bulk composition.

Where this could matter would be if you could find veins of concentrated water, similar to how you might find such for Iron. But we don't know yet.

It is now thought by some that the Moon and Earth may have been protected from the solar wind and excess sunshine, by the accretion disk itself. So, the water may not have been baked out of all the materials that formed the Earth and then the Moon.

Artemus is what we have, so better than nothing at all, but I really think we should lean in the direction of robotics as that unfolds.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-08-23 09:34:39)

GW Johnson · 2023-08-25 11:00:22

The lunar regolith where Apollo landed was in the neighborhood of 0.1% water content by mass. The Russian probes found something very similar. That is actually FAR drier than Sahara desert sand! And THAT is NOT an exploitable resource for obtaining water!

Iron ores considered exploitable are 48-72% iron by mass. Petroleum has anywhere from 3% to 60% usable hydrocarbons. Those ARE exploitable resources here on Earth! It ain't the same "out there", because operating "out there" will be more difficult than here, but that does give you some idea of what the percentages should look like for a truly exploitable resource anywhere "out there".

If the water content in lunar regolith at the south pole of the moon is under 3%, then I'd say as a first guess that it ain't worth bothering to dig up! Same is true on Mars, or anywhere else "out there". Closer to 30% would be FAR more desirable. Closer to 100% is the most desirable, like a buried glacier not filled with dirt and rocks. Salt we can handle, low percentages, we cannot. Especially not in harsh environments.

There are two ways to get rid of salt thermally. One is distillation, more appropriate in hotter environments. The other is freezing, since the salt stays in the brine left behind. That might work well on Mars, where cold is nearly everywhere.

But you MUST have at least single-digit resource percentages, and preferably double-digit, or it's just a waste of time, effort, and energy to try to recover! Especially in a harsh environment!

Ugly little fact of life, but there it is! Deal with it.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-08-25 11:09:00)

Void · 2023-08-25 11:04:38

I am willing to abide by whatever reality is. I have also pointed out that I favor robotics for the Moon, and that more discovery about water is needed before plans can be made. The good news is that many other countries, China, Japan, India, Russia may spend money to get more information.

As for Iron, probably your numbers are good for red, non-magnetic sources. Taconite is a bit different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taconite
Quote:

The iron content of taconite is generally 30% to 35%, and the silica content generally around 45%. Iron in 'taconite' is commonly present as magnetite,

You were not wrong about red ore. It is just that I worked in the Taconite industry. The ore we had was magnetic, so it could be beneficiated even if it was a lean ore.

I would be possible to use Taconite down to 15%, but probably not economically sensible, at least at this time, but we have probably 200 years of lean ore I seem to recall.

I was told by a metallurgist that the value of our ore was that it did not have other things mixed in with it, so it could be used and then they would add things that they wanted to make alloys.

It just happens that I had that experience. I am not trying to showboat about it.

We do not know everything about how the Moon was formed. There can be a possibility of water bearing rocks under the surface somewhere.

And yes, the extent of water into polar deposits, is not measured so it could easily be not enough to support large scale human activity on the Moon. But as I have said, I am very enthusiastic about robots on the Moon.

They believe that Mercury has very thick ice sheets.

The Moon may not.

There is some notion that the polar craters are more shallow than other places, which suggests that they may be filled with something.

Again, nothing is proved: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … ercury-ice
Quote:

Researchers found that craters become up to 10% shallower near the north pole of Mercury and the south pole of the Moon, but not the north pole of the Moon.
The authors concluded that the most probable explanation for these shallower craters is the accumulation of previously undetected thick ice deposits on both worlds.

I hope you understand that my intentions here are friendly.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-08-25 11:17:42)

GW Johnson · 2023-08-25 11:19:38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iron ores[1] are rocks and minerals from which metallic iron can be economically extracted. The ores are usually rich in iron oxides and vary in color from dark grey, bright yellow, or deep purple to rusty red. The iron is usually found in the form of magnetite (Fe3O4, 72.4% Fe), hematite (Fe2O3, 69.9% Fe), goethite (FeO(OH), 62.9% Fe), limonite (FeO(OH)·n(H2O), 55% Fe) or siderite (FeCO3, 48.2% Fe).

The preferred two are magnetite and hematite. They can be fed to blast furnaces directly. The others require some processing first. See the key word "economically" in the wikipedia description? It refers to the time, effort, and energy required to extract the iron. They don't use the goethite or limonite, unless they have to, because the recoverable iron percentages are substantially lower.

It takes a lot of time, effort, and especially (!!!) energy to run a blast furnace. And that's here on Earth where the environment is favorable and suitable energy sources exist. That blast furnace technology is not something we know how to do out in space, on the moon, or on Mars. Nor are the suitable energy sources available "out there".

As for Taconite, I don't know, and you do, Void. But I never read much about that being a major source of iron. You know more about that. It sounded like magnetism had something to do with the extraction process, which would imply a blast furnace is not involved. I dunno, myself.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-08-25 11:23:00)

Void · 2023-08-25 12:49:36

I wouldn't get troubled. This is just a conversation, and I don't consider myself to be of any particular importance.

You did do me a favor though. There is some learning for me to do.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/01/0 … behind-us/
So, it looks like they are in trouble again after all.

Direct Reduction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron

Well, I hope they get it done.

They must be running out of higher grade magnetic Taconite.

In the 70's before I was employed, on a tour of the Eveleth Taconite mind, the tour guide said that there was 30 years of Taconite to mine.
Well, it is about 50 year later, so, actually they did real good. I am sure that their is lower grade Taconite still available, but as you said, it has to be competitive. There has always been a national security aspect associated with the Iron Range to produce Iron. So, I believe that the government sponsored Pilotac.

https://www.mnopedia.org/multimedia/uni … otac-plant
I worked there for a time. It does not exist now. I am not particularly proud of that part of my history. Let's just say they put up with me for some reason.

Anyway, I hope this direct reduction thing works out.

Really it just happens that I am a weird occurrence in time.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-08-25 13:00:31)

Void · 2023-08-25 19:00:27

Now getting back to the issue of water on the Moon, a factor about the Russian samples is the deeper they drilled the more water in the rock.

And just now I have a speculation about surface regolith, and radiation and the effects over billions of years. So, for permeable rock, the free drying environment of the Moon with daytime baking, should have a tendency to let water out over time. But for Hydrogen bonded to minerals, I am supposing that radiation may liberate Hydrogen atoms, and I suppose I am thinking that they might be able to squeeze out or the regolith.

We know that the Moon is unexpectedly shedding more Carbon than anticipated, but if it were shedding Hydrogen, I think it would be hard to tell, because the solar wind is strongly made of Hydrogen. Keep in mind that I am describing regolith that has likely been in a radiation environment for billions of years.

This article suggests that 5 meters can stop GCR, but I think that is to protect human health. I don't think it stops all of it.
http://www.rcktmom.com/njlworks/LunarRe … protection.

And the regolith of the Moon has been "Gardened" over the ages, so things tend to mix. I might speculate that ejecta from impactors may have heated enough to shed water as well.

China has obtained some interesting results: https://interestingengineering.com/scie … ns-surface Quote:

Study abstract:
We revealed the layered structure of the upper three hundred meters of the lunar surface in the South Pole-Aitken Basin by using the measurements from the Lunar Penetrating Radar (LPR) onboard the Chang'E-4 rover. The result shows that five large strata are identified by the LPR 60-MHz channel below the depth of 90 m, with thicknesses ranging from 20 m to larger than 70 m. We speculate that at least three strata are basalt flows, while the shallowest stratum is composed of multiple thin lava flows. The thickness of the strata decreases with the decreasing depth, suggesting a progressively smaller lava effusion rate over time. To evaluate the reliability of the result, a comparison was made between Chang'E-4, Chang'E-3, and ground test low-frequency data. The LPR 500-MHz channel unveiled the structure of weathered material in the top ∼40 m, revealing several layers as well as a buried paleo crater and its ejecta blanket in the regolith.

So, you may have to get deep to get to lava flow materials.

The Earth appears to have massive amounts of water in its mantel: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … 41724&ei=5

Could the Moon have such as well? It would have to be much deeper down, I presume, because of a lower gravity.

There is some chance the Earth formed with water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
Quote:

Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean.[3] The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence that water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.[4]

So, also there is consideration now that the Moon may have formed in a matter of hours, and that it took atmosphere from the Earth with it.

https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/202 … -hours.htm
Video Quote: https://youtu.be/AQmeomxvokM?t=9

I have read articles that indicate that as the Moon solidified, water would be pushed into the still melted lava.

So, we don't know, but should want to find out.

I have also read something about water ice in Lunar shadowed craters, and that is that some of them are protected by a local magnetic field which may keep the erosion from the solar wind out.

Again, we need more information.

Done.

The Moon may have had an atmosphere at least once, and some think it did several times.
https://www.newsweek.com/moon-may-once- … ere-680381

This would have occurred when the sun was dimmer, so comets impacting may well have left melted water that could soak into the ground.

But again, we need more information.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-08-25 19:44:38)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-06-03 15:27:23

Russians found water on the Moon.

#2 2012-06-04 02:32:21

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#3 2012-06-05 23:42:55

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#4 2012-06-06 18:57:21

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#5 2020-09-07 08:00:33

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#6 2020-09-08 09:01:48

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#7 2020-09-21 18:31:40

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#8 2020-09-21 19:04:50

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#9 2020-09-21 19:50:01

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#10 2022-04-13 04:47:03

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#11 2023-08-19 16:57:08

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#12 2023-08-22 07:59:51

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#13 2023-08-22 08:45:09

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#14 2023-08-22 09:07:00

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#15 2023-08-22 15:26:31

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#16 2023-08-22 20:26:20

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#17 2023-08-25 11:00:22

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#18 2023-08-25 11:04:38

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#19 2023-08-25 11:19:38

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#20 2023-08-25 12:49:36

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

#21 2023-08-25 19:00:27

Re: Russians found water on the Moon.

Board footer