This Is What the First Lunar Base Could Really Look Like

On Feb 7, 2:14*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:

"We have seen many concepts, but this

is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's

first Moon Base. It will be more efficient

and cheaper to build than any other

alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly

transform raw lunar soil into habitable

domes.

Also? It looks awesome.

The lunar soil structure will provide both

radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,

a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the

same dome shape will be the living

environment for the first human Moon

settlers."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...

Why not 99.9% underground?

Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?

Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments
from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.

TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are
even becoming mostly robotic.

Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those
actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/
from our moon.

TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers
continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled
waste out of the hole

Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though
not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/
Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well
as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.

A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a
pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.

Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?

TBS are not practical.

Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM
altogether.

plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since
the moon had no water *the crust probably isnt consolidated.

why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover

Most of the physically dark lunar crust is made of 100% fused and
nicely paramagnetic basalt, plus likely carbonado that's also
paramagnetic.

A modern TBM would function terrific within the moon, and it could be
solar or nuclear powered.

Obviously this is all way over your K-12 head. Sorry about that.

The moon is already extensively open pit excavated as is. It's called
cratering. An incoming rock can easily create a km deep pit, not to
mention creating thousands of secondary shards that would be lethal as
hell to anything you've suggested thus far.

On Feb 7, 6:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:14*pm, bob haller wrote:





On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:

"We have seen many concepts, but this

is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's

first Moon Base. It will be more efficient

and cheaper to build than any other

alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly

transform raw lunar soil into habitable

domes.

Also? It looks awesome.

The lunar soil structure will provide both

radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,

a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the

same dome shape will be the living

environment for the first human Moon

settlers."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...

Why not 99.9% underground?

Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?

Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments
from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.

TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are
even becoming mostly robotic.

Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those
actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/
from our moon.

TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers
continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled
waste out of the hole

Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though
not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/
Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well
as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.

A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a
pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.

Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?

TBS are not practical.

Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM
altogether.

plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since
the moon had no water *the crust probably isnt consolidated.

why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover

Most of the physically dark lunar crust is made of 100% fused and
nicely paramagnetic basalt, plus likely carbonado that's also
paramagnetic.

A modern TBM would function terrific within the moon, and it could be
solar or nuclear powered.

Obviously this is all way over your K-12 head. *Sorry about that.

The moon is already extensively open pit excavated as is. It's called
cratering. *An incoming rock can easily create a km deep pit, not to
mention creating thousands of secondary shards that would be lethal as
hell to anything you've suggested thus far.

ahh there are some shows about TBMs and alternatives for deep mining
and boring tunnels. the maintence labor for all of the equiptement is
unreal, drill a day, spend the next day in maintence mode replacing
cutters in cramped areas, breakdowns of the conveyors used to carry
the cuttings to the exit, sometimes they drill from the surface and
pump in concrete grout to stabilize soft strata.

Obviously this is all way over your K-12 head. sorry about that,,
automating all this for minimial maintence wil be difficult to
impossible....

On Feb 7, 5:41*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Feb 7, 2:14*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:

"We have seen many concepts, but this

is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's

first Moon Base. It will be more efficient

and cheaper to build than any other

alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly

transform raw lunar soil into habitable

domes.

Also? It looks awesome.

The lunar soil structure will provide both

radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,

a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the

same dome shape will be the living

environment for the first human Moon

settlers."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...

Why not 99.9% underground?

Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?

Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments
from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.

TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are
even becoming mostly robotic.

Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those
actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/
from our moon.

TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers
continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled
waste out of the hole

Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though
not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/
Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well
as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.

A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a
pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.

Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?

TBS are not practical.

Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM
altogether.

plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since
the moon had no water *the crust probably isnt consolidated.

why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover

Most of the physically dark lunar crust is made of 100% fused and
nicely paramagnetic basalt, plus likely carbonado that's also
paramagnetic.

A modern TBM would function terrific within the moon, and it could be
solar or nuclear powered.

Obviously this is all way over your K-12 head. *Sorry about that.

The moon is already extensively open pit excavated as is. It's called
cratering. *An incoming rock can easily create a km deep pit, not to
mention creating thousands of secondary shards that would be lethal as
hell to anything you've suggested thus far.

ahh there are some shows about TBMs and alternatives for deep mining
and boring tunnels. the maintence labor for all of the equiptement is
unreal, drill a day, spend the next day in maintence mode replacing
cutters in cramped areas, breakdowns of the conveyors used to carry
the cuttings to the exit, sometimes they drill from the surface and
pump in concrete grout to stabilize soft strata.

Obviously this is all way over your K-12 head. sorry about that,,
automating all this for minimial maintence will be difficult to
impossible....

Obviously the initial hundred billion dollar TBM intended for the moon
would have more rock cutting endurance, and no reason why not having
some crew in addition to a cache of robotic cutter replacements.

Once the TBMs get 100 meters into the crust, it gets easier and
cheaper to keep it going. We'll need a thousand of them, all digging
at the same time.

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:14:00 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:











On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:



On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:



"We have seen many concepts, but this



is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's



first Moon Base. It will be more efficient



and cheaper to build than any other



alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly



transform raw lunar soil into habitable



domes.



Also? It looks awesome.



The lunar soil structure will provide both



radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,



a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the



same dome shape will be the living



environment for the first human Moon



settlers."



See:



http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...



Why not 99.9% underground?



Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?



Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments

from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.



TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are

even becoming mostly robotic.



Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those

actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/

from our moon.



TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers

continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled

waste out of the hole



Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though

not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/

Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well

as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.



A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a

pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.



Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?



TBS are not practical.



Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM

altogether.



plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since

the moon had no water the crust probably isnt consolidated.



why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover

That is a good and valid point. I wonder how the ground temp is
at 30 meters down in the Moon? Another search;-)

On Feb 8, 5:23*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:14:00 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:

"We have seen many concepts, but this

is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's

first Moon Base. It will be more efficient

and cheaper to build than any other

alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly

transform raw lunar soil into habitable

domes.

Also? It looks awesome.

The lunar soil structure will provide both

radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,

a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the

same dome shape will be the living

environment for the first human Moon

settlers."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...

Why not 99.9% underground?

Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?

Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments

from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.

TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are

even becoming mostly robotic.

Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those

actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/

from our moon.

TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers

continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled

waste out of the hole

Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though

not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/

Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well

as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.

A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a

pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.

Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?

TBS are not practical.

Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM

altogether.

plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since

the moon had no water *the crust probably isnt consolidated.

why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover

That is a good and valid point. I wonder how the ground temp is
at 30 meters down in the Moon? Another search;-)

It's probably close to averaging -0- F at no deeper than 10 meters
deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day or night)
at 100 km deep. The R-factor of lunar regolith (at minimum 10 meters
deep) is none too shabby, and thermal conductance or coefficient of
its paramagnetic basalt shouldn't be any different than here on Earth,
except that our basalt isn't nearly as paramagnetic.

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 4:27:36 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 8, 5:23*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:14:00 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:



On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:



On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:



On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:



"We have seen many concepts, but this



is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's



first Moon Base. It will be more efficient



and cheaper to build than any other



alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly



transform raw lunar soil into habitable



domes.



Also? It looks awesome.



The lunar soil structure will provide both



radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,



a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the



same dome shape will be the living



environment for the first human Moon



settlers."



See:



http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...



Why not 99.9% underground?



Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?



Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments



from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.



TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are



even becoming mostly robotic.



Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those



actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/



from our moon.



TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers



continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled



waste out of the hole



Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though



not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/



Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well



as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.



A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a



pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.



Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?



TBS are not practical.



Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM



altogether.



plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since



the moon had no water *the crust probably isnt consolidated.



why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover



That is a good and valid point. I wonder how the ground temp is

at 30 meters down in the Moon? Another search;-)



It's probably close to averaging -0- F at no deeper than 10 meters

deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day or night)

at 100 km deep. The R-factor of lunar regolith (at minimum 10 meters

deep) is none too shabby, and thermal conductance or coefficient of

its paramagnetic basalt shouldn't be any different than here on Earth,

except that our basalt isn't nearly as paramagnetic.

It surely would average out the temp at some depth. A 100 kM is too
deep. A 100 meters at most in the middle decades of development.
Ten meters is about the right design goal for starters.
Maybe even less if there is enough water ice at the poles.
A water lining due to a formed plastic tank that stands between
the insulation and the habitat zone.

On Feb 9, 5:24*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 4:27:36 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 8, 5:23*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:14:00 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 7, 2:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 7, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:

On Feb 6, 7:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Feb 1, 1:27*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:55:22 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:

"We have seen many concepts, but this

is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's

first Moon Base. It will be more efficient

and cheaper to build than any other

alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly

transform raw lunar soil into habitable

domes.

Also? It looks awesome.

The lunar soil structure will provide both

radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,

a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the

same dome shape will be the living

environment for the first human Moon

settlers."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...

Why not 99.9% underground?

Are you suggesting that TBMs can't function inside of our moon?

Underground is best on the moon. In case of fast flying fragments

from incoming, I'd want to be fully underground in my lined habitat.

TBMs are already designed for digging into the moon. *These TBMs are

even becoming mostly robotic.

Nothing about our moon is insurmountable, at least once we have those

actual fly-by-rocket landers we can trust to get 60+ tonnes safely to/

from our moon.

TBMs require continious service by crews of highly skilled workers

continiously servicing the machines and conveyors to get the drilled

waste out of the hole

Robotic TBMs can dig for up to a km before needing attention, though

not that a service crew couldn't be there as well because, our NASA/

Apollo era proved how inert and passive the moon actually is, as well

as how 100% failsafe their fly-by-rocket lander were.

A 1 km tunnel cut into the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is a

pretty good start, especially once the tunnel airlock is established.

Why are you opposed to exploiting our moon?

TBS are not practical.

Far bettern to cut and cover. easy access, elminates the TBM

altogether.

plus TBMs dont tunnel well in loose or non consolidated soil. Since

the moon had no water *the crust probably isnt consolidated.

why make a easy job hard? open pit minining or cut and cover

That is a good and valid point. I wonder how the ground temp is

at 30 meters down in the Moon? Another search;-)

It's probably close to averaging -0- F at no deeper than 10 meters

deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day or night)

at 100 km deep. *The R-factor of lunar regolith (at minimum 10 meters

deep) is none too shabby, and thermal conductance or coefficient of

its paramagnetic basalt shouldn't be any different than here on Earth,

except that our basalt isn't nearly as paramagnetic.

It surely would average out the temp at some depth. A 100 kM is too
deep. A 100 meters at most in the middle decades of development.
Ten meters is about the right design goal for starters.
Maybe even less if there is enough water ice at the poles.
A water lining due to a formed plastic tank that stands between
the insulation and the habitat zone.

It still has a very hot 1000 km core of perhaps at least 1200 K, plus
some solar tidal issues and even a bit of the same from Earth that's
gradually modulating the moon.

On Jan 31, 10:16*am, wrote:
"We have seen many concepts, but this
is the most realistic plan yet for humanity's
first Moon Base. It will be more efficient
and cheaper to build than any other
alternative, as it uses 3D printing to quickly
transform raw lunar soil into habitable
domes.

Also? It looks awesome.

The lunar soil structure will provide both
radiation and temperature insulation. Inside,
a lightweight pressurized inflatable with the
same dome shape will be the living
environment for the first human Moon
settlers."

See:

http://gizmodo.com/5980534/this-is-w...-base-could-re...

Any surface lunar base is at risk from gamma, local X-rays and from
impacts, not to mention day/night extreme thermal issues.

Terraforming the moon underground:
It's probably close to averaging 0 F (255 K) at no greater than 10
meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day or
night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km. The R-factor
of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock and loads of crystal dry dust
that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is none too shabby, and otherwise
the geothermal conductance and/or heat transfer coefficient (aka
geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3
density shouldn't be significantly any different than here on Earth,
except that our terrestrial basalt isn't nearly as paramagnetic or
much less offering carbonado, and the core heat of Earth being 7000+ K
as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon. Supposedly there is only a wee
little bit of lunar granite to deal with, but the samples thus far are
inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...olcanism_5.pdf
http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

The likely 5e15~1e16 tonnes worth of lose surface rock and dust (plus
accumulated deposits) remaining on the naked surface of our moon (not
including another good portion as having been dislodged and deposited
on Earth) is a direct result of the thousands of significant impacts,
and especially as a result of its South polar crater of 2500 km
diameter.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and fused upon contact with
the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have been quite
obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar bedrock samples
had been return to Earth. Sadly, no such samples or even unique
meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era that found our
naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-ray and gamma
inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what little crystal
dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface tension and
clumping for terrific footing and traction like no place else.