Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 27, 11:15*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
"Washington, D.C.—The Moon has much more water than previously thought,
a team of scientists led by Carnegie's Erik Hauri has discovered. Their
research, published May 26 in Science Express, shows that inclusions of
magma trapped within crystals collected during the Apollo 17 mission
contain 100 times more water than earlier measurements. These results
could markedly change the prevailing theory about the Moon's origin.

The research team used a state-of-the-art NanoSIMS 50L ion microprobe to
measure seven tiny samples of magma trapped within lunar crystals as
so-called "melt inclusions." These samples came from volcanic glass
beads—orange in appearance because of their high titanium content—which
contained crystal-hosted melt inclusions. These inclusions were
prevented from losing the water within when explosive volcanic eruptions
brought them from depth and deposited them on the Moon's surface eons ago..

"In contrast to most volcanic deposits, the melt inclusions are encased
in crystals that prevent the escape of water and other volatiles during
eruption. These samples provide the best window we have to the amount of
water in the interior of the Moon," said James Van Orman of Case Western
Reserve University, a member of the science team. The paper's authors
are Hauri; Thomas Weinreich, Alberto Saal and Malcolm Rutherford from
Brown University; and Van Orman.

Compared with meteorites, Earth and the other inner planets of our solar
system contain relatively low amounts of water and volatile elements,
which were not abundant in the inner solar system during planet
formation. The even lower quantites of these volatile elements found on
the Moon has long been claimed as evidence that it must have formed
following a high-temperature, catastrophic giant impact. But this new
research shows that aspects of this theory must be reevaluated. The
study also provides new momentum for returning similar samples from
other planetary bodies in the solar system.

"Water plays a critical role in determining the tectonic behavior of
planetary surfaces, the melting point of planetary interiors, and the
location and eruptive style of planetary volcanoes," said Hauri, a
geochemist with Carnegie's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism (DTM).
"We can conceive of no sample type that would be more important to
return to Earth than these volcanic glass samples ejected by explosive
volcanism, which have been mapped not only on the Moon but throughout
the inner solar system."

Three years ago the same team, in a study led by Saal, reported the
first evidence for the presence of water in lunar volcanic glasses and
applied magma degassing models to estimate how much water was originally
in the magmas before eruption. Building on that study, Weinreich, a
Brown University undergraduate, found the melt inclusions, allowing the
team to measure the pre-eruption concentration of water in the magma and
estimate the amount of water in the Moon's interior.

"The bottom line," said Saal, "is that in 2008, we said the primitive
water content in the lunar magmas should be similar to the water content
in lavas coming from the Earth's depleted upper mantle. Now, we have
proven that is indeed the case."

The study also puts a new twist on the origin of water ice detected in
craters at the lunar poles by several recent NASA missions. The ice has
been attributed to comet and meteoroid impacts, but it is possible that
some of this ice could have come from the water released by past
eruptions of lunar magmas.

These findings should also be taken into account when analyzing samples
from other planetary bodies in our solar system. The paper's authors say
these results show that their method of analysis is the only way to
accurately and directly determine the water content of a planet's
interior. "http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/ci-lwb052011.php

The metallicity of our highly paramagnetic moon is actually quite
high, however the relatively low amount of atmosphere and limited
helium seems to suggest that it's actually quit a bit older than
Earth, especially when you consider its much thicker farside crust
that was likely caused by orbiting whatever planet it originally
belonged to.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 6/6/11 3:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The metallicity of our highly paramagnetic moon is actually quite
high, however the relatively low amount of atmosphere and limited
helium seems to suggest that it's actually quit a bit older than
Earth, especially when you consider its much thicker farside crust
that was likely caused by orbiting whatever planet it originally
belonged to.

Anctually analysis shows that the moon is about a hundred million
years younger than the earth and that the surface chemistry is
quite similar.

The giant impact hypothesis continues to be the leading hypothesis
on how the moon formed. Is it right? Can it be disproven by more
careful research? Only time will tell, but so far it has stood up
to 25 years of scrutiny.

On 6/2/11 9:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Unfortunately that theory doesn't deal with water on the surface of
our naked moon (Apollo having forgot on 6+ missions to accomplish any
sort of water or ice science) or for that matter anywhere in between
there and here. Actually there has never been any objective water or
ice science performed in space, so it's still a big dark secret.

Lunar
Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C
Maximum surface temperature 123°C
Minimum surface temperature -233°C

"The Moon has no atmosphere, any substance on the lunar surface is
exposed directly to vacuum. For water ice, this means it will rapidly
sublime directly into water vapor and escape into space, as the Moon's
low gravity cannot hold gas for any appreciable time. Over the course of
a lunar day (~29 Earth days), all regions of the Moon are exposed to
sunlight, and the temperature on the Moon in direct sunlight reaches
about 395 K (395 Kelvin, which is equal to about 250 degrees above zero
F). So any ice exposed to sunlight for even a short time would be lost.
The only possible way for ice to exist on the Moon would be in a
permanently shadowed area".

On 6/6/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 6, 2:28 pm, Sam wrote:
On 6/6/11 3:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The metallicity of our highly paramagnetic moon is actually quite
high, however the relatively low amount of atmosphere and limited
helium seems to suggest that it's actually quit a bit older than
Earth, especially when you consider its much thicker farside crust
that was likely caused by orbiting whatever planet it originally
belonged to.

Anctually analysis shows that the moon is about a hundred million
years younger than the earth and that the surface chemistry is
quite similar.

The giant impact hypothesis continues to be the leading hypothesis
on how the moon formed. Is it right? Can it be disproven by more
careful research? Only time will tell, but so far it has stood up
to 25 years of scrutiny.

Actually, why do we care what a NASA/DARPA parrot has to say?

Since when has your religion and its government stopped lying to us?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Wouldn't your time be better spent learning some science, Brad?
Libraries are open all summer.

ok

On Jun 6, 7:16*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 6/6/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jun 6, 2:28 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 6/6/11 3:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The metallicity of our highly paramagnetic moon is actually quite
high, however the relatively low amount of atmosphere and limited
helium seems to suggest that it's actually quit a bit older than
Earth, especially when you consider its much thicker farside crust
that was likely caused by orbiting whatever planet it originally
belonged to.

* * Anctually analysis shows that the moon is about a hundred million
* * years younger than the earth and that the surface chemistry is
* * quite similar.

* * The giant impact hypothesis continues to be the leading hypothesis
* * on how the moon formed. Is it right? Can it be disproven by more
* * careful research? Only time will tell, but so far it has stood up
* * to 25 years of scrutiny.

Actually, why do we care what a NASA/DARPA parrot has to say?

Since when has your religion and its government stopped lying to us?

*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

* *Wouldn't your time be better spent learning some science, Brad?
* *Libraries are open all summer.

You mean we should all become parrots and brown-nosed clowns like
yourself?

You never think for yourself, much less deductively interpret
anything, and obviously that's how you want everyone else to be. Gee
whiz, how wonderful when you can be a robot with no remorse and no
personal abilities whatsoever.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 6/6/11 10:03 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:16 pm, Sam wrote:
On 6/6/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jun 6, 2:28 pm, Sam wrote:
On 6/6/11 3:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The metallicity of our highly paramagnetic moon is actually quite
high, however the relatively low amount of atmosphere and limited
helium seems to suggest that it's actually quit a bit older than
Earth, especially when you consider its much thicker farside crust
that was likely caused by orbiting whatever planet it originally
belonged to.

Anctually analysis shows that the moon is about a hundred million
years younger than the earth and that the surface chemistry is
quite similar.

The giant impact hypothesis continues to be the leading hypothesis
on how the moon formed. Is it right? Can it be disproven by more
careful research? Only time will tell, but so far it has stood up
to 25 years of scrutiny.

Actually, why do we care what a NASA/DARPA parrot has to say?

Since when has your religion and its government stopped lying to us?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Wouldn't your time be better spent learning some science, Brad?
Libraries are open all summer.

You mean we should all become parrots and brown-nosed clowns like
yourself?

You never think for yourself, much less deductively interpret
anything, and obviously that's how you want everyone else to be. Gee
whiz, how wonderful when you can be a robot with no remorse and no
personal abilities whatsoever.


Think of spending time in a library as an investment in your education
and knowledge. Your posting record on USENET is indicative of thinking
for yourself without benefit of background knowledge.

On Jun 7, 2:42*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 6/7/11 3:52 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jun 7, 6:39 am, Sam *wrote:

* * Think of spending time in a library as an investment in your education
* * and knowledge. Your posting record on USENET is indicative of thinking
* * for yourself without benefit of background knowledge.

Are you saying that most everything available off the internet is fake
or bogus (including NASA stuff)?

Are you saying we should all be brown-nosed clowns and good little
parrots like yourself, as in brainwashed, closed mindset and/or
dumbfounded past the point of no return?

Are you suggesting that our extremely unusual and high metallicity
moon can't have layers or geode pockets of water or mineral brines
inside?

* *I was suggesting that spending time in a library can be good way
* *to invest in your education and knowledge. Fewer distractions.

That's probably true, although other than current publications,
there's not a whole lot of what I need for the "Guth Venus" discovery,
or for that of my LSE-CM/ISS or for that job of relocating our moon to
the Sun Earth L, perhaps because for some reason there's practically
nothing published that's similar.

I supposed if I wanted to just copy whatever others have accomplished,
then a public library would be just the ticket.

However, just because something is published and library accessible,
such as K12 and higher education textbooks that are authored by mostly
dead people that were Semite approved of, doesn't make it so.
However, I've gotten ideas and most of my basic knowledge from books.
William Mook has spent a good thousand times more in reading through
books, and he's got a better memory than most, but you still don't
seem like anything about Mook (not that he's easy to like).

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 06/06/2011 12:12 PM, dlzc wrote:
I want to be sure you saw this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...7d7cd54c0b4a7#

David A. Smith

Interesting idea, a Jupiter at 1.5 AU would certainly be a scary sight
at night.

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Jun 7, 11:53*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 06/06/2011 12:12 PM,dlzcwrote:

I want to be sure you saw this:
snip link now broken by Google.Groups

Interesting idea, a Jupiter at 1.5 AU would certainly be a
scary sight at night.

Right. Or at least "gorgeous", "fantastic", maybe a few other
choices...

Also note the similarity of the Moon's density to Jupiter's moons (no
doubt the makeup is wrong, still...). And a giant like that could
certainly assist in boosting for capture, directing Theia to collision
in the first place, or even creating a lobe in a rapdily spinning
Earth that later became the Moon.

Recall too that the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the Sun now, but
would not be (I think) were it closer. But there would still be holy
heck raised in the inner solar system.

David A. Smith