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

On May 30, 6:24*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/30/11 7:04 AM, herbert glazier wrote:

Water in the universe is far from rare. The Earth proves this * TreBert

* *Correct, Herb! Water is the most abundant solid material in space.

* *How Water Forms in Interstellar Space at 10K

http://science.slashdot.org/story/08...Water-Forms-in...

"Water is the most abundant solid material in space. But although
astronomers see it on planets, moons, in comets and in interstellar
clouds, nobody has been able to show how it forms. In theory, it should
form easily when oxygen and atomic hydrogen meet. The problem is that
there is not enough of it floating around as gas in interstellar dust
clouds. So instead, the thinking is that water must form when atomic
hydrogen interacts with frozen solid oxygen on the surface of dust
grains in these clouds. Now Japanese astronomers have demonstrated this
process for the first time in the lab in conditions that simulate
interstellar space. That's cool because all the water in the solar
system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have
formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar
dustcloud (abstract)."

* *Water is found in liquid form on the Earth, Europa, Enceladus and has
* *been observed as Ice on Mars, Titan, Europa, comets, etc.

* *A Cloud Of Water In Interstellar Space
* * *http://www.scienceblog.com/community...199800984.html

Isn't that mos mainstream parrot-speak?

How does water or ice coexist in such a hard vacuum of 3e-21 bar
that's continually solar/star illuminated and otherwise radiated to
death with hard X-rays and gamma?

Are the laws of physics different way out there?

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

On 5/30/11 5:37 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 30, 6:24 am, Sam wrote:
On 5/30/11 7:04 AM, herbert glazier wrote:

Water in the universe is far from rare. The Earth proves this TreBert

Correct, Herb! Water is the most abundant solid material in space.

How Water Forms in Interstellar Space at 10K

http://science.slashdot.org/story/08...Water-Forms-in...

"Water is the most abundant solid material in space. But although
astronomers see it on planets, moons, in comets and in interstellar
clouds, nobody has been able to show how it forms. In theory, it should
form easily when oxygen and atomic hydrogen meet. The problem is that
there is not enough of it floating around as gas in interstellar dust
clouds. So instead, the thinking is that water must form when atomic
hydrogen interacts with frozen solid oxygen on the surface of dust
grains in these clouds. Now Japanese astronomers have demonstrated this
process for the first time in the lab in conditions that simulate
interstellar space. That's cool because all the water in the solar
system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have
formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar
dustcloud (abstract)."

Water is found in liquid form on the Earth, Europa, Enceladus and has
been observed as Ice on Mars, Titan, Europa, comets, etc.

A Cloud Of Water In Interstellar Space
http://www.scienceblog.com/community...199800984.html

Isn't that mos mainstream parrot-speak?

Actually water in the cosmos is a an observation from spectra.
the water molecule has a unique set of spectral lines. What do
you think happens to water in the cold vacuum of space? It's
still water (solid when clumped). And what kind of intensity
of hard x-ray and gamma? Way less that near stars!


How does water or ice coexist in such a hard vacuum of 3e-21 bar
that's continually solar/star illuminated and otherwise radiated to
death with hard X-rays and gamma?

On 5/30/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Yes in deed, and the interior of our moon as well as the planet Venus
are each reservoirs of water in addition to their own makings of
gasses like radon and helium.

And you *evidence* for this is?

On 5/30/11 5:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
You will not find any of this published in BP or any other Big Energy
reports, however with some basic search for skills and a positive/
constructive effort of deductive reasoning, it's all there to behold:

I don't care where it's not published. I want to read the same source
as you!

On May 30, 4:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/30/11 5:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

You will not find any of this published in BP or any other Big Energy
reports, however with some basic search for skills and a positive/
constructive effort of deductive reasoning, it's all there to behold:

* *I don't care where it's not published. I want to read the same source
* *as you!

Then go to the internet and look up basic facts about natural gas,
oil, coal, various hard and soft mineral mining plus all of their
ventings and energy consuming infrastructure that comes with the
package deal, that are pretty much unregulated consumptions, wastage,
blowouts, leakage, flaring and perhaps most all of it poorly if even
recorded.

In order to sustain 5.24 ppm of helium in our atmosphere takes a great
deal of resupply tonnage, and because of the low mass of He and the
inability of He to bind with anything is perhaps why it takes such a
continuous resupply.

Are you thinking that somewhere above the bulk atmosphere of Earth
(say above 500 km) is where all of that terrestrial helium tonnage is
secretly hiding out?

Do your own research and tell us how much helium Earth is losing, and
then reconsider what a toasty planet like Venus could be losing.

Isn't helium sort of a tell-all element as to the metallicity nature
and age of a planet?

My math isn't always good enough, but your math should be impeccable.

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

On May 30, 3:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/30/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Yes in deed, and the interior of our moon as well as the planet Venus
are each reservoirs of water in addition to their own makings of
gasses like radon and helium.

* *And you *evidence* for this is?

My evidence is Earth, plus those clouds of Venus are not exactly made
of crystal dry dust, and the interior of our moon is a perfectly
sealed geode that's hosting less density than its paramagnetic basalt
crust.

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

On 5/30/11 10:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


Then go to the internet and look up basic facts about natural gas,
oil, coal, various hard and soft mineral mining plus all of their
ventings and energy consuming infrastructure that comes with the
package deal, that are pretty much unregulated consumptions, wastage,
blowouts, leakage, flaring and perhaps most all of it poorly if even
recorded.

In order to sustain 5.24 ppm of helium in our atmosphere takes a great
deal of resupply tonnage, and because of the low mass of He and the
inability of He to bind with anything is perhaps why it takes such a
continuous resupply.

Are you thinking that somewhere above the bulk atmosphere of Earth
(say above 500 km) is where all of that terrestrial helium tonnage is
secretly hiding out?

Do your own research and tell us how much helium Earth is losing, and
then reconsider what a toasty planet like Venus could be losing.

Isn't helium sort of a tell-all element as to the metallicity nature
and age of a planet?

My math isn't always good enough, but your math should be impeccable.

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

Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
*similar* to that on Earth.

On May 31, 8:45*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/30/11 10:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


Then go to the internet and look up basic facts about natural gas,
oil, coal, various hard and soft mineral mining plus all of their
ventings and energy consuming infrastructure that comes with the
package deal, that are pretty much unregulated consumptions, wastage,
blowouts, leakage, flaring and perhaps most all of it poorly if even
recorded.

In order to sustain 5.24 ppm of helium in our atmosphere takes a great
deal of resupply tonnage, and because of the low mass of He and the
inability of He to bind with anything is perhaps why it takes such a
continuous resupply.

Are you thinking that somewhere above the bulk atmosphere of Earth
(say above 500 km) is where all of that terrestrial helium tonnage is
secretly hiding out?

Do your own research and tell us how much helium Earth is losing, and
then reconsider what a toasty planet like Venus could be losing.

Isn't helium sort of a tell-all marker element as to the metallicity nature
and age of a planet?

My math isn't always good enough, but your math should be impeccable.

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

* *Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
* **similar* to that on Earth.

Once again, your mainstream parrot-speak is noted. Is there ever
anything originally deductive interpreted by Sam Wormley?

Are you suggesting that 4He from Earth is only leaving us at a few kg/
sec?

How much 4He is our naked moon leaking per second?

Our moon by day supposedly offers up to 40,000 4He/cm3, and because of
the extremely low gravity and 3e-15 bar of hard vacuum might suggest
that a given m3 of 40e9/m3 is at most going to stick around for less
than a second from the time of its release, unless there's some
terrific electrostatic charge holding it back. With a surface area of
3.8e13 m2, and taking only a little over half that as 2e13 m2
represents 80e22 4He atoms, or 2.88 g/sec loss of 4He.

Too bad there's still no further science (much less independent)
pertaining to our moon's atmosphere, so there's still no
interpretations other than Apollo.

Those old and outdated measurements are still highly questionable,
especially coming from the likes of Qinetiq and Apollo FUD-master
parrots like yourself.

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

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_releas...-lwb052011.php

Helium should help indicate the amount of trapped water, because most
all solids that produced 4He should also contain water. The 100%
fused crust of our extensively paramagnetic moon could be hosting and/
or holding back teratonnes of water.

Once again, the usual mainstream parrot-speak by others is noted. Is
there ever anything originally deductive interpreted by Sam Wormley or
others of his mainstream kind?

Are they suggesting that 4He from Earth is only leaving us at a few kg/
sec?

How much 4He is our naked moon leaking or outgassing per second?

Our moon by day supposedly offers up to 200,000 molecular particles/
cm3 (total atmospheric mass of 28 tonnes), of which 40,000 4He/cm3,
and because of the extremely low gravity and 3e-15 bar of hard vacuum
might suggest that a given m3 of 40e9 4He/m3 is at most going to stick
around for less than a second from the time of its release, that is
unless there's some terrific electrostatic charge holding it back.
With a surface area of 3.8e13 m2, and taking only a little over half
that as 2e13 m2 represents 80e22 4He atoms, or 2.88 g/sec loss of 4He,
which doesn’t seem to suggest that the physically dark and naked moon
itself is all that inside or surface radioactive (almost as though
it’s much older than we’ve been informed because surface thorium,
uranium and radium elements do exist).

If the solar wind were blowing across that naked surface at 300 km/sec
would suggest that released 4He is only going to say within a given m3
for 3.33e-6 second., and this would upwards skew the rate of 4He loss
to a more respectable 43 kg/sec based upon just half the surface area
getting hammered by one tenth of that solar wind velocity. In other
words, if lunar sodium doesn’t stick around, why should helium?

Too bad there's still no further science (much less independent or
even from Selene L1) pertaining to our moon's atmosphere, so there's
still no interpretations other than Apollo. Perhaps 4He and 3He are
getting captured and sequestered by carbon buckyballs that have to
exist on the surface of our physically dark and naked moon.

Those old and outdated measurements of our moon’s atmosphere are still
highly questionable, especially coming from the likes of Qinetiq and
Apollo FUD-master parrots like our Sam Wormley that believes and
parrots absolutely anything his masters tell him to believe and
parrot.

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

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 decay element of helium should help indicate the amount of trapped
water, because most all solids that produced 4He should also retain
water. The 100% fused crust of our extensively paramagnetic moon
could be hosting and/or holding back teratonnes of water within its
robust crust, as well as especially within its lower density interior.

However, once again we have the usual mainstream parrot-speak by
others is noted. Is there ever anything originally investigative or
deductive interpreted by our Sam Wormley or others of his mainstream
status-quo kind?

Are they suggesting that 4He from Earth is only leaving us at a few kg/
sec?

How much 4He is our naked moon leaking or having to outgass per
second?

Our moon by day supposedly offers up to 200,000 molecular particles/
cm3 (with a total atmospheric mass of 28 tonnes), of which 40,000 4He/
cm3, and because of the extremely low gravity and 3e-15 bar of hard
vacuum might suggest that a given m3 of 40e9 4He/m3 is at most going
to stick around for less than a second per m3 from the time of its
release, that is unless there's some terrific electrostatic charge
holding it back.

With a naked surface area of 3.8e13 m2, and taking only a little over
half that as 2e13 m2 represents 80e22 4He atoms, or 2.88 g/sec loss of
4He, which doesn’t seem to suggest that the physically dark and naked
moon itself is all that inside or surface radioactive (almost as
though its radioisotopes of thorium and uranium are much older than
we’ve been informed, because substantial surface thorium, uranium and
even radium elements do exist).

If the solar wind were blowing across that naked surface at 300 km/sec
would suggest that released 4He is only going to say within a given m3
for as little as 3.33e-6 second., and this could upwards skew the rate
of 4He loss to a more respectable 43 kg/sec based upon just half the
surface area getting hammered by removing 4He at one tenth of that
solar wind velocity. In other words, if lunar sodium doesn’t stick
around, why the hell should helium?

Too bad there's still no further science (much less independent from
Selene L1) pertaining to our moon's atmosphere, so there's still no
interpretations other than Apollo. Perhaps 4He and 3He are getting
captured and sequestered by carbon buckyballs that have to exist upon
the surface of our physically dark and naked moon.

Those old and outdated Apollo measurements of our moon’s atmosphere
are still highly questionable, especially coming from the likes of
Qinetiq and Apollo obligated FUD-master parrots or brown-nosed clowns
like our Sam Wormley that believes and knowingly parrots absolutely
anything his masters tell him to believe and parrot.

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