Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Moon May Have Once Had Water

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the also-i-may-once-have-had-whisky dept.

Smivs writes "US scientists have found evidence that water was held in the Moon's interior, challenging some elements of the theory of how Earth's satellite formed.The Moon is thought to have been created in a violent collision between Earth and another planet-sized object. Scientists thought the heat from this impact had vaporised all the water. But a new study in Nature magazine shows water was delivered to the lunar surface from the interior in volcanic eruptions three billion years ago. This suggests that water has been a part of the Moon since its early existence."

89 comments

  1. Moon River? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 5, Funny

    Moon River... wider than a mile... I'm crossing you in style some day.

    1. Re:Moon River? by voltel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hurry, before it goes extinct like the rest of the Moon Water did!

    2. Re:Moon River? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What, are you using your whole fist, doc?

    3. Re:Moon River? by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      What, are you using your whole fist, doc?

      Better get your lunar ass checked before it's too late, turkey!

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
  2. Manifold Space by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

    Stephen Baxter wrote about tapping the water in the Moon in his novel Manifold Space. Apparently the notion of deep wells of water on the Moon has been seriously contemplated by astrophysicists since the early 70s.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Manifold Space by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always thought Stephen Baxter was ahead of his time. In all his novels he shows an uncanny ability to predict a believable far away future.

    2. Re:Manifold Space by akzeac · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stephen Baxter wrote about tapping the water in the Moon in his novel Manifold Space. Apparently the notion of deep wells of water on the Moon has been seriously contemplated by astrophysicists since the early 70s.

      The way you speak of the 70s as if it was a long time ago makes me start to feel really old.

    3. Re:Manifold Space by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      You think you're old...
      Sure, they funded manned trips to the moon those decades ago.
      Think of the pyramids of Egypt. They were built thousands of years ago.
      You try funding a project of that scope today, with that kind of durability, and see how far you get.
      Kids these days...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:Manifold Space by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

      As did Robert Heinlein with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The penal colony on the moon was only able to exist because of ice-mining operations below the surface.

    5. Re:Manifold Space by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Uh. That's half a lifetime and then some. Life is short. Enjoy it.

      --
      zosxavius photography
  3. Old news by Werrismys · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tintin found glaciers on the moon decades ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_on_the_Moon

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:Old news by kestasjk · · Score: 0

      We all know the Nazi's visions of space travel were mere science fiction..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Old news by WingedHorse · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you are not aware of the upcoming movie Iron Skies. (From the makers of Starwreck for those of you who have seen it. For those who haven't... It is available as a free download.)

      P.S. This isn't advertising... Or well, it is but I am in no way assosciated to the people making those. Just seemed fitting here...

      --
      Fine print: I work in internet advertising.
    3. Re:Old news by SpcCowboy · · Score: 1

      I think the significance is not simply the presence of the water, but rather the fact that it came from within the core. Glacier water on the surface could have been collected from impacts with other objects, but in theory, water from the core would have been present at tech time the moon formed.

      --
      -- Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. -- Albert Einstein
  4. English may once had grammar by Idaho · · Score: 3, Funny

    See subject (of my post and the article)

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    1. Re:English may once had grammar by hansraj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Shouldn't the subject of your post be: "English may once have had grammar" or "English may have had grammar once"?

    2. Re:English may once had grammar by andrewd18 · · Score: 1

      *mutters about the quality of Grammar Nazis these days*

    3. Re:English may once had grammar by radiumhahn · · Score: 1

      It might could of. It might could not of though too!

    4. Re:English may once had grammar by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      It's headline English.
      You know, like "English Left Waffles On Falkland Islands" and such.

  5. US scientists you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Aren't they busy eating Big Macs, wiretapping citizens and invading sovereign contries?

    1. Re:US scientists you say? by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Funny

      Aren't they busy eating Big Macs, wiretapping citizens and invading sovereign contries?

      Only the well funded ones.

  6. Idaho may once had reading ability by quantumplacet · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    see subject (of parents post and the article)

    1. Re:Idaho may once had reading ability by value_added · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      so he's funny for misreading the headline and then making an obnoxious comment about it, but I'm a troll for properly reading his post and making an obnoxious comment?

      I believe the OP was poking good fun at what he believed to be a grammatical error in the submission's subject line. Unfortunately, there is no error. Simply an awkward construct, not unlike an obnoxious comment trying to be funny.

      I'd suggest you be kind to the mods by being judicious in what you post, as they're the ones stuck having to read and consider everything you post. They may return the favour. And the rest of us may appreciate it as much.

  7. I've cracked it by cupantae · · Score: 5, Funny

    "another planet-sized object"
    Perhaps Xenu's spacecraft was bigger than we imagined.

    --
    --
    1. Re:I've cracked it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider yourself sued!

    2. Re:I've cracked it by ross.w · · Score: 2, Funny

      The stretch version of the DC-8?

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  8. Re:Duh. by rugatero · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...but there ain't no whales.

    --
    This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
  9. Of course the moon once had water. by edittard · · Score: 1

    next they'll be telling us that Amy Winehouse, Oliver Reid and Dean Martin did too.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  10. We like the moon! by objekt · · Score: 1

    Coz it is close to us

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  11. heh. by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can picture it now. A nice full Earth, a glorious tranquil sea.... oh wait.

  12. It's tears! by Stele · · Score: 1

    Real source of water...

  13. should be easy to resolve this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why doesn't somebody just ask Sen. McCain?

    1. Re:should be easy to resolve this by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Because when McSame is asked a question he has to have someone look up what he thinks, and I don't think he has an entry for 'water on the moon', though I may be wrong.

  14. I never bought by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

    I never bought that massive collision thing, something about it just doesn't seem right. Now there is some proof it isn't.

    Worth watching developments of the LCross next year.

    1. Re:I never bought by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never bought that massive collision thing, something about it just doesn't seem right. Now there is some proof it isn't.

      Not quite.

      "That points to two possibilities: Water either was not completely vaporised in that collision or it was added a short time - less than 100 million years - afterward by volatiles introduced from the outside, such as with meteorites."

    2. Re:I never bought by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the massive collision idea, consider that maybe it was a more massive collision than was thought and what ended up in orbit was chunks more than splash. Doesn't matter if the chunks were of hot mantle, as there is still a lot of water in the Earth's mantle.

    3. Re:I never bought by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I never bought that massive collision thing, something about it just doesn't seem right. Now there is some proof it isn't.

      As Chyeld says, not quite ; actually, not by a significant margin.

      If you RTFA, you'll see that they're detecting "up to" 46ppm water. That's 0.0046% (presumably percentages by weight not by volume, but it could be mole-% ; it makes a difference, but not a huge difference). In contrast, if you pick a random lump of mafic minerals from your reference books, you'll find water concentrations of 0.05%, 0.33, 0.09 (all percentages by weight of H2O retained after drying the sample above 120degC, these figures from olivines, like all the numbers I'm going to quote, cited in DH&Z 1966 ISBN 0582442109 ; because it's on my bookshelf), 0.56, 0.15, 0.17, 0.03, 0.08, 0.13, 0.84, 0.28 (plagioclase analyses), 0.04, 0.11, 0.06, 0.15, 0.10, 0.08, 0.13 (pyroxenes). They're all many times higher than reported for the lunar glasses.

      Agreed, the reported water contents of lunar glasses are higher than I'd have expected ; but absolutely they're still low. I'd have to see some work on cooling rates and diffusion speeds for the components of the rock vapour atmosphere postulated for after the giant impact before I found this work terribly upsetting. Water does, at the molecular level, have considerable affinity with silicate grains, to the extent that it's hard to remove every last damned trace of the stuff. Getting something that is 'dry' to 10s of parts per million is a pretty impressive feat.
      The pre-impact proto-Earth and the impactor would have had a hard job being seriously dry themselves, therefore there would have been appreciable water (and CO2, mercury, sodium, other "volatiles") in the debris cloud. That some of the water adsorbed back onto mineral grains before it dispersed, and then got re-accreted onto proto-Earth or proto-Luna is plausible to me. Also no-one is claiming that there were not other bits of material flying around in the area. It was an accreting planetary system FFS! ; cometary (read : volatile rich) debris would have been passing through the area more frequently than the Clapham Omnibus, and some of it is statistically certain to have stuck.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  15. Warning - Slashdot Title Spoiler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The title says

    "..challenging SOME ELEMENTS of the theory of how Earth's satellite formed.."

    There is NO indication that the collision theory is wrong. It just gives a bit more detail about where liquid water was at the time. From TFA:

    "..."It suggests that water was present within the Earth before the giant collision that formed the Moon," Dr Saal explained.

    "That points to two possibilities: Water either was not completely vaporised in that collision or it was added a short time - less than 100 million years - afterward by volatiles introduced from the outside, such as with meteorites."

    I suggest that after the collision there was still a lot of water floating round the two bodies, which would have fallen back onto both, so there's no real mystery raised by discovering trace amounts of water.....

  16. Re:Duh. by Progman3K · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but there ain't no whales.

    then how do you explain the song?

    We're whalers on the moon
    We carry a harpoon

    *sheesh, I used to go to school with that guy*

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  17. Re:Duh. by rugatero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    then how do you explain the song?

    We're whalers on the moon
    We carry a harpoon

    But there ain't no whales
    So we tell tall tales
    And sing a whaling tune

    --
    This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
  18. Water? by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Water? WHO CARES!

    Does it ever had oil?

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    1. Re:Water? by frenchgates · · Score: 1

      "Does it ever had oil?"

      I had no idea Jar-Jar Binks read Slashdot. Or maybe it's one of the cats from Can I Haz Cheezburger?

      --
      Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
  19. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lame.

  20. Water on Moon and Mars by Bombula · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm not sure why there's such suprise about discovering water on the Moon, Mars and other bodies in the solar system. Not only are comets and debris certain to have delivered significant quantities to every significant object in the solar system, it seems patently obvious that accretion is not a perfect centrifuge. If it were otherwise, Mercury would be comprised of 100% of one material - say, gold - while earth would be 100% iron or nickel, Mars 100% something else, and so on.

    Since this is not the case, it seems not just obvious but inevitable that virtually all materials be found in some quantity within every signficant body in the solar system.

    --
    A-Bomb
    1. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by nlitement · · Score: 1

      Besides, what's the big deal? Alright, there might be some sort of life.. fine, what's next? Does it mean that humans can inhabit it without life support? No.

    2. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      Well, life on another planet basically kills the idea of a human-centric universe. If there's life on the closest planets to us, it's basically impossible for us to be the only intelligent life forms out there.

    3. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If there's life on the closest planets to us, it's basically impossible for us to be the only intelligent life forms out there.

      Not necessarily. We'd need to do some kind of molecular analysis before we made declarations like that.

      Earth is virulently alive, it's thoroughly infested with life everywhere you look. It's quite possible that life found on, say, Mars would be a descendant of life from Earth: think bacterial spores riding a rock from impact ejecta.

      If Mars-life has the same basic DNA chemistry and the same molecular chirality as Earth-life, then they're likely to have shared a common origin, which tells us nothing about the likelihood of life among the stars. If, however, Mars-life is entirely alien right down to the molecular level, then it's likely to be of independent origin - native Martian. That changes all the estimates of the likelihood of life spontaneously emerging, and gives us to expect a universe full of living things.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by fermion · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here is my understanding without seeing any of the peer reviewed published work. It does not have so much to do with the water, as the formation the water is in and the how it hints at the origins of the moon. The rocks that water is in is volcanic, likely formed on the moon. This indicates that some time the past, the moon was volcanically active, and these volcanos ejected rock and water. The concentration of water in these rocks appears to suggest that concentration of water match the concentration in the Earth's mantle. So what this points to a cool event that pulled the moon off the earth, but left the water intact. that water was then flung off later on by volcanos.

      So while the moon may still be a part of the earth flung off is not collision, that event would have to cool enough not to boil off all the water. This tends not to support the idea of an mars size rock hitting the earth, ejecting rocks into orbit, and heating everything so much that all the water boils off, which is why it was expected that the moon would be dry, except for anything brought after the formation.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

      If Mars and Earth were to share some DNA, it would not necessarily mean that life was shared between the two planets. It could also mean that basic dna was seeded to BOTH planets by meteors. I believe the chances of simple dna evolving on Earth are astronomical (clue). I think it's much more probable that basic reproductive life started once in infinite space (probably within huge hydrocarbon nebulas), and then spread.

    6. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

      What is all the fuss about the water being boiled off ? So the water travelled with all the other debris as steam. It then cooled when it hit the upper atmosphere / space. It's momentum carried the ice and debris out into space, eventually the moon formed. Whether the water was liquid, steam, or ice, the momentum of the impact would have sent a lot of it out into space to form the moon.

    7. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the idea of a human-centric universe
       
      Anybody that has this concept won't give it up no matter what is found anywhere ever.

    8. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Earth is virulently alive, it's thoroughly infested with life everywhere you look. It's quite possible that life found on, say, Mars would be a descendant of life from Earth: think bacterial spores riding a rock from impact ejecta.

      But given life has so infested Earth, wouldn't we expect the same on Mars? Mars may have had life at some time in the past for which evidence is scarce, but if Mars has life now, shouldn't it be not only easy to find, but hard to miss?

    9. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The rocks that water is in is volcanic, likely formed on the moon. This indicates that some time the past, the moon was volcanically active,

      This hasn't been seriously disputed since people started to do detailed mapping of the Moon. The presence of volcanic features has been undisputed. There has been much dispute about the age of the volcanism, with a small proportion of observers claiming contemporaneous activity while others remain unconvinced by the reports of activity.

      and these volcanos ejected rock and water.

      Rock with a very-low-but-not-zero concentration of water.

      The concentration of water in these rocks appears to suggest that concentration of water match the concentration in the Earth's mantle.

      Considerably lower than most estimates for the composition of the mantle. Caveat : the mantle is not homogeneous, and it has 10-km thick slabs of wet (up to 10% w/w H2O) rock pulled into it to bake at regular intervals.

      So what this points to a cool event that pulled the moon off the earth, but left the water intact. that water was then flung off later on by volcanos.
      So while the moon may still be a part of the earth flung off is not collision, that event would have to cool enough not to boil off all the water. This tends not to support the idea of an mars size rock hitting the earth, ejecting rocks into orbit, and heating everything so much that all the water boils off, which is why it was expected that the moon would be dry, except for anything brought after the formation.

      Go back and look at the numbers I presented to, uhh, Wot'his'name (search for my username) ; the water contents being reported are up to 46ppm. Easily under a 10th to a 20th of normal contents in the corresponding minerals on Earth. That would suggest, to me, something considerably more effective at de-watering material than "normal" volcanic temperatures.
      The paucity of, for example, sodium in bulk moon concentrations strongly suggests events in the hundreds if not thousands of degrees C.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re:Water on Moon and Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All good points, but maybe too complicated.

      The original question is why does anyone care if water exists on the moon. Well, because the moon is thought to have formed and evolved through a single or a series of catastrophic heating events, during which most of the highly volatile elements were lost. If water, or other violative compounds, exists in an abundance, especially an abundance that is within an order of magnitude of what one might expect for smilier materials on earth, then a revaluation of the theory might be in order.

      Does this study show that an abundance of water actually exists? I don't know. Does the abundance of water invalidate the current formation theory? I don't know. But the issue is more about basic science than it is about the mass medias search for for a good headline to sell papers. It is interesting just to see that someone is still thinking about how we use these 40 year old samples to maybe learn something new. Cool.

      What i find truly fascinating is this revaluation of the concept of the quantity of water in the solar system. Long thought, at least by the average person, to be the exclusive domain of Earth and a few icy bodies, we know see water a very sticky substance that is not so easily completely eradicated from a planet. The recent data from Mars, for example.

  21. What process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... what process did they use to determine this happened three billion years ago?

    *ducks to avoid ancient-earthers' fists*

  22. Once? by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do they not realize the moon has water on its surface now, albeit in its solid state? I realize this is news and everything, but the title implies the moon no longer has water.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Once? by cjmdaixi · · Score: 1

      So do I...

  23. Water on Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There used to be water on the Moon, but Nazis drank it all during their visits to there at the end of WWII.

  24. Go Go Coleridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink...

    That's the rest of our solar system in a nutshell.

  25. So what if the water evaporated in the collision? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Water on Earth evaporates all the time, but it doesn't leave the planet. Why would water evaporating in the collision mean there would subsequently be no water on the moon?

  26. Uhh, Yeah by gerstens · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where do you think the whales were hiding?

  27. Vaporized doesn't mean destroyed. by radiumhahn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Scientists thought the heat from this impact had vaporised all the water.

    The atoms from the molecules still exist. Heck, the molecules probably still exist except for the few torn apart by very extreme heat and then used to oxidize other materials which probably would have been the loose Hydrogen. Almost all igneous rocks on Earth's surface, contain some water. They were formed at temperatures that "vaporize water".

  28. Re:So what if the water evaporated in the collisio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Uh, let's see... because there is not enough atmosphere to hold it in? I understand that meteorology isn't very popular but this is basic stuff.

  29. Re:hmmm... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Lame.

    He said no Err... with his foot.

    --
    The game.
  30. We all know... by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    • There was no much water on the moon, it had whalers, but no whales. (We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales So we tell tall tales And sing our whaling tune.)
    • Now moon sand worms are choking the water supply off. However these worms, when they die turn into a valued flavoring substance.

    Futurama and Dune, together!

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  31. The moon wasn't formed by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    The moon wasn't formed - it twas built

    Now Lousiana has something else to teach.

    --
    Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
  32. Argh, no. by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

    The moon has water.
    The water is bound up in the rocky material, the same way it was on Earth 4.5 billion years ago (when Earth was still pretty much molten).

    Earth did not have pooling surface water until hundreds of millions of years later. The moon apparently cooled quickly enough that free water did not exude from the rocky material. Either that, or the moon is small enough that any exudate just floated off into space rather than forming an atmosphere (H20 is lighter than O2 or N2, so that is plausible, since there is no other gas in the lunar atmosphere, either).

    Slashdot articles are vetted by someone before becoming main topics, right? No? Yes? Is one of the criteria now how much controversy the wrong information in the article will cause?

    1. Re:Argh, no. by micromuncher · · Score: 1

      Play Sim Earth as a kid?

      The solar system has a lot of water. Lots of commets plowed early planets/planetoids/moons. That's another source of water.

      Now let me get back to crashing this commet into my planet...

      --
      /\/\icro/\/\uncher
  33. Re:One Day by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    Maybe one day, You will land on the earth for real.

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  34. All I have to say is..... by Iceman4234 · · Score: 1

    So long and thanks for all the fish,

  35. I was just reading... by Jonah+Bomber · · Score: 1

    Robert Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon's "Blowups Happen." Put it down and turned on the radio, and NPR says there used to be water on our satellite. Weird!

  36. Of course the moon has water by hoppo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How else would they grow their moonajuana?

  37. Re:Jesse Jackson wants to castrate Obama!!! by beckerist · · Score: 0

    CRAP I did NOT mean to mod this insightful, hence my post (damn damn DAMN!)

  38. Moon MAY Have Once Had Water by zen_of_it · · Score: 1

    Moon MAY Have Once Had Water "US scientists have found evidence that water was held in the Moon's interior" So which is it? Should be phrased "US scientists have found evidence that water MAY have been held in the Moon's interior"

  39. Re:So what if the water evaporated in the collisio by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

    The moon has no atmosphere, it doesn't have the gravity to retain gases.

  40. Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curse you now I'll have that song stuck in my head all day.

  41. Re:Duh. by rugatero · · Score: 1

    Could be worse. According to this the worst song to have stuck in your head is the Baby Back Ribs one.

    All together now, I want my...

    --
    This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
  42. There was water on the moon.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... until Enron got involved...

  43. Of course it has water by XHIIHIIHX · · Score: 1

    It's the only explanation for all the sharks with lasers that keep attacking my X1

  44. Re:You diaperheads brought it on yourselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And have a few beers, relax a little!

  45. Re:Jesse Jackson wants to castrate Obama!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHA! Your attempt to censor me was a massive failure!

    Liberalism: The fear that someone somewhere can take care of themselves.