Moon Rocks Still In Demand After Almost 40 Years

During NASA's Apollo missions to the moon, roughly 842 pounds of rocks were collected from the lunar surface. Scientific demand for the rocks has always been high, and a review board tracks and sends out hundreds of samples each year, even now, decades after the rocks were brought to Earth. They've provided researchers with a wealth of information about the entire solar system. From the NYTimes: "The samples have confirmed that asteroid and meteor impacts, not volcanism, created the vast majority of craters that define the Moon's topography, while a constant barrage of meteorites, micrometeorites and radiation melted and pureed the bedrock to create the blanket of fine-grained soil and dust -- known as regolith -- that now cloaks the lunar surface. And knowing the ages of Moon rocks, which can be computed to within 20 million years, has enabled scientists to establish a baseline that allows them to date geologic features throughout the solar system. The surface of the Earth, one of the solar system's youngest topographies, is constantly changing, as it is faulted, folded, shaped and reshaped by eruptions, earthquakes and erosion. By contrast, the Moon is as old as it gets."

Comments

Mars missions

[CRCulver]

I can't wait for the first samples from Mars to be returned, though at this rate I'll be a grey old man. I've always loved the description of the planetary landscape in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars , especially his account of how astronauts would have to deal with "fines" (ultra-small dust particles that seep everywhere). Even if I could only see a marsrock in the Smithsonian, it would make me feel so much closer to the Red Planet.

Re:Mars missions

[AndGodSed]

That would make for some interesting study. One thing that springs to mind is the possibility of a black market trade for mars rock. Not that I would do something like that.

No really...

Re:Mars missions

[Ford Prefect]

Even if I could only see a marsrock in the Smithsonian, it would make me feel so much closer to the Red Planet.

No idea about the Smithsonian, but I've already seen Mars rock - at the Natural History Museum in London.

Bits blasted off Mars in some titanic collision aeons in the past, which have drifted through space before falling to Earth as meteorites. Bit of a roundabout route, but it works!

Re:Mars missions

[AKAImBatman]

Unfortunately, it's not going to happen if the "No manned space program!" supporters get their way. Those supporters keep telling us that all science can be achieved without a manned space program. Yet we have yet to see a probe provide as much useful material, data, and support infrastructure for return missions as the manned space program. Can we send a probe to drill for soil? Sure.

Can we send a probe that will collect samples from all over the area, collect rocks in their original condition, and respond to scientists on the ground who get to review each sample before it is collected? Maybe. But it's a LONG way from having been proven yet. And there's still the aspect that Astronauts are able to return a significantly larger quantity for study.

Then there's the situation of the Hubble Telescope. That telescope would still be a floating piece of space junk if not for the repairs carried out by the manned space program.

"I can say unequivocally, that if it weren't for the human space program, Hubble would be a piece of orbiting space junk." --Ed Weiler, Chief Scientist, Hubble

At the end of the day, humans are more adaptable to situations, and can do the job better than automated systems. That's not to deprecate the role of robots in space, but the two are incredibly complementary. So please tell your favorite political candidate, we want the Constellation Project! :-)

Re:Mars missions

[Opportunist]

Not to mention the by-products.

Sure, robot explorers are cheaper. But think back to the 60s. Think of all the incredible discoveries that were made because of the hardships to get man into space! A ton of inventions are, directly or indirectly, a product of the space race.

Now, why would human space travel spur innovation? Because we're (drumroll) humans! An innovation for human space flight has to serve some human need. Robot technology, while at least putting some innovation behind robotics and other electronic appliances, cannot produce anything close to it.

We should start looking beyond the immediate usefulness of research. If we didn't have quantum physics, we wouldn't have lasers, and thus no DVDs. That's not what it was researched for, but that's something anyone is able to understand and consider useful.

Andromeda Strain?

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked in the photo labs at Johnson Space Center (Nasa Houston) back in 1972 and was told that when Apollo 11 returned, Nasa had the Lunar Receiving Laboratory set up like a Fort Dietrich style germ warfare lab. Apparently there was actually concern that the rocks could harbor harmful microbes. This may have all been an urban legend of the time - I'm not sure. In any case, the photo techs thought this was pretty funny, since the boxes that the Hasselblad film cassettes were returned in were full of moon dust and it stuck to everything.

Re:Too bad

[maxume]

Everybody is always manipulating the world towards their own ends. Good and evil often mean little more than 'agrees with me' and 'doesn't agree with me'. The best, brightest, most decent person you know goes out and makes the world a better place. That is still manipulating it to their own ends.

Also, is an armchair activist someone who wishes they had principles to stand up for, I don't really understand what that means?

Re:Too bad

[maxume]

The distinction is meaningless. Benefiting others makes them feel good or otherwise satisfies some urge of theirs, which is exactly a benefit to themselves.

It's a reasonable way to sort some good from some evil, but it is very hard to establish pure altruism, it is usually beneficial to the giver.