Apollo 17 Soil Matches Ancient Earth's Ocean Ridges In Water Content

StartsWithABang writes: They say that one of the most exciting phrases to hear in science is not "eureka!" but "that's funny," and the Apollo 17 astronauts, just over 43 years ago, certainly got such a moment when they discovered orange soil just beneath the grey regiolith. What turned out to be volcanic glass with tin inclusions had another surprise: olivine deposits that showed signs that they contained significant amounts of water inclusions when they were baked, at about ~1200 parts-per-million. This matches the water levels in Earth's upper mantle along ocean ridges, providing further evidence for the giant impact hypothesis and a common origin for the Earth and Moon.

Comments

Right

[MagickalMyst]

FTA: "it’s the same concentration of water as rocks found in Earth’s interior! In other words, if you ever doubted that the rocks from the Moon and the rocks from the Earth came from the same place..."

Yep, the Nevada desert. Thanks Stanley!

Pro-Human Hype

[Tablizer]

It's arguable that all of this wouldn't have come to pass -- that we never would have learned any of this -- if we hadn't sent a human scientist to the Moon...that this is what's truly needed if we want to uncover the truths about the rest of the worlds in our Solar System: scientific exploration by a human who knows what they're looking for. Or more importantly, who recognizes something interesting when they see it, and who isn't afraid to kick up what might be lurking where a more autonomous mind might not think to look!

This seems to be presenting an argument for more scientists (instead of just astronauts) and/or on-site human exploration instead of remote-controlled robots.

However, the argument for both is weak. A regular astronaut and remote rover could spot orange soil also.

In fact, a rover could have more "color" filters instead of be limited to the 3 ranges (cones) that human eyes have. There can be odd spectral variations that human eyes just can't detect, including the infra-red and ultraviolet range.

And for the same money, bots can cover far more territory and linger in an interesting spot, if needed.

Re:Rare Earth Hypothesis

[BarbaraHudson]

The odds are much lower than that. Anything near the galactic center is sterile (and that's where most stars are). Anything in an old galaxy has probably already been baked by at least one nearby star going bang. Anything from a first-generation galaxy isn't going to have much in the way of heavy elements. Anything around a star that is too big or too small isn't going to cut it. Anything that doesn't have sufficient liquid water to allow for plate tectonics (high-pressure steam lubricates the junctions of the plates, same as fracking does) isn't going to be able to take significant chunks of CO2 and turn them into limestone (CaCO3) so you'll get an atmosphere like Venus. Same problem with planets that are too cold for ice to melt. The "Goldilocks orbit" eliminates binaries, etc. Any planets with intelligent life on them either have already, or are in the process of, destroying themselves. It's far more likely that their descendants will be the same as ours will be - intelligent machines. So future survival will depend on who has the best battle bots.

Fuck Forbes

[wonkey_monkey]

You foist another Forbes link upon us to tell us about a discovery that's 43 years old?

Sheesh.

Re:Rare Earth Hypothesis

[R3d M3rcury]

Life - what IS life?

Life is a monosyllabic morpheme consisting of a fronting diphthong followed by a labio-dental voiceless fricative.

Seriously, you're right. Yes, there could be plenty of life out. The reason we look for life, as we know it, is that it's impossible to find life as we don't know it because we don't know what we're looking for.

So it's quite possible that our kind of life is rare but other kinds are not. But since we don't know how to find that, it's sort of a moot point.

Re:Rare Earth Hypothesis

[BarbaraHudson]

One of the interesting properties is that around the freezing point, ice expands, making it less dense than liquid water. This prevents the seas from freezing solid right down to the bottom. Water's also a pretty good solvent. And the expansion of water in cracks helps break rocks into little pieces. All this has benefits for life.

Re:Further proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon's accomplishments while in office are over looked because of the Watergate scandal. He oversaw the creation of the EPA, opened diplomatic relations with China, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, withdrew US military forces out of Vietnam and signed the Paris Peace accords, and initiated détente with the Soviet Union in the wake of his diplomacy with China which lead to the SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. As far as Presidents go he got more accomplished in his truncated Presidency than Presidents with 8 year terms ever accomplish. Not saying he should have not resigned but I don't think you can overlook his accomplishments along with his failures. Any recent President in the same type of scandal would do every thing in their power to fight impeachment proceedings and bring the government to a standstill while doing it. And after the political carnage the President would resign.

Re:Rare Earth Hypothesis

[mikael]

Water is the "unviversal solvent". It dissolves and mixes with just about anything; salts, acids, alkalines, ions. Some things don't mix like oils and fats, but that makes them useful as well. It also has a strong heat carrying capacity making it useful as a cooling fluid and it isn't combustible which is another advantage.
Chemically, it's formed from hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are found in stars. (also Nitrogen and Carbon through the CNO sequence of atomic transmutation).