Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A New Study Shows the Moon's Interior Could Contain Water (npr.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the water-reservoir dept.

A new study from Brown University shows the moon might be flowing with more water than we thought, thanks to ancient volcanic deposits. NPR reports: Using satellite data, scientists from Brown University studied layers of rock on the moon that likely formed from large volcanic eruptions, called lunar pyroclastic deposits. The magma created by these eruptions has been carried to the moon's surface from very deep within its interior, the study showed. What's interesting about this new study, though, is that it shows the water is far more than just ice hiding in shadowy areas of the moon. In fact, there are likely pools of water in the moon's mantle, as well. If there's water in the moon's mantle, that suggests that the water was delivered to the moon very early in its formation, before it fully solidified, the study's lead author, Ralph Milliken told Space.com. Because the magma originally comes from deep within the lunar interior, Milliken explains, "the deep interior of the moon must also contain water."

45 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Or cheese by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    We recently found out there's a LOT of water under Earth's crust and WE LIVE HERE. At this point there could be basically anything on the moon. We don't have the technology to even start to speculate.

    1. Re:Or cheese by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      oh we have the technology.

      we just don't have an actual practical profitable reason to do it. really that's the gist of it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Or cheese by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Nope, with massive costs we got down to 12k meters and that was where our best drilling technology stopped to work. It might be plausible to get to 15k or so but not much deeper.

      Further down, you'd need to invent a whole new way of drilling.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Or cheese by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I would say both are true in this case. It is unlikely we'll be getting to the mantle of the earth or the moon anytime soon. We've barely reached the lower points of the surface of the Earth's crust and there is plenty of profitable incentive to reach the resources we believe are contained there.

    4. Re:Or cheese by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Oh, we have the technology.

      Unfortunately, we spent all the budget on Steve Austin.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Or cheese by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it isn't actually simpler to drill deeper on the Moon than it is on Earth.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Or cheese by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The problem with drilling is the heat melts whatever you drill with. The moon also has a molten interior, but the moon's internals are much cooler than the Earth's so you could probably get significantly deeper.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re:Or cheese by rbrander · · Score: 1

      Relates to rock pressures, so, yeah, six times deeper.

  2. Moon Could Contain Oil by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

    All we need is a report that the Moon contains oil and the tech will be devised to send the full force of the US military's might to the Moon, to liberate it from its oppressors. Once millions of soldiers and their supporting infrastructure and supply lines are established, they will realize there's no oil, establish a colony, and use said weapons to secure independence. Mission accomplished!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Moon Could Contain Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But how many licks will it take to get to the center?

    2. Re:Moon Could Contain Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oil comes from fossils, which were put on the moon by Satan to fool scientists into believing in evolution instead of believing in Space Jesus. And as we all know, there's no such thing as Space Jesus.

    3. Re:Moon Could Contain Oil by shaitand · · Score: 1

      It did have life, in the mantle swimming pools. Try to keep up.

    4. Re:Moon Could Contain Oil by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Nah, once the colony is halfway built, the US will abruptly bring its brave soldiers back home, allowing someone else to move in.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    5. Re:Moon Could Contain Oil by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      But how many licks will it take to get to the center?

      The world may never know...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    6. Re: Moon Could Contain Oil by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Pfft... Probably not very many. Look up. It's tiny! Why, I can pinch it between two fingers, even!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re: Moon Could Contain Oil by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The documentary, ATHF, has assured me that the mooninites are just 8-bits and relatively harmless.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Moon Could Contain Oil by aquabat · · Score: 1

      There's a B-Ark joke in here somewhere...

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
  3. Moon is a part of Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since the scientific consensus is that the moon was scooped out of the Pacific Ocean by a collision with a planet sized body, this should not be all that surprising.

    1. Re:Moon is a part of Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since the scientific consensus is that the moon was scooped out of the Pacific Ocean .

      That's not true. The floor of the Pacific is very young (200M years), and the moon was formed out of mantle, not crust.

    2. Re:Moon is a part of Earth by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Is that really the consensus because it doesn't make any sense, and I can't find anything to support it. The Pacific Ocean is only about 750M years old, the moon is somewhat older. Even if you assume the moon came out of materials originally where the plates underneath the Pacific were then, well, that doesn't make much sense either because they'd have been destroyed in the process.

      I was under the impression that the consensus was an early proto-Earth was hit by something, usually thought to be a sister planet Theia, that caused the two planets to combine and break up into two, with the larger of the two forming Earth as we know it today, and the rest eventually reforming to make the moon. In the process the early Earth was effectively destroyed and recreated, the entire surface becoming a magma ocean, so you can't really say some identifiable part of it "became" the moon.

      If I'm wrong, I'd love to know!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Moon is a part of Earth by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid I had an encyclopaedia with that theory in it. It also had the "near miss with another star" theory for planet formation.

      I'll add that it didn't have Pluto as a planet - not due to politics but because Pluto hadn't been discovered when it was written.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Moon is a part of Earth by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That... makes sense. The theory of Plate Tectonics apparently dates back to 1912 (with elements of the theory predating it - largely observations that the two landmasses on either side of the Atlantic ocean look like they would fit into each other - but the first serious development starting around then), but it wasn't until the 1950s that the whole theory started to fit together and became the scientific consensus - so it's unlikely any book before the late 1950s would rule out any scientific hypothesis on the grounds that it conflicted with PT.

      Pluto was discovered in 1930. So your book is definitely in that zone.

      I read a book on dinosaurs from the early 1990s to my daughter the other day and had to correct it, it described scaly lizards and said they were all now extinct. Funny how that works.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Moon is a part of Earth by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well the key thing is that the Earth was, according to current theories, an ocean of various liquids, from molten rock to the things that make up the core today. So it's not really a matter of things moving around, there's no area of any reasonable size you can presumably point to 47 million years ago that would be identifiably part of the "Pacific Ocean" today.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Re: Unclear summary by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

    The study explains that there's water in the pyroclastic deposits, based on an analysis of reflected light data collected by some Indian probe I've never heard of. Something something absorption lines something H2O (or OH, maybe). Also, we found water in the Apollo samples but assumed it was contamination. Oops (maybe).

  5. Re:Not surprised... by davester666 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ugh. wet cheese feels disgusting, and tastes worse.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  6. How to get back there by houghi · · Score: 2

    If there is water, there could have been at least plant life.
    If there where plants, there would be coal and oil..
    Het Americans : There is oil on the moon.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:How to get back there by jbengt · · Score: 1

      You weren't listening carefully. Coal did not come from dinosaurs, but from plants.

  7. Great sign by willoxgaulard · · Score: 1

    Eruption of magma is a great sign of water..

  8. Re:Not surprised... by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

    Fresh mozzarella disagrees with you

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  9. It may also... by midifarm · · Score: 1

    Contain cheese. There are conflicting reports.

    1. Re:It may also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For a long time us humans thought the moon was made of cheese.

      Then in the late 1960's we landed there and found it was NOT made of cheese.

      We haven't been back since then.

      Behold the power of cheese!

  10. Re:Not surprised... by shaitand · · Score: 1

    As a bit of a foodie who makes fresh mozzarella often I have to interject that it adds a lot in texture, body, and "freshness" and very little in the flavor department. The more fresh and wet the more true this is. Whether it is leaving it in the fridge longer, salt, or cooking it, removing liquid is the key to concentrating the flavor.

  11. A study shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    my hypothesis correct, hypotheses today are referred to by ignoramuses as 'studies'.

  12. Re:Actually.. by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

    "sublunatanian"

    Oh you came so close to getting a gold star for that!

    Should've been "sublunarian"...

  13. Perhaps by s122604 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is where God took all the water from the great flood

  14. "Moon Water" sounds like by xanthos · · Score: 1

    the next great hipster beverage

    --
    Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
  15. Re:Not surprised... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The worst part about high moisture mozzarella is shredding it.

    I want delicious mozz on my pasta and pizza, but I lose large portions of it because it essentially turns into glue when you start shredding.

  16. Re:Not surprised... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Even processed "low-moisture" mozzarella has more water content than the moon. You want some water in your cheese, it would be an inedible lump without it.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  17. The far right will hate this by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    An excellent example of why we don't use stone tablets to record scientific knowledge.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:The far right will hate this by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I had a friend who was into old atlases. He had one from the early 1900s - in 1995 it was more accurate than one made 10 years earlier.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:The far right will hate this by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      A broken clock is right twice a day. The river near me has changed enough in the last 50 years that the county maps do not show the exact path of the river relative to my property line. The physical world is constantly changing, and information that is even a few decades old should be checked for accuracy, let alone information that is two millennium old.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:The far right will hate this by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but it was more to do with all the shit in the Balkans & the Soviet Union breaking up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:The far right will hate this by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I won't hold my breath for my globe with East and West Germany to become relevant again.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  18. If true, it means by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    He left all the bullshit on Earth.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. Re:Not surprised... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    I agree it has a "weaker" flavor than lower moisture mozzarella, but he stated the texture and flavor of "wet cheese" were awful... That's simply not true, at least not in the case of mozzarella.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?