Water on Moon

[Owenotto]

By Wendy Hansen, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2008
A new analysis of volcanic glass recovered from the moon decades ago found the rocks contain traces of the constituents of water, challenging a long-held notion that the moon is perfectly dry.

Using a technique that was not available when Apollo astronauts collected the minuscule rocks in the early 1970s, scientists were able to detect telltale signs of water trapped inside the pebble-like glass. Their discovery suggests that water was present deep within the moon when the pebbles were formed during violent lunar eruptions 3.3 billion to 3.6 billion years ago.

The analysis, published Thursday in the journal Nature, may cause scientists to rethink theories on how the moon was formed.

"The water that these guys have discovered is a scientific gold mine for us to figure out the history of . . . the moon,"said Jim Garvin, chief scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, who was not involved in the research.

The pebbles, about the size of a period on this page, are made of magnesium-rich green volcanic glass and iron-rich orange glass that solidified moments after eruption. They were recovered from the moon's equatorial region during the Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 space missions.

Earlier studies of the pebbles detected the presence of sulfur and carbon, indicating the volcanic glass was formed in a fiery eruption. For the latest study, scientists measured the composition of the diminutive rocks molecule by molecule, using a technique 10 times more sensitive than that used in previous work.

They didn't search for water directly because when water is incorporated into any rock it naturally separates into smaller components. So researchers looked for one of those components, hydrogen, which would signal the presence of water.

Testing the interior of the pebbles, scientists found trace amounts of hydrogen along with chlorine and fluorine, which, like carbon and sulfur, are found in rocks from explosive eruptions. The discovery of hydrogen alongside the other elements suggests that the water came from inside the moon and not from an external source, such as a comet.

Based on the amount of hydrogen found in the pebbles, scientists estimated the lunar magma contained 260 to 745 parts per million of water, similar to what is found in the Earth's upper mantle.

"Up until our study, there was really no evidence for [indigenous] water on the moon," said Erik Hauri, a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science and an author of the report.

The finding throws at least a little water on the currently favored hypothesis concerning the moon's origin. Many scientists think the moon was formed when a large proto-planet slammed into Earth, sending into space molten debris that eventually became the moon. Scientists have long assumed that the heat created by the collision would have vaporized any water present and that the small gravitational field of the primeval moon would not have been strong enough to recapture the vapor.



Researchers said they eliminated solar wind as a possible source of the hydrogen found in the tiny rocks. Solar wind is a stream of charged particles, including hydrogen ions, that continually bombard the surface of the moon. If hydrogen from the solar wind seeped into the pebbles, it could give a false reading of water.

But in such a case, "you would expect high concentration on the surface which decreased toward the core," said Alberto Saal, assistant professor of geological sciences at Brown University and lead author of the report. When Saal and colleagues analyzed a glass bead from its edge to its core, "what we found was exactly the opposite," he said.

Some scientists think water may exist elsewhere on the moon. Ice may have been deposited by external sources such as comets, Hauri said. NASA plans to launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter this year to map the moon and look for surface water that could be hidden in permanently shadowed areas near the poles.

This has nothing to do with that, but one thing, is it possible that there is extraterestrial living creatures out there, seeing a proof that water does exist in space??
Alien, actually i don't believe that.......

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Water in space is nothing special, most comets are composed largely of water, and one of Jupiter's moons, Europa, is covered in a frozen ocean. What would be required for life is liquid water. Life on the moon is impossible though, too much radiation and too cold. Also, the moon never had conditions that would have been suitable for the evolution of life. We are pretty confident Mars at one time had flowing water on the surface, unfortunately it's atmosphere has largely been stripped away, and it's molten core froze (the planet was too small to maintain geothermal energy for more than 4 Billion years) and so I find it unlikely there is any liquid water remaining on Mars. Though, it is our best chance after Europa, but Europa is too far away (Europa may have liquid water because Jupiter's size provides it with enough geothermal energy to act as a mini-star for it's moons.) Europa is too far to reach, so we are gonna check Mars for evidence of life having once lived there, or living there now, because Mars once had the conditions where life could have evolved.

Edit: The interest in water on the moon is primarily a commercial/militaristic concern, if it existed it could act as a source of hydrogen fuel and drinking water for future bases/mining towns on the moon. I'm not optomistic enough to ever think there will be actual civilian cities on the moon.

[sasuke123uchiha]

there is water in space:confused:

[Sozoku]

..........Kind of old news, but interesting to hear.

[-Erios-]

of course there are other living creatures in the space did u really think us humans are the only ones

[Sozoku]

of course there are other living creatures in the space did u really think us humans are the only ones

That would indeed be a foolish thought.

[-Erios-]

sure thing sozoku

[Dream Catcher]

Creatures? I doubt it... maybe on some planet far far away. Only thing us humans could find is probably fossils on other planets or micro-organisms deep under their crusts... and of course the moon should have water on it, it was part of the earth once.. or so the theory goes :Paranoid:

[blind]

Hm...I was wondering about this earlier, but just because we and things on earth rely on water, couldn't there be organisms or other "aliens" (for lack of a better term) out there that rely on something else? Their biological system could be entirely different than anything we've ever seen, which wouldn't make water essential for them.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Hm...I was wondering about this earlier, but just because we and things on earth rely on water, couldn't there be organisms or other "aliens" (for lack of a better term) out there that rely on something else? Their biological system could be entirely different than anything we've ever seen, which wouldn't make water essential for them.

Well it requires a dipolar liquid solvent, as far as we understand life. On Earth all life is carbon based organic molecules in water solutes. Scientist have proposed silica based "organics" and instead of water, methane or ammonia as solute. Although, here at McGill one of my professors Dr. Vali, who was a NASA astrobiologist, his expert opinion was that silica base was too unflexible to be conductive to the evolution of life. Also, methane and ammonia are not liquid at temperature ranges that would be conductive to evolution of life as we know it.

So, to answer your question, it's possible but unlikely.

Creatures? I doubt it... maybe on some planet far far away. Only thing us humans could find is probably fossils on other planets or micro-organisms deep under their crusts... and of course the moon should have water on it, it was part of the earth once.. or so the theory goes :Paranoid:

Water wasn't found in high amounts on Earth during the periods of bombardment that formed the moon. Most of the water theoretically came from comets and from volcanic activity about 4-5 Billion years ago. Same time the moon was formed.

[Dream Catcher]

I wanna see Animals who breathe NO2 and shoot it out of their asses to run faster (joke of course -_-)

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Haha well the rove beetle can propel itself through water by shooting a hydrophobic substance out of it's anus.

[blind]

Well it requires a dipolar liquid solvent, as far as we understand life. On Earth all life is carbon based organic molecules in water solutes. Scientist have proposed silica based "organics" and instead of water, methane or ammonia as solute. Although, here at McGill one of my professors Dr. Vali, who was a NASA astrobiologist, his expert opinion was that silica base was too unflexible to be conductive to the evolution of life. Also, methane and ammonia are not liquid at temperature ranges that would be conductive to evolution of life as we know it.

So, to answer your question, it's possible but unlikely.


So technically, there could be other solvents out there that life depends on, I mean things like methane and ammonia is most commonly reported as the major component in newer planets that are formed, perhaps these lifeforms have, like I said earlier, completely different biological system that allow them to survive on them like life as we understand does on water.

To expand even further, why depend on dipolar solvents, or even liquids for that matter? If one part of their biological system is different that allows them to use something other than water, others could be possible as well.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

So technically, there could be other solvents out there that life depends on, I mean things like methane and ammonia is most commonly reported as the major component in newer planets that are formed, perhaps these lifeforms have, like I said earlier, completely different biological system that allow them to survive on them like life as we understand does on water.

To expand even further, why depend on dipolar solvents, or even liquids for that matter? If one part of their biological system is different that allows them to use something other than water, others could be possible as well.

After reading my post meant "solution" not solute/or rather solvent would have been the more appropriate word (can tell I haven't done chemistry in a while lol), since life doesn't actually dissolve in water but relies on dissolved nutrients and ions.

A dipolar liquid allows formations of compartments in an energetically favourable way. Otherwise to form "cells" the lifeform would have to be continuously expending energy to keep the shape, or be especially rigid like the cellulose walls of plant cells. Also, a liquid is the only viable form for efficient movement of nutrients and energy molecules. If we had to consider something outside of liquid dependent life I would go with gaseous lifeform because solids could never spontaneously form life in anyway I can conceive. A solid "life" could possibly exist like AI.

[Sozoku]

Is it weird if I understood everything you guys just said? 'Cuz I did...

Now I'm scared of myself...

[blind]

After reading my post meant "solution" not solute/or rather solvent would have been the more appropriate word (can tell I haven't done chemistry in a while lol), since life doesn't actually dissolve in water but relies on dissolved nutrients and ions.

A dipolar liquid allows formations of compartments in an energetically favourable way. Otherwise to form "cells" the lifeform would have to be continuously expending energy to keep the shape, or be especially rigid like the cellulose walls of plant cells. Also, a liquid is the only viable form for efficient movement of nutrients and energy molecules. If we had to consider something outside of liquid dependent life I would go with gaseous lifeform because solids could never spontaneously form life in anyway I can conceive. A solid "life" could possibly exist like AI.

Well, either way, these solvents can still dissolve nutrients and ions, right?

As for it being a liquid, I meant that their body temperature is different such that whatever solvent (or solution) this lifeform is depending on could be a liquid at that temparture, so they could still use methane and whatnot.

Although my argument isn't really all that strong, seeing as how I can just construct everything around this lifeform so that it fits into the mold of what we know of life today, just in a differently solvent. :D

[ACPRO]

Then this means the only possible conclusion is to destroy the moon.

[letsrock0303]

Wow IFTS and Blind squaring off... It's like watching Einstein and Steven Hawking have an ass kicking contest. Thanks for that guys.

As far as life on other planets. If there is no life anywhere in the universe that is a major waste of space imo

[-Erios-]

WOW im speechless IFeelTiredSleepy and Blind really know their stuff

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Blind is just a chemist, I'm the one whose studied microbiology >.< lol

[blind]

Blind is just a chemist

I see where this is going...

:p

But yeah, I don't know much about biology, just chemistry, haha. :D

[Owenotto]

First of all, the main thing that life needs is energy... The idea that how a lifeform maintain its energy and survive in natural selection is probably can be solved by different ways... So, i'll go with blind, there is a possibility that there is a life sistem which has an utterly different solvent than the life in the earth...
I just never think that there is a thing outside there which has or more intelligent like us...

[Dream Catcher]

There can be organisms that use other means of survival, but that would be on a whole different level, like blind said. Personally I can't imagine a life form that does not have DNA or that uses (Hydrogen) for example, to sustain itself.

But what might give some insight to blind's idea is bottom dwelling organisms (ocean) They "feed" or "breathe" don't remember, on pockets of Methane gas I think, since there is no oxygen there. So yes there can be different ways to survive but I think water is the essential solvent..

[Owenotto]

Yes, lifeform "eat", "feed", And "breathe" are the way of its to get energy... All of organism definitely need energy to survive...

[blind]

Yes, lifeform "eat", "feed", And "breathe" are the way of its to get energy... All of organism definitely need energy to survive...

Yes, but who's to say that some organisms can't "eat" and "feed" on the solvents I stated previously? They don't need to "breathe", as long as they get their nutrients else where, and their bodies could very well convert this into energy. Just because something is constant for life as we've seen (and I believe there's definitely other lifeforms out there, with different biological systems), doesn't mean it would still hold true for other lifeforms.

[Owenotto]

Yeah, it can be the way... But one thing, i don't believe that there is an extraterestrial lifeform which has an intelligent like us as many other had said...

Actually, i was wondering, does a machine lifeform in matrix movie can be considered as a lifeform??

[blind]

Why not? Actually I believe there are lifeforms out there that are a lot more intelligent than us, I mean, the universe is so huge, anything is possible out there, essentially it's how different molecules interact with each other (yes, I know I'm a chemistry nerd), which there are infinitely many different combinations.

[Dream Catcher]

Anything organic is considered a life form (imo) So anything containing containing and utilizing carbon.

If we would happen to encounter organisms that dwell in environments alien to ours, they would probably not be classified as life forms but something different. Aliens perhaps?

I agree with you that there are probably no life form as intelligent as ours out there, but I like to believe that they DO exist in parallel universes ;)

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Well I have a more narrow definition of life than DC. I consider any closed chemical system which actively resist the move to equilibrium a lifeform, i.e. anything that maintains homeostasis.

Also, those deep ocean lifeforms aren't as alien as people seem to consider them, they still operate under the same oxidative metabolism of all lifeforms, they just have evolved enzymes capable of utilizing lower energy metabolites. The gut bacteria of the deep sea tube worms can oxydize H2S and fix carbon dioxide, thus they can produce sugars from the carbon dioxide in the water and they get the energy to produce these sugars from the hydrogen sulfide that is eroded from the ground by the hot currents. Most of the ocean is empty of microbes because of low nutrients, but at those hydrothermal vents there are hotspots of life, microbes capable of fixing carbon without sunlight allow for other microbes to come and feed off them, or symbiotic animals, then deep sea crabs and mollusk come to feed off of those, and you get a deep sea, plant independent ecosystem. Most surface ecosystems are dependent on photosynthetic organisms as the base. Essentially it's all the same though, one organism oxydizes something and fixes carbon, then a large progressive chain of organisms eats them.

[Sozoku]

Seriously, sleepy, I'm not the guy who says get a life, but if someone does to you, they have no grounds whatsoever to state that you don't!

:thumb:

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ueUOTImKp0k&feature=related

The idea of life on other worlds does bring up some significant philosophical and theological questions though.

Although, recently the Catholic church has said that life on other planets would just be more evidence of God's greatness and it is not blasphemy to believe in aliens.

However, I would have difficulty seeing how most people would reconcile the fact that life on other planets is absent from all ancient religious text.

[Arty]

A question under an "infinite context" is not considered a question of any real value or logical value.

An agnostic view of things such as :

Does life exist outside earth? Followed by the arguement : You cant say no , by climbing probability you could easily reach the conclusin that yes , the possability of another life form existing in the world ( Predefined value ) is there but since you cant prove nether both can be and both are irrational claims.

This , argument is often considered logically correct and many people nowdays have agnostic beliefs because they seem to think it is the most logical approuch to an argument/proposition or w/e the subject is when presented within a context that is infinite.

Same thing is happening with religion and pretty much everything. This , trend or w/e it is , is called : Politicaly Correct.

Now, to avoid all conflicts ill make it short and say. An agnostic is not logical at all.

Logic is not agnostic and will never be.

Furthermore , an argument where people argue with concepts such as life whom they self have defined previously or just now is not worthy of being called anything but philisophical chit chat ;).

The appropriet question that can be easily chewed with an agnostic approuch would be.

Are there any other beings.

Edit : How do you get a life Sozoku :S

Second Edit :
The idea of life on other worlds does bring up some significant philosophical and theological questions though.

How the hell did theology get in there? double v tee eff? And its got nothing to do with philosophy ether , its just a definition.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Unlike philosophers, scientist do argue over what constitutes life, and it is not about definition. Nor is it about infinite probabilities. We have the ability to investigate life in space, this isn't about the question of God. We can search for organic molecules through spectrophotometry of distant planets, and we can check for organic molecules with labs, like the one currently on Mars. Furthermore, Arty you are ignoring the fact that if life exist somewhere in the universe, the probability of it existing elsewhere is very high considering the size of the universe (which we can estimate). There is a very high probability that the same conditions that led to life on Earth could have happened elsewhere numerous times. To say one believes in life in space because of probability would be illogical, but to believe it is probable and thus worth looking for is not.

The field of astrobiology is concerned with the limits where life can survive, and the conditions underwhich life can evolve.

Moreover, the idea of life in space has a lot to do with theology. Since the acceptance of life in space is in direct opposition to the theology of many religions, whereas it is specifically part of the doctrines of some faiths like Raelians and Scientologist. Not to mention the theories of panspermias effect on religion would be if they gained more momentum from discovery of life on Mars.

Philosophically it brings to question what it means to be a human being, questions of morality and the entire anthropocentric viewpoint come into question.

Also, whether the definition of life is predefined by the arguer is irrelevant because proving the existence of practically any defined lifeform would be remarkable.

[Kumo]

However, I would have difficulty seeing how most people would reconcile the fact that life on other planets is absent from all ancient religious text.So is cloning, HIV, and floating kidney. It doesn't mean anything.

[Owenotto]

Unlike philosophers, scientist do argue over what constitutes life, and it is not about definition. Nor is it about infinite probabilities. We have the ability to investigate life in space, this isn't about the question of God. We can search for organic molecules through spectrophotometry of distant planets, and we can check for organic molecules with labs, like the one currently on Mars. Furthermore, Arty you are ignoring the fact that if life exist somewhere in the universe, the probability of it existing elsewhere is very high considering the size of the universe (which we can estimate). There is a very high probability that the same conditions that led to life on Earth could have happened elsewhere numerous times. To say one believes in life in space because of probability would be illogical, but to believe it is probable and thus worth looking for is not.

The field of astrobiology is concerned with the limits where life can survive, and the conditions underwhich life can evolve.

Moreover, the idea of life in space has a lot to do with theology. Since the acceptance of life in space is in direct opposition to the theology of many religions, whereas it is specifically part of the doctrines of some faiths like Raelians and Scientologist. Not to mention the theories of panspermias effect on religion would be if they gained more momentum from discovery of life on Mars.

Philosophically it brings to question what it means to be a human being, questions of morality and the entire anthropocentric viewpoint come into question.

Also, whether the definition of life is predefined by the arguer is irrelevant because proving the existence of practically any defined lifeform would be remarkable.

I agree, The definition of life is vague, depends to disciplinal used to...
Anyway, philosophist disciplinal would define life as "X" while the other disciplinal take it as "Y"... We can't just generalize life with simplify the definition... If in the future, there will does exist some non-bio carbonic organism such as like in the matrix movie.......

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

So is cloning, HIV, and floating kidney. It doesn't mean anything.

Non of those actually contradict religious doctrine. If you ask Jerry Falwell HIV was created by God to kill gays o.O (And apparently African women)

[Arty]

Arty you are ignoring the fact that if life exist somewhere in the universe, the probability of it existing elsewhere is very high considering the size of the universe (which we can estimate). There is a very high probability that the same conditions that led to life on Earth could have happened elsewhere numerous times. To say one believes in life in space because of probability would be illogical, but to believe it is probable and thus worth looking for is not.

Everyone can use multi-value/level logic. That is totally irrelevant to my point.

Regardless of what does exist out there the genereal glorification of "life" is petty. You strap your definition down or find another one, argument based on loose definitions are crap and not worth going into.

As i said befor.

[Sozoku]

I wonder what E.T. would say about all of this? Well, it really doesn't matter to me, because I know that eventually, our species' thirst for knowledge will provide the answer through scientific analogy and study...

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Everyone can use multi-value/level logic. That is totally irrelevant to my point.

Regardless of what does exist out there the genereal glorification of "life" is petty. You strap your definition down or find another one, argument based on loose definitions are crap and not worth going into.

As i said befor.

Definitions of life are not loose, people argue over whether viruses should be life or not, but there is no one alive who denies bacteria are life. Moreover, it is not about glorification of life, it is the fact that if life exist on other planets, it could provide huge sources of evidence for the origin of life, depending on the age of the life we find. Not to mention the numerous industrial applications that could come from discovering organisms capable of existing in extremely harsh environments. Finally, any information gained on our universe is worth it, I firmly believe in knowledge for knowledge's sake.

[Kumo]

Non of those actually contradict religious doctrine.

You didn't say it contradicts, you said it wasn't found in religious text.

[Arty]

You seem to have misunderstood my point Sleepy. I am not claiming the actual defnition of life is shaky , im claiming that a discussion where "life" is re-defined or has bin "changed" in a very special way because the arguer feels it is how it should be is in all a whole different discussion and so very much irrelevant to the actual discussion.

Im saying that being agnostic towards things such as "Does life exist" elsewhere is not logical as everyone seems to think , i am also stating that agnosticism is in all not an answare to anything , thus a very shaky answare to w/e the question is. It is far from being a logical stand as so many assume -

And last but not least i am trying to make the point that instead of limiting the context to "are there any other life forms out there"? have it more open and simply ask yourself - "Could there be "something else"?"