Possible further evidence of surface water erosion on Moon

[Dubdrifter]

Appreciate your reply.
My last 3 posts explained the evidence and mechanism theory why I keep going back to the water explanation.

No point repeating evidence you are mysteriously chosing to ignore.

Did you register my points on radon gas emissions and formation of gasceous subterranean chambers?

My theory is there are many of these on the moon where major volcanic activity has occurred, filled with the 60% steam emission condensate water generated over time(which hasn’t been whipped away by the Solar Wind), thus explaining NASA research that suggests very substantial subterranean water reserves and maybe enough at the Cobra’s Head to be forced to the surface at sufficient pressure and volume to erode a considerable feature over a long period of time .... especially when the substrate might be loose ‘sandy’ particulate.

With atmosphere and climate not necessary in this scenario, we have no erosion time windows to worry about.
Plus the Aristarchus Crater impact could have played an important part in why the formation of this Rille has two phases, is so significant, interesting and now controversial. (Well, it is with me!)

I hope now you can see the strength of this new theory.

I’m guessing you don’t, so .....

You insist on the volcanic theory but give no logical detail on the exact mechanism to this two stage creation we are seeing in Schroter’s Valley.
Can you explain your mechanism for creation and possibly answer these 3 questions to back up the establishment theory?:

1) Can you explain how a lava tube that appears almost 10km wide initially, collapses evenly along it’s whole length of hundreds of kilometres without a glitch?
Are you seriously saying all other rilles on the moon were created in exactly the same way?

2) Is there any evidence collapsed lava tubes can be this length so far 'downstream' of the Herodotus Crater 'impact' volcano .... presuming you agree this is the ‘source’ of this features development?

3) If this feature is not created by collapsed tubes, surely it is a funny shape for a rift valley feature and if it was carved out by lava flow ... where are the deposits of the lava field at the end of this action?


The only lava debris I see is north of the Herodotus crater. Surely it is more likely there will be subterranean caverns of condensed water vapour under this area, thus making my theory even more likely?

 

[Tigger11]

Appreciate your reply.
My last 3 posts explained the evidence and mechanism theory why I keep going back to the water explanation.

No point repeating evidence you are mysteriously chosing to ignore.

Did you register my points on radon gas emissions and formation of gasceous subterranean chambers?

Yes and you decided that Radon seen by Selene, means a water vapor emission with Radon in it, AND IT DOESN'T. You have decided that not only do LTP's exist, which is still pretty much up to debate, but that they are Water vapor, which HAS NEVER BEEN DETECTED outgassing from the moon. Even in 99 when we crashed the Lunar Prospector on the moon in an effort to cause such an event, it didnt happen. Yet you are counting on it happening so often and so plentifully that it created the Rille. That is your immensely flawed theory.

My theory is there are many of these on the moon where major volcanic activity has occurred, filled with the 60% steam emission condensate water generated over time(which hasn’t been whipped away by the Solar Wind), thus explaining NASA research that suggests very substantial subterranean water reserves and maybe enough at the Cobra’s Head to be forced to the surface at sufficient pressure and volume to erode a considerable feature over a long period of time .... especially when the substrate might be loose ‘sandy’ particulate.

With atmosphere and climate not necessary in this scenario, we have no erosion time windows to worry about.
Plus the Aristarchus Crater impact could have played an important part in why the formation of this Rille has two phases, is so significant, interesting and now controversial. (Well, it is with me!)

I hope now you can see the strength of this new theory.

There is no strength to your theory. Literally hundreds of real scientists who actually look at real data, not learn about where we were going to land Apollo 18 by watching conspiracy videos on Youtube, have investigated the creation of Rille's and though the events that created them are up to some dispute, water is not one of the events on the table. Whether it was a lava flow that caused the lava tubes to collapse, the opposite, moon contraction mixed in with those 2, etc, its all basically vulcanism. Literally I would have more respect for your theory if you said the Rille were caused by the Ooze from Ivan Ooze when he took over the moon. Or Aliens, just say its Aliens, that again has a better chance then Water. Pod racing track 10 million years ago, more likely then a recent flood of 60% steam (where did that even come from?), that you are suggesting.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Your last paragraph gives the impression you are not wanting to keep this discussion on a seriously level.

Why is it so called Real astronomers analysing Real data, can’t analyse real data from a Youtube video from an LROC website without always trying to ridicule things?

The public want serious answers on possible water erosion, we can’t understand why some astronomers on here prefer to obsess about Youtube Conspiracy Theory.

This discussion isn’t about Aliens, 10 million year old pod racing tracks, Ivan Ooze (whatever that is!- I didn’t bother Googling it). If you prefer to discuss that, start your own thread .... and learn to distinguish between a Conspiracy Thread and a more serious scientific one. I do both, so I half understand why you might be confused at the beginning .... but this far down the page? .... Jeez!

I am surprised you are still questioning the existence of TLP’s .... most astronomers recognise the word ‘transient’ in the title and recognise many of the observations are short term events hard to verify and confirm if they die down within a relatively short period.
Many of Herschel’s TLP observations have subsequently been verified by repeat observation by more open minded astronomers. Sounds like you are still questioning some of those verifications!

With all those real atronomers and their real data, funny how your case is reduced to ignoring the 3 key questions I was wanting answers to that might have made your theory credible.

If astronomers won’t answer key questions that may show a weakness in their theories .... maybe we should be paying other people hard earned tax dollars to do this work?

(It would be interesting to roll out this Moon Water Erosion Theory in a lecture around astronomy/geology University classes possibly worldwide .... to get feedback from students and other experts who might have other, more credible, ideas explaining the creation of Schroter’s Valley. P.M. me on here if any Tutors are interested.)

Tig, You claim top scientists have ....

“investigated the creation of Rille's and though the events that created them are up to some dispute, water is not one of the events on the table. Whether it was a lava flow that caused the lava tubes to collapse, the opposite, moon contraction mixed in with those 2, etc, its all basically vulcanism.“ - Tig

PLEASE tell me with all the resources at your disposal.Clear up reader’s confusion:

1) What is the opposite to lava flow causing the lava tubes to collapse?

2) How does moon contraction create the 2 stage feature we see here, and other rilles.

3) If this is vulcanism at work creating these gullies through this very loose particulate, where has all the lava gone?


Let’s be clear, whatever created these gullies through loose silicates .... it has since evapourated in the Solar Wind.

Only significant liquid candidate, water ....

So it is surprising to even basic level geologists this ‘cutting agent’ isn't even being considered by serious astronomers ......especially knowing the following:

When scientist tell us 60% of gasceous emissions from volcanic action on Earth are water vapour, which possibly explains why Planet Earth has so much water on it, held in by the Earth atmosphere .... we can conclude it is not unreasonable similar quantities of water have been produced by the long history of substantial volcanic action on the Moon. Let’s say 90% has been ‘lost’ to the Solar Wind.

But, we know volcanic gases create considerable subterranean labyrinths that trap water, and volcanic hot springs are often known natural sources of the very rare gas, Radon, detected in unusually high concentrations in this area ...... you don’t need a rocket scientist to conclude there are possibly active water filled chambers under this area creating the right conditions for Radon gas production that could be seeping through the substrate and collecting briefly in pockets in the Aristarchus Crater and Schroter Valley.

Tackling your earlier comment “no water vapour emmissions have been detected on the moon” ..... if astronomers are ignoring TLP’s .... maybe that is not surprising! ....Also worth noting, water vapour isn’t cutting these erosion ‘rilles’ ..... spring water forced out the ground is possibly the mechanism, probably creating various types of TLP, originating most likely from the Cobra’s Head end, and petering out along the length of the valley by evaporation.

 

[Tigger11]

Your last paragraph gives the impression you are not wanting to keep this discussion on a seriously level.

Since you are getting sillier and sillier I decided to follow suit

Why is it so called Real astronomers analysing Real data, can’t analyse real data from a Youtube video from an LROC website without always trying to ridicule things?

You really just keep missing the point. The area in question has been heavily studied since the mid 1960's. Just because someone "discovers it" on Youtube, doesn't suddenly throw all that data out. There is NOTHING on that video, that NASA and all the other space agencies haven't already seen, because they are the actual source for the pictures.

The public want serious answers on possible water erosion, we can’t understand why some astronomers on here prefer to obsess about Youtube Conspiracy Theory.

You want this, noone else, lets look at the facts.

1) The Rille is way less then 3 Billion years old
2) The Moon last had an atmosphere over 3 Billion years ago
3) Water cannot exist in liquid form on the Moon's surface without at atmosphere (and possibly didn't exist when it did have atmosphere
4) Thus the Rille was not created by flowing water

QED

I am surprised you are still questioning the existence of TLP’s .... most astronomers recognise the word ‘transient’ in the title and recognise many of the observations are short term events hard to verify and confirm if they die down within a relatively short period.

Most TLP's are likely not TLPs. Since the sixth century there have been 2400 or so TLP events recorded, thats less then 2 a year. Despite the fact that there are more and better telescopes (literally more telescopes in town today then there were on the Planet a century ago), TLP sightings have drastically dropped. I agree meteor strikes happen on the moon, I agree that theoretically that could cause what Patrick Moore coined as a TLP, but thats not what you think caused your Rille, is it?

Many of Herschel’s TLP observations have subsequently been verified by repeat observation by more open minded astronomers. Sounds like you are still questioning some of those verifications!

Where on earth did you hear this, that is just a silly comment. With the exception of the Apollo 11 one, I can't think of a single TLP which has verification from a second location, thats what you really need to verify the observations.

1) What is the opposite to lava flow causing the lava tubes to collapse?

I have no idea what this means, if you are asking why lava tubes would collapse on the moon, the same reason they collapse on earth, plus add in meteor strikes close by would do the same thing. This is all well known science and seen on multiple planets, I'm not sure what you are arguing here?

2) How does moon contraction create the 2 stage feature we see here, and other rilles.

Again I have no idea what your 2 stage feature is you are talking about. And again you seem to have now decided all the Rille's are water manufactured. Can you explain why everything that Apollo 15 brought back and all the analysis on those samples show that idea is wrong? There is no way to look at the evidence brought back from Apollo 15 and believe that Water not Lava created that Rille, ALL EVIDENCE clearly shows Lava created that Rille, and I'm sorry but that Rille and the one you are fascinated by, look a whole lot alike which is all you are using to create your theory.

3) If this is vulcanism at work creating these gullies through this very loose particulate, where has all the lava gone?

You keep talking about loose particulate, you do realize that much like everything in front of the lava flows on earth, almost nothing stops the lava so it would clear it right out. You think your puny liquid water handles this no problem but lava would have trouble with it. Your water that can't exist in liquid form because its too cold or to hot depending on whether its day or night and that is not even throwing in the solar wind issues. Lava probably flowed into a hole at the end or created a lava lake, that is what it does here and everywhere else in the solar system why are so sure it didnt do it on the Moon, and instead think its got to be water?

Let’s be clear, whatever created these gullies through loose silicates .... it has since evapourated in the Solar Wind.

Only significant liquid candidate, water ....

It didnt evaporate in the solar wind, it still on the moon, its Lava. How did your water flow in wildly swinging +125 to -170 (Celsius temperatures all) for the 1000s maybe millions of years to create your Rille?

When scientist tell us 60% of gasceous emissions from volcanic action on Earth are water vapour, which possibly explains why Planet Earth has so much water on it, held in by the Earth atmosphere .... we can conclude it is not unreasonable similar quantities of water have been produced by the long history of substantial volcanic action on the Moon. Let’s say 90% has been ‘lost’ to the Solar Wind.

Volcanic eruptions don't really create water, is that what you really think? And lets say your number is right that 60% of gaseous emissions is water vapor on Earth, its surely not that much on Mars for instance, so why did you decide that the moon, a dead rock with no atmosphere, would also eject 60% water vapor and again water vapor doesnt help you, to create a river valley (which is what you think it is) you need FLOWING WATER for huge periods of time, you can't have that with the temperatures on the moon always below freezing or above the boiling point for the last 3 billion years.

But, we know volcanic gases create considerable subterranean labyrinths that trap water, and volcanic hot springs are often known natural sources of the very rare gas, Radon, detected in unusually high concentrations in this area ...... you don’t need a rocket scientist to conclude there are possibly active water filled chambers under this area creating the right conditions for Radon gas production that could be seeping through the substrate and collecting briefly in pockets in the Aristarchus Crater and Schroter Valley.

Again, moon not earth and the spectrograph that is saying that there is Radon gas escaping says that there is NOT WATER. So you can't have it both ways, deciding Radon is detected but thinking that it means water as well, when Radon is found in ground water in the US because of FLOWING WATER, something we dont have on the moon.

Tackling your earlier comment “no water vapour emmissions have been detected on the moon” ..... if astronomers are ignoring TLP’s .... maybe that is not surprising! ....Also worth noting, water vapour isn’t cutting these erosion ‘rilles’ ..... spring water forced out the ground is possibly the mechanism, probably creating various types of TLP, originating most likely from the Cobra’s Head end, and petering out along the length of the valley by evaporation.

Literally more effort has been spent on finding water on the moon, then any other lunar effort. The celebration here in Huntsville when M3 found water in 2009, was insane. Gaseous emissions have been detected from the moon multiple times, in no case have they been water vapour do you think we decided not to check for water, someone put into the code, if Hydrogen or Oxygen jump to IGNORE?
-Tig

 

[alexgowers]

Lava not water.

Seriously, the moon is in the vacuum of space! Water would NOT flow.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Sillier? .... bringing more scientific data into the discussion? If the data is wrong, it’s from scientific researchers .... if you don’t like the way I’ve joined the dots on that data ... that’s your opinion.

Your surprising comment in your last post “Again I have no idea what your 2 stage feature is you are talking about.” ..... remember the video in the OP? The two stages to the Schroter’s Valley ‘erosion’ mentioned ?.... the initial 10km wide cut, then the finer inner cut channel? ..... what this discussion is mostly about!?
It might help shorten this debate if you familiarise yourself with the OP before pitching in?

Of course the major simple flaw in Tigger’s theory is that if this rille is suddenly no longer a 10km wide collapsed lava tube hundreds of kms long, but now a canyon whisked through twice by a flow of lava .... Which begs the obvious question asked before but not answered .... Where has all that lava gone to??
It certainly isn’t sitting solidified at the end of this canyon, or 99% of the rilles I’ve seen on the Moon.

Readers here will see you are clinging to data and conclusions drawn from the 1960’s onwards ... and an old Apollo mission that visited a rille and STILL couldn’t determine how it was formed .... probably because at that time no scenario or evidence for water on the moon existed, and astronomers strangely couldn’t imagine a feasible scenario where water flowed on the Moon’s surface.

But now we have both .... evidence of substantial water .... and a theory of weeping subterranean sources that fits rille formation almost perfectly .... with under 3 billion years of erosion to play with. Should be sufficient!

Did you study my Link in Post 32? .... one paragraph said this:

“On 18 November 2008, the Moon Impact probe was released from India's Chandrayaan-1at a height of 100 kilometres (62 mi). During its 25-minute descent, the impact probe's Chandra's Altitudinal Composition (CHACE) recorded evidence of water in 650 mass spectra gathered in the thin atmosphere above the Moon's surface.[7] In September 2009, NASA payload Moon Mineralogy Mapper onboard Chandrayaan-1 detected water on the Moon surface[8][9] and hydroxyl absorption lines in reflected sunlight. In November 2009, NASA re-confirmed water on moon with its LCROSS space probe which detected a significant amount of hydroxyl group in the material thrown up from a south polar crater by an impactor;[10] this may be attributed to water-bearing materials[11] – what appears to be "near pure crystalline water-ice".[12] In March 2010, it was reported that the Mini-SAR on board Chandrayaan-1 had discovered more than 40 permanently darkened craters near the Moon's north pole that are hypothesized to contain an estimated 600 million metric tonnes (1.3 trillion pounds) of water-ice”

Astronomers suggesting Earth and Moon water comes from outer space as ice meteorites etc etc .....or rilles on the Moon are created by vulcanism confirms conclusively sensible theories are not always their strong point.

Sometimes it needs advisors from Youtube to step in and shake things up and tell them that a weekend off recreational drugs may be a good idea.

The synopsis below will probably show ‘erosion’ theory is the only way forward for logical Rille creation.

1)Scientists say that 60% gas emissions created from volcanic eruptions is water vapour.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/18/volcanoes-and-water/
Maybe a chemist/geologist reading this can explain how molten lava creates this 60% water/steam from rocks underground on Earth and the Moon that builds the pressure that makes volcanoes blow their tops. Apparently, without steam and other gases this won’t happen.

2)If Moon volcanoes erupt like Earth ones, substantial water reserves might exist, possibly under pressure, in the labyrinth of subterranean chambers created around an eruption. These chambers are pockets of trapped gas unable to vent from the main crater filled later by condensing steam and cooler water.

3)Seepage of these considerable reserves, caused by fracturing of pressurised subterranean chambers by hard meteorite impacts, could possibly create the rilles we see today ..... their edges smoothed by periodic atmospheric breezes that formed the ‘dunes’ the Rover vehicle trundled past .... and probably made the American flag ‘give us a wave’ during the astronauts visit!(joke)

4)Strange NASA scientists finally accept there are considerable water reserves on the surface of the Moon(see italics above) yet Tig can’t ..... and neither can imagine the idea of subterranean reservoirs weeping in localised areas possibly after meteor impact.

Surely this historical ‘oozing’ of water together with all other gas emissions through the moon’s skin, probably explains why the moon is slowly shrinking.
The fact there is not much water there today means little. Look at the Sahara desert and it’s more fertile history.
Maybe if some astronomers actually took TLP observations seriously, or plonked a detector in the Cobra’s Head for 3 billion years .... they might get a reading?

If there is a periodic Severn Bore Phenomenon going on, maybe Lunar settlers should take their surf boards!
Sampling for water for half a milli nanosecond in the Moon’s history is not enough data on which to base a Theory with the words NEVER and NONE in it.

5)Periodic orange glows and significant gas emissions recorded as TLP’s over the centuries suggest the moon is still not volcanically completely inert. Modern scientist are so vain they like to dismiss any historic observations that upset their ‘precious’ doctorate thesis being carved in stone .... by discrediting many observers from history as unreliable and trying to ridicule their data. It’s a common lowborn trick ... and sickening to see. Most observers are not ‘idiots’ now .... and weren’t ‘idiots’ then!

FOOTNOTE: I haven’t had time to look yet, but if there are serious astronomers/analysts out there reading this and want to add data to this debate, I would be really interested to know if Radon gas has been detected in the Prinz impact region where there is a similar combination as in the Aristarchus/Schroter zone .... of a long extinct volcanic crater, deep meteor impact nearby and the ‘weeping’ of several rilles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/Filerinz_crater_Apollo_15.jpg

**** P.S. I’ll eat another lemon cheesecake if nothing comes up on detectors over the next 20 years!
[doublepost=1530805821][/doublepost]

Lava not water.Seriously, the moon is in the vacuum of space! Water would NOT flow.

Seriously? So the gravity the astronauts were bouncing in .......

plus the ‘atmosphere’ the Chandra probe measured water in ...... won’t make you change your mind?

Extract in my last post. ”During its 25-minute descent, the impact probe's Chandra's Altitudinal Composition (CHACE) recorded evidence of water in 650 mass spectra gathered in the thin atmosphere above the Moon's surface”.

If one of the astronauts had taken a piss behind a boulder on the Moon and filmed the rivulet stream ..... would have made my thread on here easier and a helluvalot shorter!

 

[diego]

I really don’t understand what you get out of spreading this nonsense.

I think it's a fair assessment to say he is just trying to monetize from clickbaity youtube videos?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Since you are getting sillier and sillier I decided to follow suit



You really just keep missing the point. The area in question has been heavily studied since the mid 1960's. Just because someone "discovers it" on Youtube, doesn't suddenly throw all that data out. There is NOTHING on that video, that NASA and all the other space agencies haven't already seen, because they are the actual source for the pictures.



You want this, noone else, lets look at the facts.

1) The Rille is way less then 3 Billion years old
2) The Moon last had an atmosphere over 3 Billion years ago
3) Water cannot exist in liquid form on the Moon's surface without at atmosphere (and possibly didn't exist when it did have atmosphere
4) Thus the Rille was not created by flowing water

QED


Most TLP's are likely not TLPs. Since the sixth century there have been 2400 or so TLP events recorded, thats less then 2 a year. Despite the fact that there are more and better telescopes (literally more telescopes in town today then there were on the Planet a century ago), TLP sightings have drastically dropped. I agree meteor strikes happen on the moon, I agree that theoretically that could cause what Patrick Moore coined as a TLP, but thats not what you think caused your Rille, is it?


Where on earth did you hear this, that is just a silly comment. With the exception of the Apollo 11 one, I can't think of a single TLP which has verification from a second location, thats what you really need to verify the observations.



I have no idea what this means, if you are asking why lava tubes would collapse on the moon, the same reason they collapse on earth, plus add in meteor strikes close by would do the same thing. This is all well known science and seen on multiple planets, I'm not sure what you are arguing here?


Again I have no idea what your 2 stage feature is you are talking about. And again you seem to have now decided all the Rille's are water manufactured. Can you explain why everything that Apollo 15 brought back and all the analysis on those samples show that idea is wrong? There is no way to look at the evidence brought back from Apollo 15 and believe that Water not Lava created that Rille, ALL EVIDENCE clearly shows Lava created that Rille, and I'm sorry but that Rille and the one you are fascinated by, look a whole lot alike which is all you are using to create your theory.


You keep talking about loose particulate, you do realize that much like everything in front of the lava flows on earth, almost nothing stops the lava so it would clear it right out. You think your puny liquid water handles this no problem but lava would have trouble with it. Your water that can't exist in liquid form because its too cold or to hot depending on whether its day or night and that is not even throwing in the solar wind issues. Lava probably flowed into a hole at the end or created a lava lake, that is what it does here and everywhere else in the solar system why are so sure it didnt do it on the Moon, and instead think its got to be water?


It didnt evaporate in the solar wind, it still on the moon, its Lava. How did your water flow in wildly swinging +125 to -170 (Celsius temperatures all) for the 1000s maybe millions of years to create your Rille?


Volcanic eruptions don't really create water, is that what you really think? And lets say your number is right that 60% of gaseous emissions is water vapor on Earth, its surely not that much on Mars for instance, so why did you decide that the moon, a dead rock with no atmosphere, would also eject 60% water vapor and again water vapor doesnt help you, to create a river valley (which is what you think it is) you need FLOWING WATER for huge periods of time, you can't have that with the temperatures on the moon always below freezing or above the boiling point for the last 3 billion years.


Again, moon not earth and the spectrograph that is saying that there is Radon gas escaping says that there is NOT WATER. So you can't have it both ways, deciding Radon is detected but thinking that it means water as well, when Radon is found in ground water in the US because of FLOWING WATER, something we dont have on the moon.



Literally more effort has been spent on finding water on the moon, then any other lunar effort. The celebration here in Huntsville when M3 found water in 2009, was insane. Gaseous emissions have been detected from the moon multiple times, in no case have they been water vapour do you think we decided not to check for water, someone put into the code, if Hydrogen or Oxygen jump to IGNORE?
-Tig

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write an intelligent and thoughtful post on this matter.

 

[millerj123]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write an intelligent and thoughtful post on this matter.

I keep thinking "It's gotta be the green men".

Then, my wife slaps me upside the head. The little green men are on Mars. I should have known better.

It's the hidden German base on the Moon that I worry about.

 

[Tigger11]

Sillier? .... bringing more scientific data into the discussion? If the data is wrong, it’s from scientific researchers .... if you don’t like the way I’ve joined the dots on that data ... that’s your opinion.

The synopsis below will probably show ‘erosion’ theory is the only way forward for logical Rille creation.

1)Scientists say that 60% gas emissions created from volcanic eruptions is water vapour.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/18/volcanoes-and-water/
Maybe a chemist/geologist reading this can explain how molten lava creates this 60% water/steam from rocks underground on Earth and the Moon that builds the pressure that makes volcanoes blow their tops. Apparently, without steam and other gases this won’t happen.

On EARTH, a planet with a huge amount of water and an atmosphere. Gas emissions from volcanoes are not 60% water vapour on Venus, the moon, Mars, or Titan. So stop acting like they are.

2)If Moon volcanoes erupt like Earth ones, substantial water reserves might exist, possibly under pressure, in the labyrinth of subterranean chambers created around an eruption. These chambers are pockets of trapped gas unable to vent from the main crater filled later by condensing steam and cooler water.

LIQUID WATER cannot exist on the surface of the MOON. You can't have water erosion with Water Vapor which exists just for a few seconds before being destroyed by the solar winds or with Ice which only exists on the surface
when its night.

3)Seepage of these considerable reserves, caused by fracturing of pressurised subterranean chambers by hard meteorite impacts, could possibly create the rilles we see today ..... their edges smoothed by periodic atmospheric breezes that formed the ‘dunes’ the Rover vehicle trundled past .... and probably made the American flag ‘give us a wave’ during the astronauts visit!(joke)

Again, how does the liquid water exist at temperatures greater then 100 C? OR cooler then 0 C? You're entire theory requires liquid water, there is none on the moon for any length of time.

4)Strange NASA scientists finally accept there are considerable water reserves on the surface of the Moon(see italics above) yet Tig can’t ..... and neither can imagine the idea of subterranean reservoirs weeping in localised areas possibly after meteor impact.

Noone thinks there is liquid water on the moon but you. Big chunks of ice underground that isnt liquid water making River valleys on the surface. Noone including me is arguing there isn't water on the moon, I just understand that the temperatures on the moon mean there isnt liquid water.

If there is a periodic Severn Bore Phenomenon going on, maybe Lunar settlers should take their surf boards!
Sampling for water for half a milli nanosecond in the Moon’s history is not enough data on which to base a Theory with the words NEVER and NONE in it.

Its too cold or too hot at all times on the moon for water to exist in LIQUID FORM. Your theory requires liquid water for centuries at a time to carve out the Rille, and you have yet to explain how there is liquid water existing at all, that is why noone is taking your theory seriously.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Firstly, critics of water erosion theory continually dodge the 3 major sticking points that makes the establishment theory completely untenable.
1) Where has ALL the lava gone that carved the Rilles?
2) If it’s a collapsed lava tube .... how come you get a lava tube nearly 10km wide at one point and 100’s of kms long, which has collapsed evenly over it’s entire length? And why have all rilles collapsed evenly along their length?
3) How does a wide collapsed lava tube have a much narrower collapsed lava tube running through the loose substrate?

See what I mean? .... nothing in this theory adds up.

So you have to discard it and rethink the data defining:
1)how volcanoes erupt on the moon,
2)how much water and gases that produces,
3)how much might have collected by condensation in subterranean chambers around volcano craters as they cooled,
4)the history of the moon’s atmosphere created by those emissions over the last 3 billion years.

Because liquid erosion is the only other scenario left to explain rilles.

What baffles me is your dogmatic insistence that throughout the moon’s history, water has only existed on the moon either as a vapour or ice, (somehow dodging the transitory liquid state between temperature bands!) ..... and even though there is scientific evidence of at least one detected historic period of a moon atmosphere, you insist the Solar Wind has consistently made significant spring water flow on the moon impossible over the last 3 billion years.

Sorry, these are not definitive statements you can make on the scientific evidence.

P.S. Data suggests the moon has a weak atmosphere to this day, so maybe the virulent effects of the Solar Wind are not as great as you imagine.

 

[RedTomato]

There's nothing on the Moon. Now look at the geysers on Mars - they're far more bizarre and interesting. They come and go each year, but reappear in the same spots with strange spiderlike rilles and channels around them. Some think there may be bacterial life around them. :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geysers_on_Mars

(first pic is NASA artist's impression, rest are from various satellites and Mars Orbiter. Apologies for so many pics but they're great!)

 

[Tigger11]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Firstly, critics of water erosion theory continually dodge the 3 major sticking points that makes the establishment theory completely untenable.
1) Where has ALL the lava gone that carved the Rilles?
2) If it’s a collapsed lava tube .... how come you get a lava tube nearly 10km wide at one point and 100’s of kms long, which has collapsed evenly over it’s entire length? And why have all rilles collapsed evenly along their length?
3) How does a wide collapsed lava tube have a much narrower collapsed lava tube running through the loose substrate?

See what I mean? .... nothing in this theory adds up.

1) Back into the moon, or turn into Rock, you do realize that the Mares are basically giant pools of cooled lava right?

2) You think Lava can't do that, but Water can. It takes 1000s of years or more to carve out a canyon with liquid water, the lava can do it easily, but you can't wrap your head around lava flowing on the moon.

3) Its deeper, it ran on top, I may have even more theories, you think water can create this, but Lava can't that's basically the funniest part of the whole argument.

So you have to discard it and rethink the data defining:
1)how volcanoes erupt on the moon,
2)how much water and gases that produces,
3)how much might have collected by condensation in subterranean chambers around volcano craters as they cooled,
4)the history of the moon’s atmosphere created by those emissions over the last 3 billion years.

1) I know all about volcanoes erupting on the moon, but that doesn't get you liquid water on the moon, if you have a source quote it, but you won't find one.
2) No liquid water
3) Again, you need liquid water ON THE SURFACE, for your idea to work, and even your theory about in a chamber needs a stable temperature above 270K and and below 370K or its frozen or vapor which doesnt help you.
4) The very article you quoted said the moon last had an atmosphere (like mars) OVER 3 BILLION years ago, that doesn't help with your theory about the creation of Rille less then 3 Billion years ago, see how that works.

Because liquid erosion is the only other scenario left to explain rilles.

The water theory has been dis proven, by Apollo 15 as well as subsequent studies by the US, Japan, Russia, India and the EU. Literally Rilles as water created objects isn't considered a possibility anymore by any real scientist, all the data points say no, so instead someone with no scientific background looks at a Rille on youtube, and decides that water did it. Lava is liquid, you keep saying its not lava, because its liquid erosion, water DOESN'T exist as a liquid on the moons surface and hasn't for over 3 Billion years if ever, on the other hand we know liquid lava has flowed on the moon for billions of years, why are you scared for it to be liquid rock and not liquid water that made the Rille, you didn't even know existed until a few weeks ago?

What baffles me is your dogmatic insistence that throughout the moon’s history, water has only existed on the moon either as a vapour or ice, (somehow dodging the transitory liquid state between temperature bands!) ..... and even though there is scientific evidence of at least one detected historic period of a moon atmosphere, you insist the Solar Wind has consistently made significant spring water flow on the moon impossible over the last 3 billion years.

First of all its called sublimation and it even happens on earth but with the temp swing on the moon going from 100K to 400K really quick with no atmosphere it happens alot more on the moon. See now you are making things up about the atmosphere. The report says the Moon last had an atmosphere over 3 Billion years ago and you decide that report shows the moon had an atmosphere (and it does), but you then decide that it probably had atmospheres since then that we dont know about (completely disregarding the last had an atmosphere comment), and during one of these, we had flowing water for 1000s maybe millions of years to create the Rille systems on the moon. Because now you have decided all the Rille are created by water, despite the huge proof brought back by Apollo 15, that showed that was not true for the Rille they explored.

Sorry, these are not definitive statements you can make on the scientific evidence.
P.S. Data suggests the moon has a weak atmosphere to this day, so maybe the virulent effects of the Solar Wind are not as great as you imagine.

Literally every source talking about lunar water tells you how bad the solar radiation is on exposed water molecules, but you think I'm the one making this up.
-Tig

 

[ApfelKuchen]

We have to accept that belief is stronger than science. Science requires both skepticism and proof. Belief requires neither - it can ignore anything it finds to be inconvenient, inconsistent, or beyond personal knowledge and comprehension.

While this thread began in the guise of a reasonable discussion, it's clear by now that the OP is driven solely by dogmatic belief. While bystanders may appreciate a literate, scientifically-based response to the OPs theories, the OP has no self-doubt - any statement inconsistent with his beliefs must be false, because his beliefs have proven to be inviolate.

One of the fundamental benefits of science is that it provides reliable knowledge that can be used as a foundation for invention. In the case of the Moon, reliable knowledge of the presence of water has real bearing on the possibility of human settlement. You can't establish a Moon base on the belief that "Where there are rilles, there's usable water." You have to know the water is present before staking lives on it. Most lunar water research is based on this practical requirement.

From the standpoint of human habitation, the question of whether rilles were water-formed is quite besides the point. The only meaningful question is, "If they were water-formed, where did the water go?"

One of the key reasons for choosing Mare Tranquillitatis (The Sea of Tranquility) as the site of the first manned lunar landing was to gather further evidence of the "sea's" formation. We know now, with zero doubt, that they were formed by seas of lava, not seas of liquid water, despite how they appeared to ancient moon-gazers.

Trust me, as a matter of faith, that lunar scientists would prefer the moon did harbor significant amounts of water. They are not spoil-sports intent on dashing hopes. If "Moon Base Alpha" can't obtain its water locally, it must be shipped in at exorbitant cost. If the moon's inhabitants are permanently dependent on shipped-in water, the colony's long-term existence hangs by a very thin thread. (But of course, conspiracy theorists are free to say, "Scientists don't want people to colonize the moon," as if people so fascinated by space exploration that they base their careers and livelihoods on it would prefer it not succeed.)

 

[Scepticalscribe]

We have to accept that belief is stronger than science. Science requires both skepticism and proof. Belief requires neither - it can ignore anything it finds to be inconvenient, inconsistent, or beyond personal knowledge and comprehension.

While this thread began in the guise of a reasonable discussion, it's clear by now that the OP is driven solely by dogmatic belief. While bystanders may appreciate a literate, scientifically-based response to the OPs theories, the OP has no self-doubt - any statement inconsistent with his beliefs must be false, because his beliefs have proven to be inviolate.

One of the fundamental benefits of science is that it provides reliable knowledge that can be used as a foundation for invention. In the case of the Moon, reliable knowledge of the presence of water has real bearing on the possibility of human settlement. You can't establish a Moon base on the belief that "Where there are rilles, there's usable water." You have to know the water is present before staking lives on it. Most lunar water research is based on this practical requirement.

From the standpoint of human habitation, the question of whether rilles were water-formed is quite besides the point. The only meaningful question is, "If they were water-formed, where did the water go?"

One of the key reasons for choosing Mare Tranquillitatis (The Sea of Tranquility) as the site of the first manned lunar landing was to gather further evidence of the "sea's" formation. We know now, with zero doubt, that they were formed by seas of lava, not seas of liquid water, despite how they appeared to ancient moon-gazers.

Trust me, as a matter of faith, that lunar scientists would prefer the moon did harbor significant amounts of water. They are not spoil-sports intent on dashing hopes. If "Moon Base Alpha" can't obtain its water locally, it must be shipped in at exorbitant cost. If the moon's inhabitants are permanently dependent on shipped-in water, the colony's long-term existence hangs by a very thin thread. (But of course, conspiracy theorists are free to say, "Scientists don't want people to colonize the moon," as if people so fascinated by space exploration that they base their careers and livelihoods on it would prefer it not succeed.)

Again, thank you for this, a thoughtful, carefully constructed and intelligently argued post which offers much food for thought.

 

[millerj123]

You all just don't get it. Lava, lava, water, water, don't ignore the video.

My Dogma's are fighting my Catma's and I can't tell who's winning.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You all just don't get it. Lava, lava, water, water, don't ignore the video.

My Dogma's are fighting my Catma's and I can't tell who's winning.

Science and empirical evidence, I think, (are winning) except perhaps with the OP whose posts suggest a somewhat different perspective on such matters.

 

[millerj123]

Science and empirical evidence, I think, (are winning) except perhaps with the OP whose posts suggest a somewhat different perspective on such matters.

In Murka now, facts don’t matter, just what you think and feel...

And, clearly if you dont agree with me, you aren’t looking at the facts or my feelings.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Can I correct you there, Apfelkuchen ..... this debate started with observation of scientific data from LROC and my arguments favouring water erosion theory are not based on some shady religious-type blind “belief” , but based on Links to updated scientific information written by scientist, NASA included, which seems to have reinforced the argument this is water erosion, not weakened it.

I don’t think this scientific data (geological and astronomical) is flawed .... just the conclusions Tigger is presenting. I just want people to fairly join the dots on the scientific data presented and reach their own conclusions.

I am puzzled why Tigger wants to continually fixate on data and conclusions drawn as far back as the Apollo 15 mission, when new data detecting significant water on the moon now throws all that Apollo 15 conclusion on rille formation up in the air.
He seems to be nailing his theory to a ‘belief’ system based on old data.

Why can’t he tell us where the lava that cut his rilles went to? .... the Mares was obviously not the right answer with there being no residue at the end of each rille channel. Which is why the Apollo 15 mission results did nothing to solve the mystery on rille formation.

Geologists reading this must be amazed at how he makes the establishment’s ‘cutting mechanism’ disappear at the end of his rille creation process ..... and imagines a collapsed lava tube 10km wide and hundreds of kms long, with another smaller one collapsed inside it? ..... more Youtube fantasy than anything being proposed by water erosion theory.

I am sure I am not the only person on the planet that thinks lava-created rilles are a dead duck theory .... and Red Tomatoe’s interesting pictures from Mars, especially the 3rd one in his sequence, just confirms the geological mechanisms are there explaining exactly how rilles are formed ..... providing astronomers can just get over their ‘mental block’ telling them significant water has never existed or flowed on the surface of our Moon through selective seepage over the last 3 billion years of it’s history - more than enough time for the soft substrate of Schroter’s canyon to be eroded ..... especially if the volcanic water’s ‘acidity’ factored into the erosion process.

Schroter’s Valley and the rilles around Prinz are exceptional examples created by exceptional circumstances by mechanisms based on known scientific geological fact as described in my earlier posts above. A deep meteor impact close to subterranean volcanic chambers filled with condensed water under pressure.

Astronomer geologists say the Earth and Moon came from the same geological ‘source’ ..... so with most volcanic eruption mechanisms being similar, and water on Earth now thought to have been created by historic volcanic activity(60% water vapour in gasceous emissions being created as a bi-product of the eruption process rather than seepage from ground water sources being ‘steamed out’) ..... not hard to deduce why this water created on our Earth was retained, in the unique greenhouse effect of our atmosphere, whilst the volcanic water created on the Moon and other planetary bodies has largely been lost through evaporation, but still exists at the poles as ice or in the pockets of gas/lava created subterranean chambers around each main Lunar eruption.

I think scientists need to move on now and determine by closer observation, if this Cobra’s Head ‘spring’ source is completely dry now .... or can be tapped through drilling close to the surface.
It is time to work on the gear/purification techniques to enable lunar colonists to extract and drink the water in these subterranean sources that must abound around the surrounds of every volcanic crater on our Moon. ..... Important to be able to purify if it is very acidic and not quite the Volvic experience we hope for!

If all this fails, then maybe a first lunar base close to the Poles creating purified drinking water from melted blocks of crater ice might be a better option.

 

[Tigger11]

Can I correct you there, Apfelkuchen ..... this debate started with observation of scientific data from LROC and my arguments favouring water erosion theory are not based on some shady religious-type blind “belief” , but based on Links to updated scientific information written by scientist, NASA included, which seems to have reinforced the argument this is water erosion, not weakened it.

I don’t think this scientific data (geological and astronomical) is flawed .... just the conclusions Tigger is presenting. I just want people to fairly join the dots on the scientific data presented and reach their own conclusions.

I am puzzled why Tigger wants to continually fixate on data and conclusions drawn as far back as the Apollo 15 mission, when new data detecting significant water on the moon now throws all that Apollo 15 conclusion on rille formation up in the air.
He seems to be nailing his theory to a ‘belief’ system based on old data.

PLEASE point to your SCIENTIFIC information that points to the RILLE being caused by water erosion. Don't do anything else, just do that. We are 50+ messages in so far, and you have yet to show one scientific comment that says Rille were made by water erosion.

As for why Apollo 15, because the 70 kilograms of material brought back from an ACTUAL Rille, and still being tested today when new theories come up, proved absolutely and positively that a lava flow and not a water flow created the Rille they explored. You have now decided that Water not Lava created all the Rille's which means you are argueing against all the scientific data we have gathered from Apollo 15 moon material and all the probes since then, with your entire evidence being thats what it looks like to you.
-Tig

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Can I correct you there, Apfelkuchen ..... this debate started with observation of scientific data from LROC and my arguments favouring water erosion theory are not based on some shady religious-type blind “belief” , but based on Links to updated scientific information written by scientist, NASA included, which seems to have reinforced the argument this is water erosion, not weakened it.

I don’t think this scientific data (geological and astronomical) is flawed .... just the conclusions Tigger is presenting. I just want people to fairly join the dots on the scientific data presented and reach their own conclusions.

I am puzzled why Tigger wants to continually fixate on data and conclusions drawn as far back as the Apollo 15 mission, when new data detecting significant water on the moon now throws all that Apollo 15 conclusion on rille formation up in the air.
He seems to be nailing his theory to a ‘belief’ system based on old data.

Why can’t he tell us where the lava that cut his rilles went to? .... the Mares was obviously not the right answer with there being no residue at the end of each rille channel. Which is why the Apollo 15 mission results did nothing to solve the mystery on rille formation.

Geologists reading this must be amazed at how he makes the establishment’s ‘cutting mechanism’ disappear at the end of his rille creation process ..... and imagines a collapsed lava tube 10km wide and hundreds of kms long, with another smaller one collapsed inside it? ..... more Youtube fantasy than anything being proposed by water erosion theory.

I am sure I am not the only person on the planet that thinks lava-created rilles are a dead duck theory .... and Red Tomatoe’s interesting pictures from Mars, especially the 3rd one in his sequence, just confirms the geological mechanisms are there explaining exactly how rilles are formed ..... providing astronomers can just get over their ‘mental block’ telling them significant water has never existed or flowed on the surface of our Moon through selective seepage over the last 3 billion years of it’s history - more than enough time for the soft substrate of Schroter’s canyon to be eroded ..... especially if the volcanic water’s ‘acidity’ factored into the erosion process.

Schroter’s Valley and the rilles around Prinz are exceptional examples created by exceptional circumstances by mechanisms based on known scientific geological fact as described in my earlier posts above. A deep meteor impact close to subterranean volcanic chambers filled with condensed water under pressure.

Astronomer geologists say the Earth and Moon came from the same geological ‘source’ ..... so with most volcanic eruption mechanisms being similar, and water on Earth now thought to have been created by historic volcanic activity(60% water vapour in gasceous emissions being created as a bi-product of the eruption process rather than seepage from ground water sources being ‘steamed out’) ..... not hard to deduce why this water created on our Earth was retained, in the unique greenhouse effect of our atmosphere, whilst the volcanic water created on the Moon and other planetary bodies has largely been lost through evaporation, but still exists at the poles as ice or in the pockets of gas/lava created subterranean chambers around each main Lunar eruption.

I think scientists need to move on now and determine by closer observation, if this Cobra’s Head ‘spring’ source is completely dry now .... or can be tapped through drilling close to the surface.
It is time to work on the gear/purification techniques to enable lunar colonists to extract and drink the water in these subterranean sources that must abound around the surrounds of every volcanic crater on our Moon. ..... Important to be able to purify if it is very acidic and not quite the Volvic experience we hope for!

If all this fails, then maybe a first lunar base close to the Poles creating purified drinking water from melted blocks of crater ice might be a better option.

Sorry, but no. You're using "scientific" studies to "prove" propositions that they do not confirm. The early presence of a thin atmosphere does not prove that atmosphere was sufficient to support liquid surface water, and does not prove that the rille was created during that period. The presence of ice in well-shaded areas does not prove that water could flow on the surface. The presence of a geological feature that looks, to you, like it was formed by water does not make it so, any more than the Earth appearing to be flat means the Earth is actually flat, or that Mars appearing to have artificially-built canals meant that, or that the Lunar mare were actually water-formed...

There's a very old saying, "Looks can be deceiving."

There's a long check-list of things that must be true in order for that rille to be water-formed. Even if you can tick-off two or three rough correlations, there's still a long list of missing check-marks. If all the necessary puzzle pieces are not in place, you have not solved the puzzle.

By all means, if someone sends a lunar lander to that rille and manages to strike water, then huzzah! However, due to cost, it's not a frivolous undertaking. If space agencies come to think that there is a reasonable chance of your theory being correct, then they may risk the funds. However, there is so much evidence to the contrary, so much you refuse to accept or take into account, that it's very, very unlikely they'll ever budget the funds.

And by the way, if lunar scientists have "mental blocks," it's not due to outdated knowledge - trust me, they read every study. The fact that there are new studies does not over-rule the evidence collected by the Apollo missions. They continued to search for surface and subterranean water because they were aware that, even if it did not collect in seas or run wild in river basins, there were ways frozen water could be present.

 

[RedTomato]

Red Tomato posted that points to RILLE being caused by water erosion

That was theorised to be by water yes, but that rille is on MARS. MARS man, not on the MOON. They both start with M but they're different places.

Linky to my post (and lovely photos)

 

[vkd]

Its not the Earth but the MOON that is flat. Believe...

 

[Dubdrifter]

PLEASE point to your SCIENTIFIC information that points to the RILLE being caused by water erosion. Don't do anything else, just do that. We are 50+ messages in so far, and you have yet to show one scientific comment that says Rille were made by water erosion.

The SCIENTIFIC information is in the many Links I’ve posted during this discussion, and in the 3rd photo Red Tomato posted that points to RILLE being caused by water erosion ..... Repeating posts+Links will just bore people ....
The fact there is little current scientific comment online that says Rille were made by water erosion is why I opened this debate and why 70 posts later, we still haven’t quite settled the argument one way or another.

Hopefully this post will wrap the discussion up nicely .... and we can move the discussion on to Lunar Colony Preparation in another thread.

Rille formation is still contentious, but the weakness of the astronomer’s explanation can be exposed in one sentence.
As Apfelkuchen said:

There's a long check-list of things that must be true in order for that rille to be water-formed. Even if you can tick-off two or three rough correlations, there's still a long list of missing check-marks. If all the necessary puzzle pieces are not in place, you have not solved the puzzle.

Which is true .... but equally there is just one thing that has to be explained for the astronomer’s theory on rille formation to be true. I’ve asked the question repeatedly and no one has given a credible answer.

If rille are eroded by lava, where are the lava residues at the end of 99% of rille on the Moon?

1)Note: Even if it runs into the Mares ..... where are the channel residues? None are visible on any of the rilles on the moon.
2)Note: Collapsed lava tubes, because of how they are formed, are very unlikely to be 10km wide and 160 km long. (Earth’s largest example, Kazumura Cave in Hawaii, suggests significant lengths are possible, but doesn’t explain the width of Schroter’s Valley at the Cobra’s Head end. http://caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V59/V59N2-Allred.pdf )

Moon Rille Water Erosion Theory Summary

-(that has largely evolved from this debate ....Version open to revision)

1. Most Moon Rille seem to be the result of oozing volcanic water forced out under pressure from a series of ruptured subterranean tube channels commonly created in networks by emission gases, lava and later cooled water condensate around the base and surrounds of major lunar craters.
2. Meteor impacts in close proximity to large lunar craters are often the reason for this ruptured spring oozing
3. Moon gravity/historic periodic weak atmospheres and ‘spring’ emission temperatures keep the water flowing and unaffected by extreme planetary night/day temperature variations.
4. Chemical action may also be influencing the rate of erosion in the soft substrate and leaving traces of dark banding eg:Hadley Rille.
5. Wind-blown particulate could have smoothly lined the channel periodically through the weak atmospheric variations mentioned over 3 billion years.
6. Red Tomatoe’s 3rd pic illustrating current similar water erosion patterns on Mars, on this occasion from geyser vents, prove this mechanism works on dry bodies in our Solar System with weak gravity and thin atmospheres .... like the Moon?).

Example of rille formed before the terrain subsequently buckled, undulated and uplifted . Eg:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Rima_Ariadaeus-1.jpg

.... which answers scientists keen to dismiss water erosion theory when the terrain runs uphill.

Footnote:
Schroter’s Valley is exceptional with a massive deep meteor impact near the crater plus a mini impact probably creating part of the Cobra’s Head. But this feature needs substantial water generated over 3 billion years to carve this canyon, possibly chemical action too.

Theory on where this substantial water probably comes from:
Some types of large crater volcanic eruptions on Earth generate 60% water vapour gas emissions as a bi-product of the eruption - even at higher altitudes(Andean volcanoes) where ground water seepage factors are greatly reduced.
Some scientists know this vulcanism mechanism was sufficient to generate enough water to create our lakes and oceans retained by Earth’s exceptional evolving atmosphere.
It’s puzzling why some astronomers still cling desperately to the theory all our water came from ice meteors and comets from the Asteroid Belt.
We are still waiting for an observation on earth and other planets in our Solar System that this method delivers the significant volumes necessary ..... (P.S.Noah’s Flood has a simpler explanation)

Like lava-created rille, this is another very odd astronomer theory - surely not serious considering the sheer volume of water on Earth and lack of serious significant evidence of water impacts on other planets and moons in our Solar System.

If similar volumes are generated by lunar vulcanism, when you remove ground water seepage from the equation, this can possibly sustain the Moon water erosion scenario being proposed here.

During my 2 week forum ban for changing Apfelkuchen’s quote, I got a chance to chat informally with a couple of very experienced Manchester University astronomers at the Bluedot Festival UK about Moon vulcanism etc.
One made a very good point a meteor strike in close proximity to subterranean lava tubes would probably generate so much heat it would vapourise any condensate water reserves. [But I thought in retrospect, this would be very localised, very close to point of impact and this effect would be brief, the ripple impact fracturing of nearby enclosed chambers could be just the mechanism needed to help drive condensate reserves out in a significant flood under pressure from one exit point and set up the scenario for sustained oozing from the Cobra’s Head for 3 billion years].
The other astronomer gave me evidence that boosted my theory saying that pyroclast bead samples collected by both the Apollo 15+17 missions meant that water/steam needed to be present to generate the sufficient explosive nature of these lunar volcanic eruptions to fling these samples high enough in the air to fall as smooth round beads of minerals.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/samples/

“Mare basalts were emplaced as fluids that flowed easily across the Moon's surface. Another type of volcanic material found at the Apollo 15 landing site is pyroclastic glass. In order for lava to form a glass rather than to crystallize into mineral grains, it must cool very quickly. This sort of rapid cooling can occur if an explosive volcanic eruption hurls material high above the Moon's surface and the material falls back down in the form of small beads. This type of explosive volcanic eruption is also known to occur on Earthand is called a pyroclastic eruption or fire fountain by geologists. Several types of volcanic glass occur in the Apollo 15 samples, the most common and famous of which is the green glass. This glass is very rich in the element magnesium, which causes the green color. Studies of the green glass indicate that it originated at about 400 kilometers below the Moon's surface. Pyroclastic glass was also collected on Apollo 17”.

This proves that deep down, even on the dryish moon, significant amounts of water and steam are being created in the melting of certain rocks deep underground which when trapped are building up pockets of gas to prime significant violent pyroclastic explosions.
And the fact these Apollo missions found no water in their core samples could be due to it evaporating before the exploded particulate hit the ground.

[Note: the high concentration of Magnesium in the pyroclast - very interesting. Also found in high concentrations in Spring water and Oceans on Earth]

See section ‘Occurrence in Nature’ in this Link:
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/L-P/Magnesium.html

Like Radon gas found near Schroter’s Valley rille, the associations do appear strong to the theory.

So in conclusion, these Apollo 15 pyroclast samples from the Moon clearly indicate the mechanism where Earth’s water came from .... vulcanism.

So not only has this debate sorted rille erosion, it has also confirmed why there is high magnesium content in our seas and ..... above all put a nail in the coffin of the astronomer’s bizarre ‘Water from the Asteroid Belt Theory’ ..... which should have been confined to the ‘Flat Earther’ section of Youtube years ago.

[One other interesting point as I was digging around the research, one thing I noticed was certain types of pumice rock, normally a bi-product of water-rich eruptions, seems to be largely absent on the Moon. Then I came across this last paragraph)
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/8.10050?journalCode=bais
If the research is sound, from the Carnegie Institute, then only pumice dust must be giving this distant spectral signature, our Moon’s atmosphere has stripped away the moisture that would bind pumice rock together].

The beauty of this Water Erosion Theory is it doesn’t need a climate or significant atmosphere or strong gravity to be a possible explanation .... just steady oozing, a bit of chemical action possibly ..... and 3 billion years of occasional weak atmospheric variations thrown in for good measure.

Simple geological mechanics, not rocket science.

So, in concusion, just to confirm why water is a strong candidate. Here is an interesting pic I showed earlier:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/FilePrinz_crater_Apollo_15.jpg
If you expand the mid left section and see the rille with the cross (+) element .... suggesting a ‘liquid’ created this eddy pool feature. Could lava do that? Like that - and leave no trace?
Note: the small proximity meteor impacts and pools created before breaking out and oozing to a final evaporation point?

 

[Tigger11]

The SCIENTIFIC information is in the many Links I’ve posted during this discussion, and in the 3rd photo Red Tomato posted that points to RILLE being caused by water erosion

On Mars, a planet with an atmosphere and with temperatures actually existing on it in the range of liquid water for most of the day near the equater, not on the moon with no atmosphere and temperatures always too cold or too hot for liquid water to exist.

1)Note: Even if it runs into the Mares ..... where are the channel residues? None are visible on any of the rilles on the moon.
2)Note: Collapsed lava tubes, because of how they are formed, are very unlikely to be 10km wide and 160 km long. (Earth’s largest example, Kazumura Cave in Hawaii, suggests significant lengths are possible, but doesn’t explain the width of Schroter’s Valley at the Cobra’s Head end. http://caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V59/V59N2-Allred.pdf )

I've answered it several times including on the post, you caused to be deleted by your editing, how about I just give you this

http://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1022

Read and understand it all and we can talk about it again after that.

Moon Rille Water Erosion Theory Summary

-(that has largely evolved from this debate ....Version open to revision)

1. Most Moon Rille seem to be the result of oozing volcanic water forced out under pressure from a series of ruptured subterranean tube channels commonly created in networks by emission gases, lava and later cooled water condensate around the base and surrounds of major lunar craters.
2. Meteor impacts in close proximity to large lunar craters are often the reason for this ruptured spring oozing
3. Moon gravity/historic periodic weak atmospheres and ‘spring’ emission temperatures keep the water flowing and unaffected by extreme planetary night/day temperature variations.

No atmosphere on the moon in the last 3 BILLION YEARS, moons gravity doesn't keep water from boiling or freezing, condensation can't basically happen on the surface of the moon, if it existed as water vapor and it really doesnt for very long, it will flash freeze so quickly at those temperatures. And again your silly theory requires flowing water for millions of years. No temperatures in the liquid range of water on the surface of the moon means no flowing water on the surface of the moon. This is just simple science. Water can form channels on Mars, because Water can exist in liquid forms on Mars, water can't form channels on the moon, because liquid water can't exist on the surface of the moon.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/samples/

“Mare basalts were emplaced as fluids that flowed easily across the Moon's surface. Another type of volcanic material found at the Apollo 15 landing site is pyroclastic glass. In order for lava to form a glass rather than to crystallize into mineral grains, it must cool very quickly. This sort of rapid cooling can occur if an explosive volcanic eruption hurls material high above the Moon's surface and the material falls back down in the form of small beads. This type of explosive volcanic eruption is also known to occur on Earthand is called a pyroclastic eruption or fire fountain by geologists. Several types of volcanic glass occur in the Apollo 15 samples, the most common and famous of which is the green glass. This glass is very rich in the element magnesium, which causes the green color. Studies of the green glass indicate that it originated at about 400 kilometers below the Moon's surface. Pyroclastic glass was also collected on Apollo 17”.

I notice you totally gloss over this quote in this very article

"Hadley Rille is 135 kilometers long. Near the Apollo 15 landing site, the rille is 1.5 kilometers wide and 300 meters deep. Observations by the crew indicate that the rille formed as a volcanic feature, probably originating as a lava tube whose roof later collapsed. Volcanic channels and lava tubes are also known to occur at many basaltic volcanos on Earth, such as in Hawai'i, but Hadley Rille is much larger than terrestrial volcanic channels."

This proves that deep down, even on the dryish moon, significant amounts of water and steam are being created in the melting of certain rocks deep underground which when trapped are building up pockets of gas to prime significant violent pyroclastic explosions.
And the fact these Apollo missions found no water in their core samples could be due to it evaporating before the exploded particulate hit the ground.

[Note: the high concentration of Magnesium in the pyroclast - very interesting. Also found in high concentrations in Spring water and Oceans on Earth]

See section ‘Occurrence in Nature’ in this Link:
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/L-P/Magnesium.html

Again, you seem to think that Volcanic Gas == Water Vapor, it really doesnt, (especially on the moon), think you need water and steam to create pyroclastic glaas (hint: you don't) and none of this gets you flowing water on the surface of the moon for millions of years to create the Rille. On the other hand we know that the Moon has alot of volcanoes, and that lava flows lots better on the moon then on earth. Is there water on the moon, absolutely, did it form the Rille, absolutely not, and you have yet to find a scientist that says otherwise. Water can't flow on the surface of the moon, so water didnt make the Rille, lava can and has flowed all over the moon tonight go out and take a look at the Mares to see how much lava flowed on the moon.
-Tig