Possible further evidence of surface water erosion on Moon

[Tigger11]

I am going to post a couple of things, if after you read them, you still want me to talk about why its not water, I will, but I think it basically kills the entire arguement.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-boiling-point-of-water-in-vacuum

This is where i got our 7 degrees celsius, which is correct if the moon had an atmosphere of 0.147psi (or 1% of Earth) which it DOES NOT but my CRC went to 1% atm, so thats the number I gave. The following values are from Wikipedia

____________Pressure (PA)_________Pressure (PSI)________ Temp water Boils (degrees Celsius)
Earth _______101.325 kPA______=____14.67 PSI____________ 100 degrees Celsius

Mars__________0.636 kPA______=_____0.092 PSI_____________Between 0 and 7.22 degrees, closer to 0

Moon (day)____0.0000001 PA___=_____1.45e-11 PSI___________Below -67 degrees Celsius (ie its never liquid)

Moon (night)__0.0000000001 PA__=___ 1.45e-14 PSI____________Below -67 degrees Celsius (ie its never liquid)

Moon_________1.272 kPA______=_______0.184 PSI ____________Between 7.22 degrees and 11.67 Degrees
(With Atmosphere
3 Billion years ago
is twice current mars)

So as you can see, since the atmosphere went away we don't have liquid water on the surface of the moon, also even with the atmosphere of 3 billion years ago, which is said to twice that of current mars, we have just a little window for liquid water (ie when sunny side is less then 12 degrees celsius) and thats if the atmosphere keeps the solar winds from destoying the water as it tends to do. Hope this helps.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Really appreciate you all taking time out to put forward the data and reasoning and would love it to “kill” the argument. (another issue in the astronomy locker needs an airing Groan!.... after a breathing space from this one - come on guys, you know you love this coffee break distraction )

The theories seem logical on the vacuum/temperature measurements and astronomer’s must be confident there is little wiggle room left in my arguments for the primary cut of Schroter’s Valley to have been formed by water erosion ...... unless the date of it’s possible formation is much earlier than predicted, falling within the ‘atmospheric’ period scientists have registered.

It seems logical the largest pyroclastic volcanic event on our Moon, the Herodotus eruption, along with other eruptions at that time, could have created, possibly even localised atmospheric conditions sufficient to let water flow on the surface or even cut subsurface and engineer pyroclast debris collapse into the underground channel. (Do lab tests show this is viable?)

Guessing you now know ..... when it comes to nostalgia for my water erosion theory .... “it’s not dead until it’s totally dead, and the rotting smell from the cadavre is burning my nostrils”(sounds a bit Colonel Kurtz/Apocalypse Now?-must have forgotten to take my medication!) .... especially not quite dead when theory and measurements say one thing ..... but images say different:

Nothing suggests water ooze quite like the last picture on this page: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images?page=4&query=Rille
..... a colour terrain model titled Source Vent to Rima Prinz I .... the false colours really help you imagine water oozing from the depths to create the smooth round bowl, before it overflows and cuts the rille channel.
No volcanologist in his right mind could imagine lava doing all that and disappearing without trace ..... so you can only conclude temp/vacuum constraints were not a factor when these rilles were formed.

So many impact sites seem to start rilles and show oozing near dormant crater lava fields - surely only water could be triggered to flow on impact, not lava, when these crater’s lava fields are just in the cooling/water condensate production stage of the volcanic cycle?
————-
But I do make concessions ..... Although there appears tentative evidence of a possible pile up of lava debris at the end of the primary cut in Tig’s reference (Pic3-to the right of the imaginary(?)Buried crater graphic?):http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/108

..... unfortunately the picture at the end of the Secondary cut gives no lava field debris except refuge in the Mares .... and the traces of black lava in the winding image (Pic 1) is surely just loose pyroclast debris washed away, exposing the earlier Primary lava cut below?

Surely this explanation better fits Schroter’s Valley with two different elements to the erosion we are seeing .... lava+water ......

Summing up ..... Does the following sequence work for astronomers?:

1) Out of the Mares pops the Herodotus crater and other eruptions throw huge amounts of pyroclast debris strewn over the top of the hot Mares crust. This activity creates a weak atmosphere around the Moon, (for a period, negating the effects stopping water flowing on the Moon’s surface).

2) A mix of pyroclast lava, possibly lubricated by limited water content, breaks out from a lateral vent(near the Cobra’s Head) from the edge of the Herodotus lava field, rips a deep valley through the pyroclast debris field dumping some lava evidence at the end of the Primary Cut, the rest running into the still molten Mares.

3) Deep pyroclast ejecta obscures the mouth of the vent and partly fills the lava cut canyon. As Herodotus cools, liquid condensate collects in multiple trapped gas chambers under the H lava field.

4) The Aristarchus meteor hit throws more debris over the localised area whilst fracturing water filled chambers under the H lava field, the substantial ooze creates the Cobra’s Head ‘bowl’ feature with water flushing loose ejecta down the Primary lava cut. Maybe a later angled small meteor hit in the Cobra’s Head after H is pretty dormant triggers the Secondary Ooze Cut? - again by water only - through remnants of loose ejecta.

5) During this period, as the Moon cools and vulcanism across the whole lunar surface dies, condensate in thousands of trapped gas chambers builds, the atmosphere still lingers, meteor impacts create localised oozing events forming rilles all over the lunar surface in loose pyroclast ejecta, some rilles originating out of the ‘eye’ of some impacts.

6) As the atmosphere continues to be stripped away by lack of volcanic activity, to present day levels .... astronomers rule out rille creation by water erosion, mainly because of current hostile conditions and scant evidence of past conditions allowing it to happen .... even subsurface.

Personally, I think this Summary could possibly satisfy all parties in this debate .... let’s hope so ..... be good to move on.

Would be grateful if you could outline any weaknesses you see in this 1-6 point ‘historical’ scenario.

 

[400]

Don't want to chuck in triple point of water, but there, done it.

Something I am aware of but not fully understand.

I blame the UK TV show QI.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

In an infinitely diverse Universe, any combination of conditions may occur. After all, Earth's peculiar conditions seem to be pretty rare, too.

However, I can't wrap my head around the notion of those volcanoes throwing out an atmosphere that is sufficiently dense, for a sufficiently long period, to create a climate that would allow for a substantial flow of liquid water. The odds seem, well, astronomical.

The right person to address this theory may well be a climatologist, certainly not an astronomer or geologist.

All I've seen in the scientific literature is that there was a time when the Moon had a very thin atmosphere, and that there is every likelihood of finding some water. It's a very long stretch to having sufficient atmosphere/climate and sufficient water to enable your scenario.

So, no. The latest "summary" in this long-running debate is not satisfying to me. If you were presenting a work of science fiction, it wouldn't be enough to engage my willing suspension of disbelief. As you're aiming for truth, rather than fiction, the bar is set even higher.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Didn't Krakatoa, Mount St Helene, Santorini and other notable eruptions cause such choking atmospheres it blocked out the sun, creating crop failures in some instances and famine conditions over wide areas? ….. just imagine a few of these volcanic eruptions going off all at once all over the moon, then maybe the sun penetration and solar stripping would be greatly reduced, atmospheric pressure being similar to Mars and Bingo! … water flow from meteor impact release?

…… and with the molten core being more active, in a state of flux …… does that strengthen the magnetic field, increase the gravitational effect and retain the emissions in the atmosphere until the core activity dies down?

 

[Tigger11]

Summing up ..... Does the following sequence work for astronomers?:

1) Out of the Mares pops the Herodotus crater and other eruptions throw huge amounts of pyroclast debris strewn over the top of the hot Mares crust. This activity creates a weak atmosphere around the Moon, (for a period, negating the effects stopping water flowing on the Moon’s surface).

First of all the current theory of the area is that the Aristarchus Plateau was pushed up 1.1 Billion years ago (I beleive that is the current number), then after that possibly because of that the cobra erupts and creates the Rille, we then have Herodotus and then finally just 175 Milliion years ago we have the Aristarchus crater. You don't understand the numbers here with "making" a weak atmosphere. Surface area of the moon, is 37,930,000 Square Kilometers. I don't know what you think this atmosphere would be made of, but lets not care, so to have a 1% atmosphere, you need .147 lbs per square inch, there are 1,550,000,000 square inches in a square kilometer, so we need 227,850,000 lbs of atmosphere per square kilometer, or for the whole moon we have 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs of atmosphere. I dont think an eruption of that magnitude has occured anywhere in the solar syatem, and thats if 100% of the material that erupted became atmosphere, because thats how much atmosphere you need so anything that falling to the ground, flowing to the mares, doesnt count towards your 8.642E+15 lbs of atmosphere you need.
And again what you seem to gloss over, even the inner Rille is a 10s of 1000s of years if not longer water event. If its lava it could take less then a week. So if you are asking which is more likely two week long lava flows in the last billion years or of 50,000 years of constantly flowing water over the same time on a location with no atmosphere and the huge temperature swings and everyone is going to tell you its lava.

4) The Aristarchus meteor hit throws more debris over the localised area whilst fracturing water filled chambers under the H lava field, the substantial ooze creates the Cobra’s Head ‘bowl’ feature with water flushing loose ejecta down the Primary lava cut. Maybe a later angled small meteor hit in the Cobra’s Head after H is pretty dormant triggers the Secondary Ooze Cut? - again by water only - through remnants of loose ejecta.

The Meteor hits 175 Million years ago, that means there basically isnt time if we give you your atmosphere for water to create it. You would get 10 minutes every 27 days of liquid water, and thats with your atmosphere and with no destruction of water by solar winds and with it being some kind of closed system so that water constantly appears where it evaporated to continue its journey. Even with that the 50,000 years (minimum) of effort to carve the little Rille takes given you only do two hours of work a year at 10 minutes a month, it would take over 200 million years carve it out, and thats giving you your atmosphere, no destruction of water by solar winds, and that effort to carve the Rille being only 50K years of effort, which is probably really low.

5) During this period, as the Moon cools and vulcanism across the whole lunar surface dies, condensate in thousands of trapped gas chambers builds, the atmosphere still lingers, meteor impacts create localised oozing events forming rilles all over the lunar surface in loose pyroclast ejecta, some rilles originating out of the ‘eye’ of some impacts.

Again even with the atmosphere, water still freezes the whole 13.5 days while its dark and turns to water vapor (and in your scenario magically not destroyed by solar winds) as soon as it hits 7 degrees celsius, about 10 minutes after it melts.

Personally, I think this Summary could possibly satisfy all parties in this debate .... let’s hope so ..... be good to move on.

Would be grateful if you could outline any weaknesses you see in this 1-6 point ‘historical’ scenario.

I just hit the high points, the more we play with it the less likely it becomes.
-Tig

 

[Tigger11]

Didn't Krakatoa, Mount St Helene, Santorini and other notable eruptions cause such choking atmospheres it blocked out the sun, creating crop failures in some instances and famine conditions over wide areas? ….. just imagine a few of these volcanic eruptions going off all at once all over the moon, then maybe the sun penetration and solar stripping would be greatly reduced, atmospheric pressure being similar to Mars and Bingo! … water flow from meteor impact release?

…… and with the molten core being more active, in a state of flux …… does that strengthen the magnetic field, increase the gravitational effect and retain the emissions in the atmosphere until the core activity dies down?

Of the ones you are discussing Krakatoa is by far the largest as a VEI 6, but even an event like that doesnt kick up enough material to give you a moon atmosphere as I was showing in my previous post. Much larger events like everyone's favorite the Yellowstone Caldera as a VEI 8 probably doesnt eject enough gas to give the moon an atmosphere even 1% of ours. Also making an atmosphere on a planet (or moon) is alot harder then they made it look on Total Recall. Ejecting from one location doesnt do it, you have little gravity so most of stuff thrown up is going bye, bye. You don't have climate so you don't have the Krakatoa effect where within a couple of days everywhere on the planet had dust above it because the winds blew it around. So you need lots of volcano's all erupting softly (which isnt likely on the moon, since its reduced gravity gets us faster and farther lava and much higher volcanic plumes), for long periods of time to make a really small atmosphere.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Don't want to chuck in triple point of water, but there, done it.Something I am aware of but not fully understand.I blame the UK TV show QI.

Can you clarify, 400? .... missed that episode.
*****
Apfel ..... Really thought the Summary 1-6 was less ‘Science Fiction’ than anything proposed by Cosmologists and the ‘Earth ‘s water arrived as ice meteors from the Asteroid Belt’ Brigade!

Astronomers seem happy to stretch their imaginations when it suits them and swallow those ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ with far less evidence ..... a snowball rotating in the vacuum of space in a zero atmosphere, like on a rotisserie, in the full glare of the Sun can happily survive these temperature extremes, melting and low temperature boiling and entry through Earth’s fledgling atmosphere ...... yet my scenario, where water flows in a ‘window of opportunity’ sheltered from the Sun’s full glare in a weak atmosphere(not a zero one) ..... is somehow deemed ‘impossible’!
*****
Wasn’t Santorini a marginally larger eruption than Krakatoa, Tig?(minor point).

Maybe the following will cut me some slack, T.
Historic intense multiple volcanic activity all over the Moon(not just Herodotus), triggered by intense molten core activity creating the Mares which must have influenced the magnetic field and gravity that could create lingering atmospheric retention of pyroclast and other emission gases to create a temporary protective lingering ‘atmospheric’ layer allowing 99% of rille to be water eroded (inc Schroter’s Secondary one) ..... as the moon cooled.
You don’t have to be on drugs to make this work, surely?

Appreciate the numbers you have crunched Tig, to illustrate how much emission you would need to create a significant lunar atmosphere, but surprised you don’t think the vulcanism on the Moon could have achieved this easily, especially with a stronger magnetic field and pyroclast dust particles thrown high in the air, blanketing the lunar surfaces from the worst of your solar temperature extremes by the lunar day, and insulating the Moon from temperature drop under that ‘blanket’ during the lunar night.

We probably don’t really need that much fine ‘dust’ in the air to significantly change the temperature on the ground and allow significant periods of water flow?

Particles high up could significantly absorb the worst effects of solar radiation - just gases do that around our planet.

I’m happy for the Secondary Schroter Valley rille to find a ‘window’ in 1billion years to be eroded , especially under the conditions I’ve proposed above or any you impose ..... I’m puzzled by your erosion figures for water gushing out of a vent under pressure running through loose pyroclast ejecta and dust ..... I thought that was what we were looking at in SV .... and many other rilles, inc Hadley? (You make it sound like we are trying to cut solid lava here!)

The geyser erosion channels on Mars highlighted in the last picture posted by Red Tomato formed under current Martian conditions of temp,atmosphere+pressure, surely they didn’t take long to form in such loose material?
*******
Seeing as everyone side stepped my false colour contour Rima Prinz1 ‘ooze’ pic .... thought I would post again in all it’s glory!

 

[Dubdrifter]

Here is a part explanation of the phenomenon hinted in my last post that could destroy astronomer’s statistics that apply current measurements to historic scenarios.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

If you mix a drier gas/steam/acid vapour combination with lunar pyroclast dust particles held in a weak atmosphere, when there was a more active magnetic flux, and multiply in many simultaneous eruptions at the time of Herodotus ..... surely you have a severe change to temperatures on the ground, a blanket situation developing and a lunar ‘volcanic winter’ that destroys Tig’s statistics, thus making water flow on the Moon very likely?

 

[Tigger11]

Astronomers seem happy to stretch their imaginations when it suits them and swallow those ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ with far less evidence ..... a snowball rotating in the vacuum of space in a zero atmosphere, like on a rotisserie, in the full glare of the Sun can happily survive these temperature extremes, melting and low temperature boiling and entry through Earth’s fledgling atmosphere ...... yet my scenario, where water flows in a ‘window of opportunity’ sheltered from the Sun’s full glare in a weak atmosphere(not a zero one) ..... is somehow deemed ‘impossible’!

Because you need water to flow for 204 km that make up the inner rille. That is the issue, water starts flowing from the cobra head, it heats up and is converted to gas, no more flowing, its gets no where near 204 KM that the Rille is in length. There is no way for the water to flow for 204KM from the cobra head even with a mars type atmosphere, because it would convert to gas long before it got there.

Wasn’t Santorini a marginally larger eruption than Krakatoa, Tig?(minor point).

The VEI index lists Santorini eruption of ~1620 BC as the Thera eruption, so while I was scanning for the ones you mentioned, it wasn't a 6,7 or 8 so I assumed it was less powerful then the Krakatoa which is a hard 6. In actuality Thera (Santorini) is either a 6 or 7 so Krakatoa level or bigger.

Historic intense multiple volcanic activity all over the Moon(not just Herodotus), triggered by intense molten core activity creating the Mares which must have influenced the magnetic field and gravity that could create lingering atmospheric retention of pyroclast and other emission gases to create a temporary protective lingering ‘atmospheric’ layer allowing 99% of rille to be water eroded (inc Schroter’s Secondary one) ..... as the moon cooled.
You don’t have to be on drugs to make this work, surely?

Yeah the drugs are still there, because even with a mars atmosphere, your temperature for liquid water is 0-7 degrees Celsius. That is not enough window for the water to flow 204 km, 120+ miles for 1000's of years, and maybe millions of years. Sun rises on the Cobra head, water starts melting at 0 degrees, it starts flowing, soon it reaches 7 degrees on the moon, and the water starts just converting to gas. Now 27 days later the process starts again as sun rise on the Cobra head, but again the water never gets to the end of the Rille, because it warms up and turns to gas long before it goes over 120 miles.

Appreciate the numbers you have crunched Tig, to illustrate how much emission you would need to create a significant lunar atmosphere, but surprised you don’t think the vulcanism on the Moon could have achieved this easily, especially with a stronger magnetic field and pyroclast dust particles thrown high in the air, blanketing the lunar surfaces from the worst of your solar temperature extremes by the lunar day, and insulating the Moon from temperature drop under that ‘blanket’ during the lunar night.

I don't think it can happen because its probably more material then all the volcanoes on the moon have thrown up from the moon in the history of our satellite, you seem to really not understand how vast some of the numbers need to be for your theory. It took the Colorado river 17 million years of basically constantly flowing to carve the Grand Canyon, you get 10 minutes of flowing water from a single source every 27 days if we give you a magical and so far undetected atmosphere, and you think that can do the same thing. And where is this infinite water on the moon coming from? Your theory literally says every for millions of years every time Cobra Head gets light, it starts pouring forth water to make the Rille. This isnt Earth with Snow and Seasons and Weather. This isnt the Mars of millions of years ago with its heavier atmosphere and every season as the poles melted the water flowed towards the equator. This is the moon, with little atmosphere and a 10 minute window for flowing water once we add a Magical atmosphere that didnt really occur.

We probably don’t really need that much fine ‘dust’ in the air to significantly change the temperature on the ground and allow significant periods of water flow?

Particles high up could significantly absorb the worst effects of solar radiation - just gases do that around our planet.

The temperature is only part of the issue, as my post about pressure explained (and as 400 originally pointed out about boiling points being effected by pressure), unless you have at least a 1% of earth atmosphere (ie what I calculated), you dont get liquid water period (ie like the moon now). Water is either ICE or Water Vapor in that case, and neither of those can create your rille.

I’m happy for the Secondary Schroter Valley rille to find a ‘window’ in 1billion years to be eroded , especially under the conditions I’ve proposed above or any you impose ..... I’m puzzled by your erosion figures for water gushing out of a vent under pressure running through loose pyroclast ejecta and dust ..... I thought that was what we were looking at in SV .... and many other rilles, inc Hadley? (You make it sound like we are trying to cut solid lava here!)

First you make up an atmosphere in the last billion years of the moon, then you think it means that water can flow there for days at a time. The newer rille is over 600 m wide at places and almost as deep, do you really think its loose materials its moving there? Its not, whatever the cause is, the second Rille is a being cut into the dried lava at the bottom of the original Rille. I didnt even know you didnt understand that as everyone else here I am sure did.

The geyser erosion channels on Mars highlighted in the last picture posted by Red Tomato formed under current Martian conditions of temp,atmosphere+pressure, surely they didn’t take long to form in such loose material?

The geysers, form patterns that are about 150 feet in diameter, on a planet with an atmosphere, you want us to believe that water runs for 120+ miles and digs a channel at least 1/2 a kilometer deep and more then that wide?
-Tig

 

[Tigger11]

Can you clarify, 400? .... missed that episode.

Mostly stolen from Wikipedia Triple Point Entry.

What is a triple point:

"The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapor can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C; 32.02 °F) and a partial vapor pressure of 611.657 pascals (6.11657 mbar; 0.00603659 atm)"

Now as we talked about before the pressure on the moon 0.0000001 Pascals, which means we are way below the pressure of the triple point. What that means for this discussion is:

"The gas–liquid–solid triple point of water corresponds to the minimum pressure at which liquid water can exist. At pressures below the triple point (as in outer space), solid ice when heated at constant pressure is converted directly into water vapor in a process known as sublimation."

Sublimation, Tigger's favorite word of this thread. NO LIQUID WATER ON THE MOON without at least 611 Pascals of Atmosphere pressure.
-Tig
[doublepost=1536609561][/doublepost]

Here is a part explanation of the phenomenon hinted in my last post that could destroy astronomer’s statistics that apply current measurements to historic scenarios.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

If you mix a drier gas/steam/acid vapour combination with lunar pyroclast dust particles held in a weak atmosphere, when there was a more active magnetic flux, and multiply in many simultaneous eruptions at the time of Herodotus ..... surely you have a severe change to temperatures on the ground, a blanket situation developing and a lunar ‘volcanic winter’ that destroys Tig’s statistics, thus making water flow on the Moon very likely?

Not even close. First of all you need a pretty huge atmosphere to get you over the Triple point of water so you can even have liquid water. And even with 1% of Earth's atmospheric pressure, you only get water in the narrow window of 0 degrees to 7 degrees, because below 0 its obviously ice and above 7 it it converts to water vapor (steam). So once again your Volcanic winter has to create a 1% atmosphere or more (which is that huge amount of material in the atmosphere), but also allow the moon to warm up to 0 degrees to melt the ice, but keep it under 7 so it isnt all converted to water vapor long before it finishes its 120 mile journey.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Thanks for your interesting data and reasoning.
Do you think astronomers may possibly have underestimated the effects of Volcanic Winter on our Moon throughout it’s history? ...... because Googling the subject struggled to pull out significant discussion or research on the subject ..... it would be interesting if anybody reading this has links to research done and if computer modelling step-by-step through the Moon’s volcanic eruption history coupled with stronger data on increased lunar magnetism(below) can create the conditions on the surface to match rille erosion pictures with water ‘ooze’ theory.

Here is an important bit of research that shows the historic lunar magnetic field was very different to today:

https://www.newswise.com/articles/mysterious-lunar-swirls-point-to-moon-s-volcanic-magnetic-past

I am surprised you airbrush this combination of factors(increased magnetism+volcanic winter) out of our discussion as if it is insignificant. It’s effects are a TOTAL GAME CHANGER in this argument and must put your calculations concerning atmosphere, pressure, surface temperature under serious scrutiny.

Your Triple Point argument creates a scenario so severe, it would probably stop water flowing and eroding on the surface of EVERY planet and moon in the Solar System ..... makes me wonder how long we had to wait before water was ‘allowed’ to flow on Earth!
Doesn’t new evidence on other bodies show it’s easier than first thought? - hasn’t water flowed quite happily in more extreme environments than our Moon lodged in a Volcanic Winter? I am uncertain why you seem to minimise the temperature ‘blanket’ effect I described that would surely broaden the options for surface water flow - not narrow them.

I questioned your timelines on erosion because I thought the loose pyroclast dust and debris and fine beaded ejecta pushed aside by the tyres of the lunar rover would require minimal time and liquid volume to erode/dissolve the ejecta that make up 99% of rilles, and after an initial primary lava ‘flush’ at Schroter’s, could easily cope with any secondary erosion necessary in 1 billion years.

I think you are being overly pessimistic about surface water ooze, and the ability of large cooling volcanoes to produce significant quantities of water condensate which can bubble out under pressure as long term spring water flow. It’s difficult to measure how much ‘new’ water is being generated in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park because of groundwater seepage.

A calculation measuring the amounts of water trapped in lunar meteors from pyroclast eruptions might give a vague clue to the Herodotus situation .... but until local samples are gathered it is difficult to calculate accurately erosion rates.
Although I respect your attempts to come up with some serious numbers, the margin of error could be significant.

How many times have we read the phrase in research articles “this new evidence completely changes astronomer’s theory on ...... ” ?

Hpoefully the research highlighted in the link above strengthens the idea water could flow .... we just need to wait for the day astronomers might eventually begin to think this is a better jigsaw fit to the picture evidence and geochemistry and grasp it as an opportunity to tweak a small aspect of our Moon’s geological and atmospheric evolution.
……………………………………………

The champagne is on ice, it generally doesn’t age well and my fridge is making funny noises ..... not that I’m rushing you .... you all need to be comfortable with that slight shift in perspective.

[Er ..... add the word ‘mostly’ before ‘all’ ..... I gather total concensus is not a state possible to scientists ..... or any other branch of worldly knowledge. ]

 

[Tigger11]

Thanks for your interesting data and reasoning.
Do you think astronomers may possibly have underestimated the effects of Volcanic Winter on our Moon throughout it’s history? ...... because Googling the subject struggled to pull out significant discussion or research on the subject ..... it would be interesting if anybody reading this has links to research done and if computer modelling step-by-step through the Moon’s volcanic eruption history coupled with stronger data on increased lunar magnetism(below) can create the conditions on the surface to match rille erosion pictures with water ‘ooze’ theory.

Computer modeling of the Moon and Mars Volcanic activity (and other locations, but those are the two most prevalent) happen daily, at JPL, here in Huntsville at Marshall and at research facilities worldwide, and again no scientist believes in the Ooze.

Here is an important bit of research that shows the historic lunar magnetic field was very different to today:

https://www.newswise.com/articles/mysterious-lunar-swirls-point-to-moon-s-volcanic-magnetic-past

I am surprised you airbrush this combination of factors(increased magnetism+volcanic winter) out of our discussion as if it is insignificant. It’s effects are a TOTAL GAME CHANGER in this argument and must put your calculations concerning atmosphere, pressure, surface temperature under serious scrutiny.

Its not a game changer its a 0 value added to a sum (ie IT DOESNT MATTER). Volcanic winter reduces the temperature by a few degrees, it doesnt help the pressure situation enough to matter, you saw how much material has to be ejected (and stay) in the atmosphere to give you a 1% atmosphere, you aren't getting that from your volcanic winter, but even if you did that just gets you water being liquid between 0-7 degrees, right not while it has sunlight, at the area of the Cobra its 170 degrees, you need a have a winter that allows it to be warm up to 0 so the ice melts, but doesnt allow it to get to 7 degrees where it becomes water vapor. It doesnt work like that so your volcanic winter theory doesnt matter.

I take a vacuum chamber and take it down to 1% atmosphere, then I put magnetic fields of immense levels around, guess what happens? It turns to water vapor at 7 degrees Celsius, because a magnetic field does not effect the pressure of the situation. You can say you put a black light on the moon and was playing rave music and that would have the same effect as your magnetic field on when water turns to water vapor ie 7 degrees with a 1% atmosphere. And remember the moon really doesn't have that kind of atmosphere its way way way less, currently water cannot exist as liquid on the surface of the moon.

Doesn’t new evidence on other bodies show it’s easier than first thought? - hasn’t water flowed quite happily in more extreme environments than our Moon lodged in a Volcanic Winter? I am uncertain why you seem to minimise the temperature ‘blanket’ effect I described that would surely broaden the options for surface water flow - not narrow them.

No, in fact we now realize that sometimes what we thought was flowing wasn't water and also that places where we believe water flowed before (Mars), had a much thicker atmosphere long ago. Triple Point shows temperature and pressure are both important, you keep trying to make it cooler on the planet, but we don't have an atmosphere, even if we have a 1% atmosphere, you only get liquid water from 0-7 degrees Celsius. That's just not enough range to have flowing water for a long time.

I think you are being overly pessimistic about surface water ooze, and the ability of large cooling volcanoes to produce significant quantities of water condensate which can bubble out under pressure as long term spring water flow. It’s difficult to measure how much ‘new’ water is being generated in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park because of groundwater seepage.

Its not pessimism, its science, its math, its physics. You have little pressure on the moon so water goes immediately from solid to gas at a very cold temperature (-67 degrees Celsius). (Like Dry Ice does on earth, and why we call it dry ice). On earth, water evaporates then it rains and snows and comes back and is a big cycle. On the moon even with the magic atmosphere we are talking about the water hitting the Boiling point at 7 degrees, not it is evaporating, but actually boiling away, it would evaporating as well all during this transition from 0 to 7 degrees at a high rate, just like a hot day at beach sees a lot of water evaporating. The problem is that even if your magic atmosphere has rain and all, the water doesn't get back to the Cobra, we don't have a cycle that bring the water vapor back to the source like the Colorado River has to create the Grand Canyon.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

No, in fact we now realize that sometimes what we thought was flowing wasn't water and also that places where we believe water flowed before (Mars), had a much thicker atmosphere long ago. Triple Point shows temperature and pressure are both important, you keep trying to make it cooler on the planet, but we don't have an atmosphere, even if we have a 1% atmosphere, you only get liquid water from 0-7 degrees Celsius. That's just not enough range to have flowing water for a long time.

So if you can accept Mars had a thicker atmosphere long ago, why not our Moon? ..... when lunar swirls show it’s magnetic field was stronger in the past, and still lingering after pyroclast eruptions died down.

The signs are in the coloured sands that the atmosphere was thick with volcanic dust, and thrown high enough in the air to be distributed over the surface in patterns reflective of a strong magnetic field ..... this combination of factors could change pressures and surface temperatures significantly (like it did on Mars), to allow water to flow during rille formation and conveniently removes the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point.

Throwing those variables into computer models with evidence in lunar rocks showing how strong the magnetic field was in the past ..... could produce a completely different scenario to the current one you are looking at ..... which doesn’t tie in with the photographic evidence.

 

[Tigger11]

So if you can accept Mars had a thicker atmosphere long ago, why not our Moon? ..... when lunar swirls show it’s magnetic field was stronger in the past, and still lingering after pyroclast eruptions died down.

Mars had a stronger atmosphere, it lost most of it, the Moon had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mar's has now, it lost it OVER 3 BILLION YEARS AGO. You seem to be really excited about Magnetic Field still, and don't seem to understand that MAGNETIC field means nothing with regards to pressure.

The signs are in the coloured sands that the atmosphere was thick with volcanic dust, and thrown high enough in the air to be distributed over the surface in patterns reflective of a strong magnetic field ..... this combination of factors could change pressures and surface temperatures significantly (like it did on Mars), to allow water to flow during rille formation and conveniently removes the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point.

No they really Magnetic Field doesnt effect Atmospheric pressure, (and it didnt do it on Mars either). Rille's were formed after the moon's atmosphere went away and you seem to not understand the Triple Point at all. Current Pressure conditions on the moon mean that water NEVER can become liquid. At -67 degrees Celsius it goes from Ice to Water Vapor. At 1% atmospheric pressure which the moon last had over 3 Billion years ago, water can exist from 0 degrees to 7 degrees. No magnetic changes on the moon, affect this number. To get a 1% atmosphere a billion years ago, as you think must have happened so your ooze theory can create the Rille, you have to throw 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs of material in the air and it all stay there (nothing flys out of the atmosphere, nothing falls down), to give you a 7 degree window. There isnt a planet (or moon) which has lost its atmosphere and regained it. The Atmospheres of all the planets in our solar system were basically created during the creation of the planets themselves and then modified by internal and (and in mars and the moons case) external forces.

Throwing those variables into computer models with evidence in lunar rocks showing how strong the magnetic field was in the past ..... could produce a completely different scenario to the current one you are looking at ..... which doesn’t tie in with the photographic evidence.

You aren't a scientist, stop looking at pictures and saying that isn't a lava flow when your comments about lava flows were soundly rebuked by someone who actually had spent the day taking pictures of them in Hawaii. You are arguing with people who have looked at lots more pictures as well dozens of other pieces of information all which led to what I (and every reference you have found) originally told you created the Rille, VULCANISM. Looking at a picture and deciding what it is despite limited knowledge on the subject as I said before is platypus science, lets not go back to that in the 21st century ok? Magnetic fields don't affect atmospheric pressure, and atmospheric pressure and temperature decide which state water is in (solid, liquid or gas).

These are the facts as we currently know them:
1) Water can't flow on the moon currently due to the Atmospheric pressure on the moon
2) There is no evidence that the moon has had an atmosphere since over 3 Billion years ago
3) The Rille was formed less then 1 billion years ago
4) Even with 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, water is only liquid from 0 degrees to 7 Degrees Celsius
5) Magnetic fields do not effect the Boiling Point of water

THUS the Rille was not created by Water.
Q.E.D.

-Tig

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Mars had a stronger atmosphere, it lost most of it, the Moon had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mar's has now, it lost it OVER 3 BILLION YEARS AGO. You seem to be really excited about Magnetic Field still, and don't seem to understand that MAGNETIC field means nothing with regards to pressure.


No they really Magnetic Field doesnt effect Atmospheric pressure, (and it didnt do it on Mars either). Rille's were formed after the moon's atmosphere went away and you seem to not understand the Triple Point at all. Current Pressure conditions on the moon mean that water NEVER can become liquid. At -67 degrees Celsius it goes from Ice to Water Vapor. At 1% atmospheric pressure which the moon last had over 3 Billion years ago, water can exist from 0 degrees to 7 degrees. No magnetic changes on the moon, affect this number. To get a 1% atmosphere a billion years ago, as you think must have happened so your ooze theory can create the Rille, you have to throw 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs of material in the air and it all stay there (nothing flys out of the atmosphere, nothing falls down), to give you a 7 degree window. There isnt a planet (or moon) which has lost its atmosphere and regained it. The Atmospheres of all the planets in our solar system were basically created during the creation of the planets themselves and then modified by internal and (and in mars and the moons case) external forces.



You aren't a scientist, stop looking at pictures and saying that isn't a lava flow when your comments about lava flows were soundly rebuked by someone who actually had spent the day taking pictures of them in Hawaii. You are arguing with people who have looked at lots more pictures as well dozens of other pieces of information all which led to what I (and every reference you have found) originally told you created the Rille, VULCANISM. Looking at a picture and deciding what it is despite limited knowledge on the subject as I said before is platypus science, lets not go back to that in the 21st century ok? Magnetic fields don't affect atmospheric pressure, and atmospheric pressure and temperature decide which state water is in (solid, liquid or gas).

These are the facts as we currently know them:
1) Water can't flow on the moon currently due to the Atmospheric pressure on the moon
2) There is no evidence that the moon has had an atmosphere since over 3 Billion years ago
3) The Rille was formed less then 1 billion years ago
4) Even with 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, water is only liquid from 0 degrees to 7 Degrees Celsius
5) Magnetic fields do not effect the Boiling Point of water

THUS the Rille was not created by Water.
Q.E.D.

-Tig

A very well argued, and - more importantly, - a lucidly argued, clearly written post that is an absolute pleasure to read.

Yet, I do not expect the OP to surrender his theory or question his extraordinary and tenacious attachment to it in the face of all evidence and argument to the contrary.

 

[400]

Can you clarify, 400? .... missed that episode.

Answered by Tiggerr11 but it was the episode with Dara O Briain getting pulled up by Stephen Fry on a previous episode answer that someone had corrected. Going back a few years now.

 

[Dubdrifter]

(Apologies for delayed reply-family issue).

This whole debate is over interpretation of images of lunar rilles ..... and the scientific evidence presented to back up, either lava or water formation.

Difficult to understand astronomers/volcanologists who don’t see the logic of Ooze Theory because they can’t get over the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point ..... yet happily see lava popping out the ground spontaneously(oozing?) .... and in some cases running hundreds of kms in single narrow, even channels without cooling, clogging and leaving any residues before disappearing into Mares in 99.9% of rille formations (except possibly Schroter’s Valley primary cut).

Could lunar hydrophobics please look again carefully at the detailed contour picture of Rima Prinz 1 in Post 108, (ignoring the false colours) ..... sorry to be so thick, but can you kindly explain to me, step-by-step, exactly how this bowl feature with an overflow lip was formed by lava?

 

[400]

Thing is, the bit that gets me and has done since reading the first premise, is still the lack of pressure. Purely guessing here. Water is a lot more volatile compared to lava. It would be more prone to go to vapour/ice than denser lava. Meaning Lava will survive longer. As soon as lava is removed from its heat source it will cool, dim memory of thermodynamic laws creep into the old noggin. Just takes longer and insulating tunnels can still allow for long flows.

Reading somewhere that one proposed method of survival from solar events that can kill, is to put bases inside the rilles or tubes.

Edit. Also remember reading that the weak magnetosphere is detrimental for atmospheres, allowing them to get stripped away quickly. Mars is another example. Think they mapped the moon magnetosphere some years ago and it is patchy and not as we have on Earth with poles, localised strong points then weak area's. Or was that gravity? Need to find the article and I follow it as an interest not as a qualified person.

We get a lot of shielding from the Sun, with our cloak.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

(Apologies for delayed reply-family issue).

This whole debate is over interpretation of images of lunar rilles ..... and the scientific evidence presented to back up, either lava or water formation.

Difficult to understand astronomers/volcanologists who don’t see the logic of Ooze Theory because they can’t get over the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point ..... yet happily see lava popping out the ground spontaneously(oozing?) .... and in some cases running hundreds of kms in single narrow, even channels without cooling, clogging and leaving any residues before disappearing into Mares in 99.9% of rille formations (except possibly Schroter’s Valley primary cut).

Could lunar hydrophobics please look again carefully at the detailed contour picture of Rima Prinz 1 in Post 108, (ignoring the false colours) ..... sorry to be so thick, but can you kindly explain to me, step-by-step, exactly how this bowl feature with an overflow lip was formed by lava?

Just how do you "get over the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point?" It's physics, and the laws of physics are the same on the Moon as they are on Earth. Your doubts about the properties of flowing lava don't change that. If the Triple Point makes the prospect of flowing water impossible, then the appropriate, scientific response is to abandon the untenable theory in favor of one that better matches the circumstances. You would find an explanation that matches lunar conditions. Since you're leery of the lava theory, that would have to be something other than flowing water or flowing lava (and no, there are too many reasons why liquid nitrogen, methane, mercury, or hydrogen are equally impractical).

I'm reminded of detective stories, where the brilliant, evidence-driven protagonist has to battle with regular cops who insist on pursuing a suspect (usually, the detective's client) despite evidence that clearly exonerates that individual. To quote Arthur Conan Doyle's immortal sleuth, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

[Tigger11]

(Apologies for delayed reply-family issue).

This whole debate is over interpretation of images of lunar rilles ..... and the scientific evidence presented to back up, either lava or water formation.

The problem is that you think that liquid lava and liquid water create different types of channels, and they really don't. One of the ways they are different, is that water likes to leave rounded rocks, lava being thicker tends to suck them up or pave them over. But the same fluid dynamics equations (with different values for water vs basalt) are used for both Water, Brine and even Lava.

Difficult to understand astronomers/volcanologists who don’t see the logic of Ooze Theory because they can’t get over the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point ..... yet happily see lava popping out the ground spontaneously(oozing?) .... and in some cases running hundreds of kms in single narrow, even channels without cooling, clogging and leaving any residues before disappearing into Mares in 99.9% of rille formations (except possibly Schroter’s Valley primary cut).

The longest measured lava flow on earth is 160 km, so that is shorter then your Rille, but it stopped like the ones is Hawaii, because it ran into the ocean. The latest eruption in Hawaii had the lava clocked at 17 MPH, that is a 7 HR journey from the start to the end of your Rille at that speed, and lava has been clocked at over 40 MPH in the past.
And thats on Earth, we know lava flows much further and farther on Mars then Earth, because of the reduced atmosphere and gravity, so the moon is going to be even better. You keep saying there is no residue, and I am not sure what you think you are going to get as "residue" for a lava flow, what are you looking for and not seeing that tells you this is not lava? I mean the bottom and walls of the Rille are all dried Basalt, so I'm not sure what you are expecting to see that you aren't. The Volcano erupted and literally a few hours later lava started pouring into the largest pool of lava on the moon. Lava flows faster on the moon, its 270 degrees on the light side of the moon and its light for 13.5 days long enough for a long lava pour, and honestly if its a severe eruption, I am not sure it being in the dark stops it, we have volcanic eruptions in Alaska, Iceland and Antarctica that last for long periods of time. Here is an interesting article from NASA about studies on Mauna Loa flow of 1859 and how it looked like it was done by water, though we know with 100% certainty that is was created by Lava.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/mars-lava-channels.html

Could lunar hydrophobics please look again carefully at the detailed contour picture of Rima Prinz 1 in Post 108, (ignoring the false colours) ..... sorry to be so thick, but can you kindly explain to me, step-by-step, exactly how this bowl feature with an overflow lip was formed by lava?

It looks an awful lot like this one in Hawaii from the recent eruption.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...ilauea-summit-crater-collapse-USGS-Big-Island

It looks to me like the collapse of a volcano after it erupted, see Crater Lake, Ngorogoro, or even Mt St Helens.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

So focussing in on your links, Tig .... and the picture in Post 108 you are basically saying all rilles, including Hadley, have a single unique vent eruption at the start, and a disappearance of all residues into the Mares at each end. The bowl and cut channels we now see at Rima Prinz 1 are solidified basalt and not cuts through loose ejecta of pyroclast beads, and pumice dust?

The eye of Rima Prinz1 is possibly a collapsed mini volcanic vent fountain feature with no raised crater edges, running just a single overflow, forced to twist and turn initially, cutting only one smooth edged channel with no splits in the stream, no widening out at the end.

Are astronomers really happy with that scenario?

Bearing in mind how alike the flow of lava and water is, and how it behaves on earth, I find it strange lunar rille channels rarely split or broaden out towards the end of their run, like lava and water does naturally . This, to me is a major clue that says ‘water formation’. Why? .... because lava stops for nothing, and as the stream builds, because of cooling+viscosity, it’s normally pushed into a wider and wider stream at the end.
Most lunar rilles show a single channel, which doesn’t broaden, often tapers and disappears at the end .... as if the flow has petered out and evaporated ..... surely a symptom of water in a weak atmosphere/low pressure scenario? .... rather than lava/Mares magic with not a lumpy residue in sight!

 

[Tigger11]

So focussing in on your links, Tig .... and the picture in Post 108 you are basically saying all rilles, including Hadley, have a single unique vent eruption at the start, and a disappearance of all residues into the Mares at each end. The bowl and cut channels we now see at Rima Prinz 1 are solidified basalt and not cuts through loose ejecta of pyroclast beads, and pumice dust?

Dub, lets stop jumping around. This entire thread has basically been about one Rille and one Volcanic source, now you are throwing Rima and Hadley to what appears to be trying to muddy the discussion. Your theory is that liquid water erupted on the moon, (which because of pressure it hasnt been able to exist for over 3 Billion years) and flowed for 1000s of years through temperatures from -170-+270 Celsius all to end up in the Mare where it finally turned to water vapor. Do you understand how silly that sounds? The channels cut into the moon are covered by Basalt, because the lava that flowed through and cut them or collapsed them was melted Basalt, so when it cools it becomes Basalt again. Literally the Mare that the lava flows to from the Aristatuchus plateau is 100s of square miles in size and miles and miles and miles deep of cooled basaltic lava and more cooled basaltic lava. You do understand that right. The mares (ALL OF THEM) are giant dried pools of lava that have built up over millions possibly billions of years.

The eye of Rima Prinz1 is possibly a collapsed mini volcanic vent fountain feature with no raised crater edges, running just a single overflow, forced to twist and turn initially, cutting only one smooth edged channel with no splits in the stream, no widening out at the end.

Are astronomers really happy with that scenario?

Not just astronomers, geologists, volcanologists, engineers, mathematicians and physicists, you know all the people that actually study this kind of thing instead of looking 5 minutes on Youtube and deciding it must be water. Literally did you look at the picture from Hawaii compared to your new friend Rima Prinz.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4444

Sorry but that last pic looks alot like

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...ilauea-summit-crater-collapse-USGS-Big-Island

the first two pictures, which we know sent lots of lava all over the island. Explain what you think is different between these two pics except the fact that one is on the moon and one is in Hawaii.

Bearing in mind how alike the flow of lava and water is, and how it behaves on earth, I find it strange lunar rille channels rarely split or broaden out towards the end of their run, like lava and water does naturally . This, to me is a major clue that says ‘water formation’. Why? .... because lava stops for nothing, and as the stream builds, because of cooling+viscosity, it’s normally pushed into a wider and wider stream at the end.
Most lunar rilles show a single channel, which doesn’t broaden, often tapers and disappears at the end .... as if the flow has petered out and evaporated ..... surely a symptom of water in a weak atmosphere/low pressure scenario? .... rather than lava/Mares magic with not a lumpy residue in sight!

On Mars because of the lower gravity, lava flows 6 times farther then on Earth. On the Moon which has much less gravity then mars, it will flow even farther and even faster. We have lava flowing faster and farther and it falls off the Plateau into the dried lava sea that we call Mares and thats it. Sorry but you don't understand cooling, viscosity or fluid dynamics enough for me to even start explaining why your thoughts here are wrong. We haven't got you to admit that the triple point of water prevents water from flowing on the moon without an atmosphere, thats simple physics compared to flowing lava cooling in low gravity.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

I was about to throw in the towel and admit error in my interpretation of Prinz and see the possibility of lava the most likely cutting agent in most rille scenarios ..... but then saw a few things that didn’t quite add up in the astronomer’s argument. (Sorry, Tig .... I know we all want to lay this to rest and move on!)

1) Surely Prinz is not an impact crater filled with Mares lava, but an old dead volcanic crater, like Herodotus? ...... but maybe earlier, hence the crumbling rims,(see pic) .... which helped create the local Mare? It blew it’s pyroclast head off throwing loose debris over the area cut by the Rimae. It then filled with liquid lava in its death throes.

2) Is the photo in Post 108 showing a cut through solid basalt by a mini volcano(Vera?) with strangely no traces of residues or mini crater lip .... or is it a minor meteor impact fracture of a Prinz lava tube full of water condensate running through ‘sandy’ deposits similar to Hadley’s Rille?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=i...0j0i13j33i10.jcYTmTnAxN0#imgrc=-Reb9JnmyJMylM:

It depends on how loose the local ejecta really is - to make an informed choice.

3) If astronomers are putting the creation of the Mares much earlier than rille creation ..... (to tie in with the period the moon had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mars) why do they insist rilles are lava formed, when most intense volcanic activity had died down by then, the Mares had cooled and seemless flow of rille lava into the Mares wouldn’t have been possible without showing visible residues?).

Tig theorises rilles cutting through basalt, my focus is those that cut through loose pyroclast ejecta similar to Hadley Rille .... and I prefer the odd ones even astronomers are finding it difficult to nail to lava theory. (See paragraph 3) :
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-362/ch6.1.htm

“In some sinuous channels a small valley has formed within a larger valley, indicating at least two episodes of valley formation. Other meandering channels do not start or stop in a crater-they are formed on lava plains that are so flat it is difficult to tell the direction of flow. Still other channels have formed on mountainsides covered by hummocky ejecta thrown outward from major impact basins; these rilles may have been formed by some process other than lava flows.”

Mmmm .... maybe water? .... if 0-7 degrees wasn’t such a big hurdle!
Strange Tig brands my theory a silly Youtube fantasy ...... yet this conundrum is on a NASA webpage .... so at least some astronomers are still ‘not totally happy’ with lava theory.

As ApfelKuchen said:

Just how do you "get over the hurdle of 0-7 degrees Triple Point?" It's physics, and the laws of physics are the same on the Moon as they are on Earth. Your doubts about the properties of flowing lava don't change that. If the Triple Point makes the prospect of flowing water impossible, then the appropriate, scientific response is to abandon the untenable theory in favor of one that better matches the circumstances.

Although I appreciate the atmospheric numbers Tigger highlighted in Post 101 ..... just wondered how they can be so definite about the historic figures going back billions of years? ...... And if one or two numbers in those calculations are skewed by the findings in the Nature magazine article referenced below in 2015..... how much will that affect calculations of lunar atmospheric pressure during rille creation?

This research in Nature magazine shows a radical change 1-1.5 billion years ago to the Earth’s magnetic field: http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-earths-inner-core-03320.html

“According to the new study, led by Dr Andy Biggin from the University of Liverpool, UK, there was a sharp increase in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field between 1 and 1.5 billion years ago. This increased magnetic field is a likely indication of the first occurrence of solid iron at the center of our planet and the point in its history at which the solid inner core first started to ‘freeze’ out from the cooling molten outer core”.
So could this event influenced the lunar scenario?

400 said in Post 119 “Also remember reading that the weak magnetosphere is detrimental for atmospheres, allowing them to get stripped away quickly. Mars is another example. Think they mapped the moon magnetosphere some years ago and it is patchy and not as we have on Earth with poles, localised strong points then weak area's.”

Tig insists that magnetic fields don’t affect atmospheric pressure and lunar 0-7 degrees can’t be budged in the last 1billion to allow water flow. Is this true?

Here is a bit on the earth’s atmosphere, that delivers 14psi, is multi-layered, complex and is protected from solar stripping by the earth’s strong magnetic field:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

It informs us, gravitational forces play a part, and the earth’s magnetic ‘aura’ extends into space, and like the Sun’s magnetic effects, has an influence on climate and atmospheres.

If we get 14psi currently from protected gas layering, surely the earth’s earlier stronger, vibrant magnetic field enveloping the moon will offset the worst effects of solar stripping in the last 1 billion years when the moon’s own magnetic field is on the wane?
Here is a very interesting article relating magnetism to weather systems: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/magnetism-and-weather-interconnections-2/

When the sun’s rays penetrate blanket layers of different gases and dust particulate from pyroclastic lunar volcanic eruptions ..... temperature differentials will surely generate changes in atmospheric pressure?

The Nobel Prize winning question is: ...... Is that sufficient to upset 0-7 degree Triple Point for 1 billion years, and allow water to erode some of the Moon’s rilles and create exciting possibilities for lunar colonisation?

 

[400]

Don't mind me, an interest rather than qualified and could well be wrong. Don't mind it being corrected, I welcome it.

However if there is an atmosphere, there will be pressure. Less atmosphere less pressure, no atmosphere, no pressure (sort of). The fields dictate how long it lasts and how much is eroded. We are losing it now. At least as I read it.