Dr. Phil Metzger Profile picture
Aug 18, 2019 20 tweets 4 min read Read on X
I’ve resisted commenting on the tardigrades that crashed on the Moon, but this may be interesting so here goes. Fossil tardigrades have been found in 530 million year old rock. That means they have lived here during some large asteroid impacts. They live all over Earth and... /1
2/ I would guess that almost certainly they have been blown into space by some of these impacts. Around an impact there is a region called the “spallation zone” where the rocks are shocked only lightly and yet ejected all the way into space. The tardigrades in those rocks...
3/...would likely not be too mangled, maybe even survived, and yet they would be blown into space. Since the Moon is *right there*, a lot of these rocks and the tardigrades and other life would land on the Moon. So tardigrades have probably landed on the Moon before. However,...
4/...when I said “landed” on the Moon, well...let’s think about that. These Ancient Tardigrade Astronauts (ATAs) only had rocks for spaceships, so they couldn’t do powered descent to the surface. That means they impacted with at least 2.43 km/s velocity (lunar escape velocity).
5/ Rocks falling from space to the Moon is a lot different than falling to the Earth due to lack of an atmosphere. Rocks entering Earth burn up in the air (“shooting stars”, possibly containing ATAs from another star???👽🤷‍♂️😄) but really big meteoroids burst apart in the air,
6/ and the fragments have a smaller ballistic coefficient than the big rock so they slow down and land on the ground. That’s why we find meteoroids on Earth. [Review: they survive entry by being too big to burn up, then air burst so the fragments can slow down & survive impact!]
7/ None of that happens when rocks fall on the Moon since there’s no atmosphere to make the rocks get hot & airburst, then no atmospheric drag to make the fragments slow down. So all the rocks go super, super fast when impacting the Moon. (That’s why the Moon looks like this!)
8/ Geophysicists have learned that rocks generally VAPORIZE on impact. When huge shock waves compress a rock then un-compresses it, every molecular bond in the rock will be broken. I.e., the rock turns into gas. We see this in experiments like at the NASA Ames hypervelocity gun.
9/ So what happened to all the adorable Ancient Tardigrade Astronauts in their cute little Rock Spaceships when they tried landing on the Moon during the past 500 Million Years? Did the vaporize? ☹️☹️☹️😭

Well, not necessarily. Some might have survived.
10/ Because rocks that were ejected from an asteroid impact on Earth that immediately fall to the Moon may not have gone very fast. They might have hit at little more than lunar escape velocity, just 2.43 km/s. That is quite slow for hypervelocity impacts!
11/ A study in 2013 argued (on the basis of computer simulations) that some even-faster rocks hitting the Moon might survive. So maybe the Ancient Tardigrade spacecraft landing on the Moon didn’t vaporize, but could the cute little moss piglets survive? nature.com/articles/ngeo1…
12/ Scientists shouldn’t speculate when there’s a total absence of empirical data. But if someone wants to provide funding, we can do hypervelocity experiments at White Sands or at NASA Ames, accelerating Tardigrades in a vacuum chamber to 2.43 km/s. (It will likely be a first.)
13/ Anyhow, the reason this matters is because scientists hope to explore the Moon to study the beginnings of life on Earth. The Moon doesn’t have plate tectonics or rain constantly recycling the crust like on Earth, destroying the evidence of what happened billions of years ago.
14/ The Moon DOES have impacts constantly reworking the surface,destroying what lies on top. But those impacts also throw regolith blankets on top of stuff, sequestering it where it can survive. The Moon is Earth’s attic where a selection of Earth rocks and stuff got stored away.
15/ So one of the reasons we want to go back to explore the Moon is to get clues about conditions on ancient Earth. E.g., if we could find some of Ancient Tardigrade Astronauts still be buckled into their little Rock Spaceships from 500 million years ago, it would be A-MA-ZING.
16/ Now this is why there are planetary protection requirements EVEN FOR THE MOON. Yes, although life can’t survive there, we might find things that will help us understand the beginnings of Earth-life. IOW, the stuff in Earth’s attic is valuable so sell it all in a yard sale.
17/ If we find ancient life (or fragments of it) on the Moon, we will compare it to modern life to see how it changed. (How could we find it? By looking inside any Earth rocks we find there.) We can genetically sequence the ancient life and study the chemistry of its rocky home.
18/ This is where I end the thread becoz I don’t want to join the discussion on how much planetary protection is enough/too much, or the legal issues of sending modern moss piglets to mix among the ancient ones, or the technical matter of how we would tell them apart...
19/19 But I hope this provides a little more context to the discussion. And personally, I just find this idea that cute little water bears bumbled along with their stubby legs and managed to land on the Moon hundreds of millions of years before humans ever did FASCINATING 😄😄😄
*so DON'T sell it all in a yard sale. (I hate it when the pivotal word is omitted.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Phil Metzger

Dr. Phil Metzger Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DrPhiltill

Apr 18
NASA now building a flight-ready lunar excavator for a resource utilization pilot plant (not a demonstration — the actual pilot plant) on the Moon.
Discussing the challenges of reoeatably setting up the correct lunar soil conditions (compaction, rocks) for testing the lunar excavator on Earth. Image
3/ The robot will not be joystick-operated from Earth due to time delay and bandwidth limits. It will have software for autonomous mining & roving.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 10
I'm tired of reading in the news people proclaim that starting a city on another planet is economically ridiculous when clearly they are just guessing. So I'm finally starting to write a paper on the analysis I did a few years ago that found (to my surprise) it is quite feasible.
The main thing ppl don't seem to grasp is that the cost of the extra stuff for Mars, like building a dome, recycling air, using mass for radiation shielding, washing perchlorates from dirt, etc., are utterly trivial compared to the cost of frivolous things we do in our economy.
The 2nd main point that ppl don't seem to grasp is that you don't need any particular advantage from being on Mars to make it economically viable. Mars doesn't need special minerals or anything. Any location becomes economically viable simply by there being enough humans there.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 31
Part 2. Another thing I think is cool in the papers I linked a few days ago. The quoted thread was about the granular physics of gas digging craters in small experiments, which I thought was cool. This new thread is about lunar geology. 🧵 1/N
2/ The papers described how those small experiments give physics insight that leads to a new equation predicting erosion rate when there is no saltation. I took that new equation and applied it to the Apollo Lunar Modules to predict how much soil was blowing.
Image
Image
3/ We can compare the theory’s predictions to the images looking out the Lunar Module (LM) window. As the dust blows, the image gets brighter. A histogram of pixel brightnesses gets narrower (less contrast) and shifts to the right (more bright pixels). Image
Read 42 tweets
Mar 29
Here’s something I think is cool in the new papers that I linked yesterday.

My research group over the years has run many, many small scale experiments where a jet digs a crater against a window so we can see into it.
2/ Something weird we see in these experiments is that the depth of the crater is perfectly described by the logarithm function. Like I mean, perfectly. There are two parameters: a and b, the length scale and (inverse) time scale.
Image
Image
3/ You can use different gas speed, molecular weight, diameter jets, grain sizes, mineral density, gravity, etc. The crater depth is always a perfect logarithm of time. In fact, if you plot it versus the logarithm of time, the depth turns out to be a perfectly straight line. WHY? Image
Read 15 tweets
Mar 18
I’m not so sure. The link to the prior estimate is a paper that measures the “blast zone”, which is the region around a lander where the reflectivity of the surface has changed. We have never known exactly what causes this change. Is it from gas blowing the dust texture flat? /1
2/ Or is it from blowing dust plowing across the surface? Or from engine shutoff when the last sputter of the engine cause a low velocity blanket of dust to fly out to a much smaller distance than normal? The problem has always been that this blast zone is *too small* to be…
3/ …the area where the dust finally lands, because the dust in rocket exhaust is going far to fast in low gravity to travel only that far. (We think we might know the cause now, but I don’t want to tell here since we will probably write a paper on it.)

So the prior estimate…
Read 10 tweets
Mar 17
Lots of discussion today on space radiation including errors like this one. This has confused water with regolith. Using too thin a layer of *regolith* creates secondaries, increasing the dose. But using water, or PTFE (lots of hydrogen), even very thin, always reduces the dose/1
2/ The thing about using regolith for shielding is that you use it when you are on the surface of a planet, and there’s so much available and you do t carry it on a spaceship so you have no reason to use a thin amount. It entirely solves the problem!

And…
3/ …if you want shielding on your spaceship you aren’t going to use regolith. You’ll use water, food, rocket propellant — mass you need to carry anyhow — and low-density material designed for shielding with lots of hydrogen. And you can travel *faster* to reduce the dose, too.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(