Workshop on Golden Spike Human Lunar Expeditions (2013) 6033.

pdf

THE INA D-CALDERA POTENTIALLY CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF LIQUID WATER IN THE MOON.
W. J. Platts, Groundhog Geoscience, Pinedale WY 82941. warrenplatts@hotmail.com

Introduction: The Ina D-Caldera (18.7N, 5.3E) observations by Clementine [4, 6] and the Moon
is one of the more unusual features in the solar system. Mineralogy Mapper (M3) [8] quantitatively
It is far from unique, however. At least 27 similar demonstrated higher reflectance at the blue end of the
depressions have been identified on the Moon [1], in spectrum, and that the interior, blocky terrain has
addition to several similar hollows on Mercury [2]. Ina spectral properties typified by high titanium basalts
is D-shaped and roughly 3 km across. It is located atop exposed in very recent impact craters (Fig 2).
a low-shield volcanic dome within the graben and
horst region of Lacus Felicitatus, and lies within the
Imbrium Basin ejecta blanket [3, 4]. Its interior is
characterized by numerous, convex-upward mounds
that resemble mercury meniscihence the appellation
meniscus hollows to describe Ina and similar
depressionsthat range in height up to 30 m, and are
interspersed by a blocky, apparently fresh terrain [1]
exposed by the removal of a thick, >12 m regolith
layer [4]. Although several theories have been
suggested to explain the formation of Ina, including
caldera collapse [5], inflated lava flows [3], or
outgassing [4, 6, 7], we argue here that the best
explanation for all observed phenomena is that Ina
represents a lunar cryovolcano.

Figure 2: Clementine false color image superimposed on

Apollo 15 photograph. The freshly exposed, high titanium
basalt is depicted in green. Intermediate aged regolith
(blue) covers the central domes and forms a halo
surrounding Ina. Source: Shultz et al. (2006).

Since volcanism on the Moon ceased ~1 Gyr ago

[9], sudden degassing has been proposed to explain
the excavation of >12 m of regolith that exposed the
3.5 Gyr old basalt underlying bedrock, either from
trapped gases near the surface [4, 7] or from volatiles
trapped deep within the Moon and episodically
discharged along crustal weaknesses [6].
Inspection of the Clementine spectral data (Fig. 2)
reveals that Inas tephra halo extends to at least ~0.5
km beyond the rim. This ejection distance places
constraints on the energy of the eruption that formed
Ina. The velocity u necessary to launch an object on a
ballistic trajectory downrange a distance d is

1/2
Figure 1: High resolution photograph of the Ina = ( ) , (1)
depression. The sunlight is coming from the east and the sin 2
smooth, central mounds are convex upward.
where g is the gravitational acceleration and is the
Observations: A peculiarity of Ina is its bluish tint launch angle. Assuming that the farthest edge of the
first observed by Apollo 17 astronauts [5]. Reflectance halo is from material ejected at a 45 launch angle
implies an overall exit velocity of ~28.3 m s-1. For a
Workshop on Golden Spike Human Lunar Expeditions (2013)
high-angle plume with a launch angle of 80, an exit
velocity of ~48.4 m s-1 is implied.
If a gas pocket deep within the Moon were trapped
by some other structure besides the regolith, high
pressures could be achieved. However, recent
observations by GRAIL [10] show that the Moon is far
more fractured than previously believed. In addition,
Ina is located near two of the larger nearside impact
basins [5]. Consequently, the underlying crust and
upper mantle are expected to be highly fractured.
Thus, it is difficult to see how overpressured gas
pockets could form in the absence of some sort of cap
rock. The regolith itself, in the absence of a cementing
agent, cannot serve as a cap rock at low pressures:
concentrations of argon atoms can diffuse through 15
m of regolith within half a day [11]. However, if the
local degassing rate exceeds the regolith diffusivity,
the pressure beneath the regolith will build up [7];
once the gas reservoir pressure exceeded the
overburden pressure (~0.04 MPa), the regolith will
become fluidized, allowing gases to escape before
extremely higher pressures can develop [7].
Cryovolcanism conceptual model: An alternative
explanation is that Ina was created as a result of rapid
exsolution of CO2 from low-temperature liquid water
exposed to the vacuum of space. The most famous
cryovolcano is the Enceladus plume, whose velocity is
estimated to be a minimum of 60 m s-1 [12]; note that
the plume contains ~3.2% CO2 [13]. Therefore, an
analogous process on the Moon could have enough
energy to excavate the Ina depression.
The very idea of liquid water within the Moon
cannot be lightly dismissed, given the recent
discoveries that indicate that lunar mantle may have
water concentrations comparable to mid-oceanic ridge
basalt (MORB) (~0.2%) [14, 15]. In addition, basalts
recovered from oceanic hotspots can contain water
concentration of 1% or more [16]. Note that Ina is
perched atop a low, 15 km diameter, dome-shaped
shield volcano [5]. Thus it is likely that an ancient
mantle plume underlies Ina, and that higher than
normal juvenile water concentrations within the
underlying source rock can be inferred.
For a regolith of 12 m, and a ~2 K/m temperature
gradient (about the average geothermal gradient
observed at the Apollo 15 site [17]) a temperature of
~274 K can be expected at the base of the regolith. The
permeability of the highly fractured rock expected to
underlie Ina (>>10-10 m2) [18] is higher than the
regolith (1-6 10-12 m2) [19]. Therefore, water vapor
moving upward would tend to move toward the
summit of the volcanic dome becoming concentrated
by a factor of 100 or more before diffusing through the
regolith at the top of the dome.
As long as the pressure within the regolith remained
below 100 Pa, water vapor would diffuse through the
6033.pdf
regolith into the Moons exosphere. If, however, the
pressure exceeded 100 Pa, any vapor diffusing through
the regolith would freeze directly into ice, forming an
impermeable permafrost cap rock [7]. Subsequent
vapor molecules would be forced to move
horizontally, around the edge of the permafrost layer,
expanding the size of the permafrost cap [7]. As the
dome-shaped permafrost cap rock expanded,
buoyancy effects would become important: since CO2
is heavier than H2O, the partial pressure of H2O at the
top of the dome would continue to increase.
Once the pressure beneath the regolith increased to
the triple point (612 Pa), vapor beneath the regolith
would condense into liquid water. Condensation
would release latent heat, raising the temperature, and
further increasing the pressure. Liquid water would be
gravitationally unstable, but descending liquid water
would be replaced by ascending water vapor; a
dynamic equilibrium circulation would likely result,
driven by the intrinsic power of the Moon.
Once the liquid water was exposed to the vacuum of
space, either as the result of a modest meteor impact,
or because the pore pressure exceeded the regolith
overburden pressure, or because of sublimation and
consequent thinning of the permafrost cap rock, near
instantaneous formation of bubbles would radically
increase the system pressure, causing a cryoeruption.
Energetics of Cryovolcanoes: Ordinary, non-
carbonated water probably would not have enough
energy to cause the observed excavation. Observations
of water dumps conducted on the ISS and Space
Shuttle of water jets pressurized to 0.101 MPa and
0.213 MPa, respectively, had observed velocities of
9.45 m s-1 and 15.24 m s-1 [20]. The observed
velocities agree well with theoretical expectations.
The unit kinetic energy of a water jet can be estimated
according to [21]
1 2 0 0
(ln 1+ ), (2)
2 0 0
where u is the exit velocity, is the Ostwald solubility
coefficient (defined as the volume of gas able to
dissolve into a unit volume of pure liquid), 0 is the
density of water, P0 is the starting pressure, and Pout is
the ending pressure. The Shuttle wastewater storage
tanks were pressurized by N2 at room temperature,
yielding an Ostwald solubility coefficient of ~0.017;
thus if Pout 10-9 Pa, solving for u, an ejection velocity
of 15.25 m s-1 is obtained for Shuttle. Since the ISS
nozzles are heated to 120 C, a somewhat smaller of
~0.014 should be expected that yields a theoretical
ejection velocity of 9.42 m s-1. These predicted
velocities according to Eq. (2) agree extremely well
with the observed velocities [20]. Nevertheless, both
Workshop on Golden Spike Human Lunar Expeditions (2013)
values are far less than the exit velocities implied by
Inas tephra halo.
However, if the water were saturated with CO2,
dramatically higher energies could be expected. The
Ostwald solubility coefficient for CO2 dissolved at 274
K and 0.1 MPa is approximately ~1.8; assuming P0
0.1 MPa to account for the increased tensile strength
of frozen permafrost, an exit velocity of 106 m s-1 is
obtained.
The calculated velocity does not take into account
entrainment of regolith, and thus represents an upper
limit. Assuming conservation of energy, a first order
estimate of the ratio f of entrained regolith to liquid
water is [21]
02
= 1, (3)
12
where u0 is the velocity with no entrainment calculated
according to eq. (2), and u1 is the observed ballistic
velocity according to eq. (1). Thus, a slurry consisting
of 1 m3 CO2-water and 6.5 m3 of regolith (~2000 kg
m-3) could be accelerated to 28.3 m s-1.
Note that the unit kinetic energy of a pure gas is
actually much higher than a CO2-water system. The
escape velocity of a pure gas is a function of its
molecular weight and its temperature. Thus, the unit
kinetic energy is
1
2 / . (4) the megaregolith [7], and would thus tend to preclude
2
A species with a molecular weight of 0.02 kg mole-1 at
274 K would have an exit velocity of 477 m s-1.
Accordingly, 1 kg of gas (0.02 kg mole-1) could entrain
~100 kg of regolith at a velocity of ~48 m s-1.
However, the potential energy density of the CO2-
water system is much higher than any gas at
reasonably expected pressures. The energy density is
the expected unit kinetic energy multiplied by the
mass density. For a CO2-water system with a ue of 106
m s-1, the energy density is 5.6 106 J m-3. For a gas,
the energy density is simply the pressure (since J m-3
N m-2). Thus, upon the near instantaneous exsolution
of CO2, the effective pressure of a CO2 driven
cryoeruption would be 5.6 MPa. This is more than a
factor of 100 above the over-burden pressure (~0.04
MPa).
The gas-driven eruption of a plug of regolith is
roughly analogous to the behavior of an air gun (Fig.
3). Thus, neglecting friction (since the area of the
eruption is large relative to the depth of the regolith),
the muzzle velocity of a plug of regolith can be
roughly estimated according to [22]
1
2
2 ( ) ln (1 +
), (5)
6033.pdf
Figure 3: Diagram of an ideal air gun. Vo is the volume of
the gas or CO2-water reservoir, m is the mass of the regolith
plug, L is the depth of the regolith, and A is the cross-
section of the eruption. Source: (Denny 2011).
where Vr is the volume of the gas or CO2-water
reservoir, Pr is the reservoir pressure, Po is the
overburden pressure, m is the mass of the regolith
plug, and A is the cross-section of the eruption. For a
representative column of 1 m2, a CO2-water reservoir
of 2 m3 and an exsolution pressure of 5.6 MPa
(regolith depth = 12 m) would have an eruption
velocity ue of ~43 m s-1. In contrast, for a pure gas
reservoir of 10 to 200 m3, (Mw = 0.02 kg mole-1, T =
274 K, Pr = 0.05 MPa, Po = 0.04 MPa, A = 1 m2), ue
3 m s-1. A pure gas that equaled the explosive force of
the CO2-water system would require the sudden
release of a large reservoir of gas pressurized to ~2
MPa.
Predictions: Since the cryovolcanic model depends
on a permafrost layer within the regolith combined
with liquid CO2-water at the base of the regolith,
meniscus hollows are predicted to occur only at
relatively low latitudes. At higher latitudes, any
permafrost layer that formed would extend down into
cryovolcanism. Indeed, out of 27 identified meniscus
hollows, none were found at a latitude exceeding 27
[1].
Liquid water would also react with lunar basalts to
produce serpentines and other hydrated minerals.
Serpentinization is volume expanding and can cause
uplift. In this regard, it should be noted that the
immediate region surrounding Ina is thought to have
been uplifted by several hundred meters [5].
However, preliminary analysis of reflectance data
gathered by M3 have not yet detected significant signs
of volatile components at Ina [8].
Since the model presumes the existence of a
permafrost regolith cap, regolith xenoliths formed
from chunks of permafrost blasted out by the eruption
should be found within the tephra halo surrounding
Ina. Once deposited, any frozen water would rapidly
sublimate, leaving behind a regolith plug with a
microstratigraphy at odd angles relative to the regolith
matrix, cf. [23].
Discussion: The above described scenario is
admittedly highly speculative and faces several
difficulties. First is the evident lack of detectable
hydrated minerals. However, it is possible that
serpentines were only produced at concentrations too
low to be resolved by M3, or that any exposed OH
Workshop on Golden Spike Human Lunar Expeditions (2013)
groups were lost as a result of ultraviolet photolysis or
shock dehydration due to micrometeor impacts.
Second, the total amount of CO2-water required to
excavate the Ina caldera is of order 1010 kga
seemingly daunting amount. However, this is a tiny
fraction of the expected juvenile water reserves
originally contained within the upper mantle plume
that probably underlies Ina. Assuming a 35 km thick
crust and total fractured zone extending down 85 km,
[10] there would be a 50 km-thick source rock able
to donate water. The dome-shaped plateau upon which
Ina is perched could gather water from an area of ~700
km2. Thus, reasonable juvenile water concentrations
[14, 15, 16] would result in an original, total water
content within the underlying fractured portion of the
upper mantle of order 1013 to 1015 kg.
Third, considering that the entire atmosphere of the
Moon is only about 20 metric tonnes [7], the recent
release of 1010 kg of volatiles might be expected to
leave a residual atmosphere thicker than observed.
However, the average water molecule released to the
surface can be expected to last about one day before it
was photodissociated or ionized and lost to space [24].
Given such a rate of destruction, the release of 1010 of
water would be reduced to non-detectable levels
within about a month.
Conclusion: The hypothesis that the Ina D caldera
was formed as a result of a CO2-water driven
cryovolcano can be falsified neither on the basis of
remote sensing nor a priori theorizing. The question
can only be definitively answered by in situ
investigation. The latitude of Ina is well within the
capabilities of the 1st generation landers proposed by
the Golden Spike Company [25]. The risk of going all
the way to Ina only to find no evidence of liquid water
is certainly very high. On the other hand, the
transformational reward of finding sublunarian
aquifers as close to the surface as 12 m arguably
outweighs the risk. In any case, whether Ina was
formed as a result of shallow cryovolcanism, or a blast
of high pressure gases from deep within the Moon, or
6033.pdf
is the result of latter day magmatic volcanism, or some
other cause is a fascinating scientific question in its
own right, regardless of potential resources for human
lunar development.
Finally, a slogan within the astrobiological
community is Follow the water. It would be ironic if
after decades of searching for liquid water all over the
solar system, evidence for liquid water were to be
found on our next door neighbor, the Moon. Such a
discovery would likely result in drastically increased
funding, both public and private, directed towards
lunar exploration.
References: [1] Stooke P. (2012) 43rd Lunar Planet
Sci Conf, 1011. [2] Blewett D. et al. (2011) Science
333, 1856. [3] Garry W. B. et al. (2012) JGR 117,
E00H31. [4] Shultz P. H. et al. (2000) Lunar Planet
Sci XXXI, 1919. [5] Strain P. L. and El-Baz F. (1980)
Proc Lunar Planet Sci Conf 11th, 2437. [6] Shultz P.
H. et al. (2006) Nature 444, 184. [7] Crotts A. P. S.
and Hummels C. (2009) APJ 707, 1506. [8] Staid M.
et al. (2011) 42nd Lunar Planet Sci Conf, 2499. [9]
Shultz P. H. and Spudis P. (1983) Nature 302, 233.
[10] Wieczorek M. A. et al. Science 339, 671. [11]
Frisillo A. L. et al. (1974) Proc 5th Lunar Conf 3, 2963.
[12] Porco C. C. et al. (2006) Science 311, 1393. [13]
Waite J. H. Jr. et al. (2006) Science 311, 1419. [14]
Hauri E. H. et al. (2011) Science 333, 213. [15] Saal
A. E. et al. (2013) Science 340, 1317. [16] Peterson M.
E. et al. (2009) AGU Fall Meeting Abstract #V42B-
05. [17] Langseth M. G. et al. (1976) Proc Lunar Sci
Conf 7th, 3143. [18] Bear J. (1972) Dynamics of Fluids
in Porous Media. [19] Heiken G. H. et al. (1991)
Lunar Sourcebook. [20] Schmidl W. et al. (2006)
Space Tech Proc 6, 93. [21] Zhang Y. (2000) J
Volcano & Geotherm Res 97, 215. [22] Denny M.
(2011) Physics Teacher 49, 81. [23] Beget J. E. et al.
(1996) Arctic 49, 62. [24] Stern S. A. (1999) Rev
Geophysics 37, 453. [25] French J. R. et al. (2013) J
Spacecraft & Rockets 50, 838.