New analysis suggests Moon’s magnetic field shifted multiple times from weak to strong to weak

The uncertainty of science: A new analysis of Apollo lunar samples suggests that the Moon’s magnetic field actually shifted back and forth from strong to weak, with it being weak most of the time.

The problem scientists have had since the Apollo missions is that the Apollo samples, which all came from the relatively flat mare regions, tended to exhibit evidence of a strong past magnetic field, even though the Moon’s size and make-up suggested its field should have always been weak. This new research offers a solution:

The research team analysed the chemical makeup of a type of lunar rock – known as the Mare basalts – and found a new correlation between their titanium content and how strongly magnetised they are. Every lunar sample which had recorded a strong magnetic field also contained large amounts of titanium – and the samples containing less than 6 wt.% titanium were all associated with a weak magnetic field.

This suggests that the formation of high-titanium rocks and the generation of a strong lunar magnetic field are linked. The researchers believe that both were caused by melting of titanium-rich material deep inside the Moon, temporarily generating a very strong magnetic field.

Because the Mare basalts were an ideal landing site for the Apollo missions, due to being relatively flat, the astronauts brought back far more of the titanium-rich basalts (containing evidence for a strong magnetic field) than are representative of the lunar surface. As a result, large numbers of these rocks have been analysed by scientists back on Earth, and this was previously interpreted to mean that the lunar magnetic field was strong for long periods of its history.

Instead, the limited number of samples, all from the same regions, biased the conclusions. The scientists predict that future missions to more places on the Moon will confirm their findings.

Apollo lunar samples crumbling to dust

The uncertainty of science: A comparison between the average particle size of 20 Apollo moon soil samples has discovered that their size has decreased by more than half in the past 40 years.

The differences between the two datasets are stark. For example, the median particle diameter has decreased from 78 microns (0.0031 inches) to 33 microns (0.0013 inches). And in the original sieve data, 44 percent of soil particles were between 90 and 1,000 microns (0.0035 to 0.039 inches) wide; today, just 17 percent of the particles are that large.

The most likely explanation for the degradation is damage caused by water vapor, the scientists say. “Leaching by water vapor causes the specific surface area of a lunar soil sample to multiply, and a system of pores develops,” they wrote in the study, which was published online last week in the journal Nature Geoscience. “These structural changes may be attributed to the opening of existing, but previously unavailable, pore structure or the creation of new surfaces through fracturing of cement or dissolution of amorphous particles.”

I was surprised that in the article above the scientists made no mention of gravity as a factor. These particles were originally formed under lunar gravity, 1/6 that of Earth. I would have thought that their structural strength was partly determined by this, and once brought to Earth’s heavier gravity would have thus slowly deteriorated over time.

Either way, the study illustrates why saving these samples for future researchers was a foolish mistake. Time changes all things, and that change has made these samples no longer a good representation of the Moon. The NASA scientists and managers who decided to store these samples instead of distributing them all for immediate study forgot this basic fact.

The scientists who did this study appear to have not learned this lesson as well. They suggest future samples be stored off-Earth, in a place like ISS. I say, we should instead go to the Moon so often we don’t need to store any samples. When we want a sample, we go and get one.