It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Volcanoes erupting on the Moon in the time of the dinosaurs

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The commonly accepted end for volcanic activity on the Moon is 1 to 1.5 billion years ago but a new paper published in the science journal, Nature Geoscience, suggests that LROC images show evidence of continued basaltic eruptions as recently as 30-50 million years ago.

Excerpted from Linda Moulton Howe's Earth Files (via Obscuragator):


Three of the deposits could be less than 100 million years old and one particular patch called Ina might even be 30-50 million years old. Dinosaurs roamed Earth between 66 - 231 million years ago when the dark areas were likely erupting bright, red lava. This also means that the moon has cooled down more slowly than expected and might explain why Apollo 15 and 27 mission temperature measurements on thermometers buried in the moon's regolith at two different sites had higher heat flow than the average moon.


The picture below, taken from the LROC post New Evidence For Young Lunar Volcanism, shows the location of many of the 70 topographic anomalies referred to as Irregular Mare Patches (IMPs).




The best-known IMP, called Ina (or Ina-D), was originally spotted in Apollo 15 orbital photography, and was unlike anything else previously discovered on the lunar surface. Beginning with Apollo era investigations, Ina was interpreted as a collapsed caldera at the summit of a low-shield volcano. Previous interpretations of impact crater densities within and around Ina suggested that this enigmatic landform was much younger than the surrounding mare basalt unit in Lacus Felicitatis (Lake of Happiness).

Not only does the NAC provide excellent resolution, but after 5 years of operation has covered well over 75% of the surface. This combination led to the discovery of many new IMPs in locations across the nearside of the Moon. Ina is not simply a one-off oddity – but rather a signature of volcanic processes that actually occurred in multiple places across the nearside.


What does it all mean? First and foremost that volcanic activity probably didn't cease abruptly over a billion years ago as was previously believed. It also likely means that the interior of the Moon may be hotter and more active than scientists believed. Perhaps the most amazing takeaway is that there may even remain the possibility of future volcanic eruptions on the lunar surface!
edit on 2014-10-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Perhaps the Moon was also hit by a large asteroid debris field. The locations of those volcanoes look like the result of a couple of shotgun blasts.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Do you know........Does anyone know.....
Could an asteroid strike have caused a volcanic reaction on the moon? If there was volcanic activity on the moon, could any of the ash and lava enter Earth's atmosphere?


edit on 26-10-2014 by windword because: anyone



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Hmm I always thought the moon was a remnant of something that hit earth and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: proob4
Hmm I always thought the moon was a remnant of something that hit earth and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.


The prevailing hypothesis is the Giant Impact Hypothesis which holds that about 4.5 billion years ago a Mars-sized planet, usually referred to as Theia, collided with the Earth and the moon was formed from the resulting debris.

As for the comments about asteroid/meteoroid impacts on the Moon causing an outflow of magma. I don't know! But I do know that until only very recently, it was assumed that the Moon had cooled off too long ago for there to be any sort of tectonic processes at work. LROC has been paying huge dividends.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: proob4
Hmm I always thought the moon was a remnant of something that hit earth and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.


The prevailing hypothesis is the Giant Impact Hypothesis which holds that about 4.5 billion years ago a Mars-sized planet, usually referred to as Theia, collided with the Earth and the moon was formed from the resulting debris.

As for the comments about asteroid/meteoroid impacts on the Moon causing an outflow of magma. I don't know! But I do know that until only very recently, it was assumed that the Moon had cooled off too long ago for there to be any sort of tectonic processes at work. LROC has been paying huge dividends.
I also thought that before the universe really started to expand Mars was could have been real close to earth that it might have bumped the earth at some point causing our moon and the moons around mars that is what created the great scar on mars? Just a thought?
edit on 10/26/14 by proob4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: proob4




I also thought that before the universe really started to expand Mars was could have been real close to earth that it might have bumped the earth at some point causing our moon and the moons around mars that is what created the great scar on mars? Just a thought?


The current best estimate for the age of the universe is around 13.7 billion years, and the Earth around 4.5 billion years - the universe had been expanding for a long time before our solar system was (probably) born out of the dust and debris of a previous supernova.

The planets are probably in pretty much the same orbit around the sun as when they originally formed, although there is some credence to the idea that in the early days there may have been more planets and lots of jostling as the solar system settled down. It's not inconceivable that some of them collided early on as orbits intersected and slowly settled down (as it is believed Theia did with Earth) leaving us with only the planets we see today.
edit on 26/10/2014 by dogsounds because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'm trying to think of the mythology...


But the moon used to be a planet right? Thera I want to say...


edit on 10/26/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
But the moon used to be a planet right?

No, the Moon formed from the debris ejected off proto-Earth when Theia impacted it. Hence the Moon's relatively low density and similar composition to Earth's crust.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


This also means that the moon has cooled down more slowly than expected and might explain why Apollo 15 and 27 mission temperature measurements on thermometers buried in the moon's regolith at two different sites had higher heat flow than the average moon.
I have no idea what "Apollo 15 and 27 mission temperature measurements", means. Apollo 15, maybe but there was no Apollo 27. Howe's not a very good source but thanks for providing a link to the paper. Apparently their model for crater formation suggests there would be more craters in the areas where they think the eruptions were within the last 100 million years, if they were as old as previously thought.


originally posted by: proob4
Hmm I always thought the moon was a remnant of something that hit earth and caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Both may be impact related, but not the same impact with the dinosaur extinction being 65 million years ago and the moon formation over 4 billion years ago.


originally posted by: proob4
I also thought that before the universe really started to expand Mars was could have been real close to earth that it might have bumped the earth at some point causing our moon and the moons around mars that is what created the great scar on mars? Just a thought?
The distance between Earth and Mars wouldn't be affected to a measurable degree by the expansion of the universe. I don't know if the distance increased, decreased, or stayed the same, but if it did any of those it was unrelated to the expansion of the universe. Also there is not really any time "before the universe really started to expand", because it has really been expanding ever since the big bang.
edit on 29-10-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I have no idea what "Apollo 15 and 27 mission temperature measurements", means. Apollo 15, maybe but there was no Apollo 27.


I think he was referring to the heat flow experiment on Apollo 15 & 17. I don't know what relevance the results have to this discussion.
edit on 29-10-2014 by Saint Exupery because: Formatting error



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join