Chang'e 5 sample return mission Options

[Phil Stooke]

Of course, a mechanical or electronic failure is likely to end the mission long before the RTG wears out (same as on Curiosity)

Phil

[yaohua2000]

Chang'e 5 atmospheric re-entry and parachute ejection system tested.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Hungry4info]

In-situ detection of water at the Moon with Chang'e 5. 120 ppm in the regolith but a nearby rock had 180 ppm. Lunar interior may have more water.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl9174

[Thorsten Denk]

Interesting.
Is there also some water detection in the samples brought back to Earth?

Thorsten

[Huguet]

Is there also some water detection in the samples brought back to Earth? Thorsten

I believe this publication on Nature made the analisys:

"Water in CE5 apatite and melt inclusions
We studied a total of 23 basalt clasts (0.2–1.5 mm in size) from two CE5 soil samples (CE5C0100YJFM00103, about 1 g; CE5C0400YJFM00406, about 2 g; Extended Data Table 1)"

"we estimated the water abundance of the bulk CE5 basalts from the modal abundance of apatite and its average water content, because apatite is the dominant water-bearing phase in mare basalts. The modal abundance of apatite in the CE5 basalts is determined to be approximately 0.4 vol%, using the surface areas of apatite in all basaltic clasts analysed (Supplementary Table 1). The average water content and δD value of the CE5 apatite measured by NanoSIMS 50L are 1,921 ± 910 μg g−1 and 578 ± 208‰ (N = 40), respectively"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04107-9

[Huguet]

The modal abundance of apatite in the CE5 basalts is determined to be approximately 0.4 vol%... The average water content ... of the CE5 apatite measured by NanoSIMS 50L are 1,921 ± 910 μg g−1..."

Correct me if i'm wrong,.. but that means a average of 200 ppm at the apatite part of the samples?

[Thorsten Denk]

I'm also trying to understand it.
On page 50 they write:

"As apatite is the major water-bearing
phase in the CE5 basalts, a water abundance of 7 ± 3 μg g−1 for the bulk
composition of the CE5 basalts was calculated from the average water
content of apatite and its modal abundance of approximately 0.4 vol%"

This is much lower than the 120-180ppm from the other paper or what SOFIA measured (200-400ppm or so).

What is correct now?

Thorsten

[Huguet]

This is much lower than the 120-180ppm from the other paper or what SOFIA measured (200-400ppm or so).What is correct now? Thorsten

I Believe that means we have a 192 ppm of water average on the apatite and they are suposing it can be used as parameter to undertand all sample, despite apatite being 0.4 vol% of the sample... either case i don't realy believe it is practical to remove 200 ppm of water from a stone.. it is 0.02%, this would be 200 liters by each cubic meter of stone.

[charborob]

it is 0.02%, this would be 200 liters by each cubic meter of stone.

Should it not be more like 200 milliliters per cubic meter?

[Thorsten Denk]

Should it not be more like 200 milliliters per cubic meter?

Yes...
0.2 liters
One glass of juice.

[Huguet]

Yes...
0.2 liters
One glass of juice.

Ouch... i used cm3 instead of decimeter... if it was 200L it would have solved all moon problems...