Uranium at the moon?

Peter wrote



I didn't find my previous information, article etc. but today there are these articles:

"Experimental investigation of geologically produced antineutrinos with KamLAND" ( www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n705 ... 03980.html ) and "Ghostly particles unearth core radioactivity" ( www.nature.com/news/2005/050725/full/050725-7.html )


The first of these articles says



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Ummmm..... Yeah. For those of us who can't understand the nuclear physics gibberish posted above, the idea of the Earth's core being heated by slow nuclear reactions within is pretty old and generally accepted.

Heat conduction through even metals thousands of miles thick is pretty slow. Iron or steel welding rod is often hand held (with the end melting). It doesn’t take a very high power level to sustain a high temperature drop through an enormously thicker body of iron (the Earth’s core)!

I had read that radioactive elements in the mantle were suspected of causing the unexpectedly high temperatures in deep mine shafts at least 30 years ago but had never seen anything suggesting radioactivity in the core. It would make sense though. The densest materials should naturally end up in the center of the forming Earth and uranium is certainly dense.

The article "Lunar Flash Mystery Solved: Moon Just Passing Gas" ( www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070730_gassy_moon.html ) is reporting a speculation that at the Moon gases are released that might be the products of decaying uranium: .



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

More than two years ago I said I would look for the sources of my informations that the earthian core would be liquid because of radioactive materials in it - and in the last few days there was a longer article under www.wissenschaft.de telling that indeed there is a theory saying something like that.

It's a bit strange - but the geologist Marvin Herndon has said that the
core of Earth is a huge nuclear reactor - and it will run out of fuel in a few hundred million years. This theory is said to be able to explain a few things no other theory can explain up to now. If it would be correct then it would mean that Earth was the core of a gas giant before the nuclear reactions in the sun ignited.

Assumed the theory is correct - would it allow for uranium on the >Moon?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

According to our theories of of Earth-Luna formation, Luna is made up of mantle material from proto-Earth and at some point Luna was complitely melted if I remember it correctly. Theoretically this makes native Luna surface extrimely depleted in heavy metals, including Uranium. However metal asteroids should be rich in Uranium ore and Luna has been bombarded by those for billions of yrs, so I expect that at least some of the craters have commercially viable quantities of Uranium, Gold and Platinum.

Today there is an article under www.wissenschaft.de saying that scientists suppose a huge nuclear reactor 2,900 km beneath the earthian surface. At the border between the mantle und the core Uranium, Thorium und Plutonium could have enriched sufficiently to keep a nuclear chain reaction running. The performance is supposed to be 5 terawatts or that of 5000 artificial nuclear reactors. Although the concentration there is supposed to be 20 times toom low geological processes may have increased concentration and density of the material to an amount sufficient to ignite the reactions. This might explain isotope ratios of Helium and Xenon that can't be explained another way up to now. Futurely possible detection of antineutrinos would indicate the natural detectors directly according to the article. It refers to Rob de Meijer, University Kapstadt, and Wim van Westrenen, Free University Amsterdam, as well as to Nature, Online Service, DOI 10.1038/news.2008.822 ( www.nature.com/nature/index.html ).

Since the lunar diameter is 3,450 km it would be interesting if the material the Moon consists of might partially stem from that depth. This may depend on how and where the supposed Mars-sized planet crashed into Earth riping of the lunar material and on the question if that early time sufficient Uranium, Thorium and Plutonium already were at that region.

If the concentration was insufficient for nuclear reactions that time there never may have been such reactors n the Moon and Uranium as well as Thorium and Plutonium might be to be found in the depths of the Moon...


Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) augustin (Political Economist)

Just this moment I remembered the ancient natural nuclear reactor in Africa. Its activity depended on random rain causing a bit of water to flow through the uranium layer - only then it was active because water as moderator is required.

As far as I remeber or understand for this reason only the uranium was consumed that time to a degree that it was noticed in our days.

Since there is no water on the Moon - what about the chance that lunar Uranium has not decayed as much as at that location in Africa if there is Uranium on the Moon? If I understand correctly in reactors additional decay is caused.

What do you think?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Check this out http://spacefellowship.com/2009/07/01/psi-scientist-and-kaguya-team-find-first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/

It seems your are right

all my hopes and dreams of a nuclear powered spacefaring civilization are now possible due to lunar uranium being free from political stigma!!

So I guess we'll see a rush of countries trying to grab the Uranium, watch out for those pesky terrorists making a bid for that fisonable material.