Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

R A Zeigler

Publications and source records attributed to R A Zeigler.

15 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Combining Multi-Faceted Laboratory Studies of 74001-2 and Regional Remote Sensing to Address How Pyroclastic Eruptions Record and Affect the Lunar Volatile Budget

Basaltic magmatism is an efficient process for bringing volatiles from a planetary interior to its surface, with the possibility of generation of a transient lunar atmosphere as abundant volcanic materials de-gassed. However, pyroclastic deposits are locations where trapped gases may be studied [e.g., 2,3]. Volatile-rich pyroclastic deposits occur over a wide surface area of the Moon, indicating that the transport of volatiles and associated pyroclastic materials from the Moon’s mantle to the surface was a wide-spread phenomenon. Numerous studies analyzing remotely sensed data and using empirical modeling have demonstrated that various stages of pyroclastic eruptions significantly influence gas release patterns, morphology, and mineralogy of the deposit. Many observations based on mare basalts and pyroclastic deposits have identified potential histories of gas release [e.g., 2-10] and their influence on volatiles and their stable isotopes [e.g., 11-13]. The best representation of these pyroclastic deposits in the sample collection is core sample 74001-74002 that was collected during the Apollo 17 mission to the Taurus-Littrow Valley (TLV). The double drive tube penetrated a part of a regional-scale pyroclastic deposit and sampled approximately 68.1 cm of that deposit in the TLV. Remnants of this and other pyroclastic depos-its are represented throughout and beyond the TLV [e.g., 14-16]. The stratigraphy of this core has been investigated and defined by numerous studies. The CASA Moon SSERVI research team is conducting a multi-faceted analytical study of this deposit. Data generated from revisiting the stratigraphy of 74001-74002 will be used to place stable isotopes (H, B, Cl, S, Zn, Cu, Rb, Ga, Pb), Ar-Ar and U-Pb chronology, geochemistry, nanometer-scale observations of mineral surfaces, orbital observations, and experiments and modeling within a stratigraphic, eruptive, and geologic context. It is important to place these data into such a context. For example, recent S isotope measurements reported by Dottin et al. show differences within this core that may be related to either changes in source or eruptive process over the course of the eruption (vs. multiple eruptions). A fuller understanding of the stratigraphy is fundamental to resolving this interpretation. This comprehensive approach can only be achieved within the context of a program such as SSERVI. In addition, imaging produced in this project will be incorporated into a citizen scientist program to further identify many of the textural features of this double drive tube.

SSERVI↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Preserving and Curating the Moon: Adventures in Lunar Core Processing

The lunar crust is the most easily accessible part of the Moon to both remote sensing and sample analyses and provides an archive of information about planetary formation, crustal evolution, and contains a wealth of information about the origin of the Earth-Moon system [e.g., 1-5]. The Apollo mission returned 382 kg of rocks, soil and core samples. Studies of these lunar samples are crucial for our understanding of the Moon’s formation and geological evolution, and for the past 50 years these returned samples have provided the foundation for lunar science [5]. The returned samples are stored and cared for in the lunar curation facility at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. This facility is comprised of a large suite of clean rooms, sample vaults for pristine and return samples, thin section labs, core and saw rooms, storage and working areas, and ancillary labs all designed to minimize contamination from the environment and other samples. Some of the returned samples were intentionally set aside and left unopened. Recently, the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) initiative was designed to examine these pristine samples so the next generation of lunar scientists can further our insight into the Moon’s history. Here, we present the meticulous process that involves preparing for, and ultimately opening, one of the unopened core samples: Apollo 17 drive tube 73002,0,which was collected on the Moon from a landslide deposit near Lara Crater by astronauts Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt. In order to open, examine, and curate 73002,0withminimalpotential contamination, great care had to be taken prior to opening its container. Beginning18 months before extrusion of the sample, all core processing equipment was pulled out of storage, identified, sorted, cleaned, and purged with nitrogen gas. However, limited institutional memory has made this step challenging as most of the former core processors from the Apollo area have retired or passed away. Twelvemonths prior to extrusion, table-top rehearsals were initiated to identify equipment and learn how it fits together and operates. Five months before extruding the real core, preparations further evolved to include the extrusion and dissection of a lunar core simulant. In addition, a mock-up glovebox was designed and built to allow for a more realistic practice environment. One month prior to extrusion, the actual core cabinet was prepared for use, which included fitting it with lights, a webcam, and power. The tool and equipment cleaning procedure was also modified to include increased cleanliness and sterility requirements. While still sealed, the core was CT scanned at the University of Texas at Austin to maximize its scientific return. Days before the extrusion, witness plates and foil were deployed inside the core cabinet to monitor potential particle and organic contamination within the cabinet. On Nov. 5th, 2019, core sample 73002,0 was successfully opened and extruded(Fig.1). Dissection of 73002,0 began immediately afterwards and is still under way. Processing this sample will help us prepare for future sampling missions and core extrusions and will enable new scientific discoveries about the Moon.

C H Krysher↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Making Thin Sections from National Treasures: A Little Moon Rock Goes a Long Way

NASA’s Johnson Space Center curates the Apollo sample collection through their facilities in Houston, TX. It is a dual-purpose facility, intended both to store and preserve the precious samples, as well as to make them available for ongoing scientific study and public examination. The facilities consist of multiple vaults and lab spaces, including the Apollo Thin Section Lab. Although it is a part of the Curation facilities, this lab is intended to process specific lunar rock and dust samples into what are called “thin sections”. A thin section is a microscope slide with a very thin, highly polished slice of rock material mounted on it. These are used not only for microscope viewing, but also for a range of other sophisticated scientific instruments to map and measure fine details of the rock’s physical and chemical composition and structure. The process of making a thin section requires great care and patience and is an art in itself; each one is unique, and each sample can behave very differently while going through the same basic procedures. In general, it begins by taking a small chip of rock from a much larger sample. The rock fragment is placed within a small mold and liquid epoxy is poured over it and allowed to harden, producing what is called a “potted butt” (Figure 1). This is to stabilize the rock so that it won’t fragment or crumble during polishing, and to fill any cracks or voids within the rock. Once hardened, the epoxy on the bottom is carefully ground away to expose the rock surface within, which is then polished to a 1-micron finish. A thin new layer of fresh epoxy is then applied to the polished surface and used to mount it to a silica slide. Once the mounting epoxy has hardened, the potted butt is cut off less than one millimeter above the slide using a low-speed circular saw. This thin layer of sample material attached to the slide undergoes further grinding and polishing, typically bringing the sample thickness down to about 35 microns – roughly one third of the thickness of a human hair. The remaining potted butt is saved for future scientific investigations and can be re-polished and used again until all the rock material within it is used up. A single thin section can be reused countless times by numerous different researchers. In addition, thin sections are often exquisitely beautiful (Figure 2) and in some cases, lunar thin sections are used as public display samples, such as at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. The production of thin sections allows an immense variety of research to be conducted on a tiny amount of rock or mineral material, allowing the bulk of the Apollo collection to stay pristine and unaltered, and thus, remain available for next generation of lunar scientists to further our insight into the Moon’s geological diversity, and to bring valuable new insights to our understanding of the origin of the Earth-Moon system.

J J Kent↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using X-Ray Computed Tomography to Image Apollo Drive Tube 73002

The Apollo missions collected 382 kg of rock, regolith, and core samples from six locations on the nearside of the Moon. Today, just over 84% by mass of the Apollo collection remains in pristine condition within the curation facility at Johnson Space Center. Most Apollo samples have been well characterized, however there are several types of samples that have remained wholly or largely unstudied since their return, and/or that have been curated under special conditions. These sample types are: (1) unopened samples sealed under vacuum on the Moon; (2) unopened (but unsealed) drive tubes; (3) Apollo 17 samples frozen shortly after their return; and (4) Apollo 15 samples opened and stored in a helium atmosphere since their return. NASA solicited proposals for the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis Program (ANGSA), and 9 teams were selected to study: (1) unsealed, unopened drive tube 73002; (2) sealed, unopened drive tube 73001 (paired with 73002); and (3) a subset of the frozen and He-purged samples [1]. The first sample opened as part of the ANGSA program was drive tube 73002. This was originally a ~30 cm long, 4 cm diameter drive tube collected on a landslide deposit near Lara Crater at the Apollo 17 landing site. It was part of a ~60 cm long double drive tube collected, and the bottom half of the tube (73001) was sealed under vacuum on the Moon [2]. Prior to opening sample 73002, the sample was imaged with a high resolution X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT) scan of the entire tube. Additional XCT scans have been made of “large” clasts removed from the core as part of the dissection process [3]. Here we present the whole tube and close-up XCT data from 73002, and talk about the utility of the scans as part of the curation process, including the potential for future science returns from the high resolutions scans.

R A Zeigler↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring A Lunar Landslide Deposit In The Taurus-Littrow Valley (TLV). Variations In Mineralogy And Mineral Volatile Traps.

The double drive tube core sample (73001/73002), collected at Station 3 during the Apollo 17 mission, penetrated a lunar landslide deposit that was transported from the slope of the South Massif into the TLV (Figure 1). Orbital data suggest that this deposit represents multiple events that were triggered by movement along the Lee-Lincoln scarp [e.g., 1] or impact events [e.g., 2,3]. Although numerous core and trench samples were collected during the Apollo pro-gram and numerous landslide deposits have been identified on the lunar surface by orbital missions [e.g., 3], the Station 3 double drive tube is the only core that penetrated a landslide deposit. The intentions of our study are: to establish the stratigraphy of the deposit; to better understand the processes at work during the event(s), including the role of volatiles in the event(e.g., fluidization-enabled flow, escape of fluidizing volatiles) [1] and the capability of deposits for trapping indigenous volatiles; the number of landslide events; and the trigger(s) of such events. Here, we report some initial petrologic observations of the < 1mm fraction of the regolith. A companion abstract [4] emphasizes <1 mm lithic fragments, compares them to surface lithologies, and to > 4 mm lithic fragments.

M J Cato↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using X-Ray Computed Tomography to Catalog Rock Fragments in Apollo Drive Tube 73002

Overview: The Apollo missions collected 382 kg of rock, regolith, and core samples from six locations on the nearside of the Moon. Approximately 84% by mass of the Apollo collection remains in pristine condition within the curation facility at Johnson Space Center (i.e., never allocated, continuously stored in dry-N2 purged cabinets, exposure history restricted to Teflon, stainless steel, and Al-metal). Although most Apollo samples have been well characterized, there are several types of samples that have remained wholly or largely unstudied since their return, and/or that have been cu-rated under special conditions, e.g., frozen samples, samples stored in He-purged environment, and previously unopened drive tubes. NASA solicited proposals for the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis Pro-gram (ANGSA), and 9 teams were selected to study a subset of the unopened and frozen samples [1]. The first sample opened as part of the ANGSA pro-gram was drive tube 73002. This was originally a ~30 cm long, 4 cm diameter drive tube collected on a land-slide deposit near Lara Crater at the Apollo 17 landing site. It was part of a ~60 cm long double drive tube collected, and the bottom half of the tube (73001) was sealed under vacuum on the Moon [2]. Prior to opening sample 73002, the sample was imaged with a high resolution X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT) scan of the entire tube [3], which provided invaluable information during the dissection process [4]. In addition to the pre-dissection XCT scans, individual >4 mm particles were separated from the 73002 regolith during processing and scanned at high resolution by XCT. Here we pre-sent the initial lithologic classification of 134 individual >4 mm rock fragments separated from the 73002 core during the dissection process. Methodology: Drive tube 73002 was manually dissected in 0.5 cm depth intervals in three passes (Fig. 1) [4,5]. Each interval from pass 1 and 2 was sieved to <1 mm and >1 mm size fractions, and >1 mm particles were further manually subdivided into 1-2, 2-4, 4-10, and >10 mm size fractions. Pass 3 was not sieved, but >10 mm clasts were separated manually. Each 4-10 mm and >10 mm fragment was individually weighed, triply bagged in Teflon, and scanned by XCT. There are 60 rock fragments in Pass 1, 64 rock fragments in Pass 2 (from the 4-10 mm and >10 mm size fractions), and 8 rock fragments from Pass 3 (>10 mm size fraction). Each individually bagged rock fragment was scanned using the 180 kV nano-focus transmission source on the Nikon XTH 320 XCT system at NASA Johnson Space Center [6]. Scanning conditions varied considerably for individual particles, in large part be-cause of the large variation in size (0.008-19.623 g). All scans fell within the following range of scan conditions: 2.8-20.6 um voxel size; 90-155 kV voltage; 18-39 uA current; 1891-3141 projections; and 902-2000 slices. Results and Discussion: The 132 rock fragments from sample 73002 fall into the following general cat-gories: agglutinates (n = 6); basalts (13); impact melts (5); impact melt breccias (IMB; 42); regolith breccias (62); and soil breccias (4); see Figure 2 for representative examples of each lithology. Within most of these broad lithologic groups are recognizable subgroups. For example, a significant portion of regolith breccia fragments contain some agglutinate-like glass (n = 9) or are dilithologic (7) because they contain a single large clast (~50% or more by volume). Subgroups can be based on similarities to previously identified lunar lithologies, such as high-Ti basalts (9) and VLT basalts (4; Fig. 3), or based on commonly seen features within the fragments, such as poikilitic ilmenite IMB (10), ilmenite-lath IMB (12), or vesicular IMB (11) “groups”. Particles in the same “group” are not necessarily intended to be genetically related, but rather identify particles that are similar and that follow-up studies can classify in more detail [7]. Conclusion: Identification of lithologies based on XCT is a powerful tool, but a more absolute classification will sometimes require additional textural information from thin sections (e.g., glassy-matrix regolith vs. impact-melt vs. granulitic breccia) or quantitative mineral compositions (e.g., basalt vs. monomict breccia).

R A Zeigler↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-Ray Computed Tomography During Preliminary Examination of Apollo Drive Tube 73001

Introduction: Starting in 2019, the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Program has enabled consortium studies of specially curated Apollo samples that were previously unstudied (or under studied). This began with unsealed core tube 73002 [1,2] that is the upper part of a station 3 double drive tube. More recently the pro-gram extended to the study of a variety of frozen Apollo 17 samples [3], as well as the gas extraction [4] and dis-section [5] of 73001, the lower half of the station 3 double drive tube, that was sealed under vacuum on the Moon. In this abstract we will examine the role of X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT) during the preliminary examination process for sealed core 73001, including: (1) engineering scans to aid in understanding the gas extraction process, whole-core scanning prior to opening to inform extrusion and dissection work, and (3) individual particle scanning to characterize rock fragment lithologies for follow on studies. Methodology: Sample 73001 is a 33 cm long, 4 cm diameter regolith sample collected inside a drive tube (~1 mm aluminum walls). That drive tube was sealed inside a 0.5 mm thick stainless steel (SS) Core Sample Vacuum Container (CSVC). XCT scans for engineering purposes were done on the Nikon XTH 320 system at Johnson Space Center using the 225 kV multi-metal reflection source at 215 kV, 179 A, and a 38.49 m voxel size. Individual >4 mm particles separated from the core during processing (then triply sealed in Teflon bags) were also scanned at JSC using the 180 kV source at 90 kV, 33 A, and a 2.98 – 10.65 m voxel size. Whole-core scans were done at the University of Texas High-Resolution X-ray Computed Tomography Facility (UTCT) on the 225 kV reflection source on the North Star Imaging cabinet XCT system. These scans included: (1) a series of 9 overlapping super-resolution scans each covering a ~4 cm length of the tube at 190 kV, 180 µA, and a 12.9 µm voxel size and (2) a lower resolution continuous helical scan of the entire core at 190 kV, 180 µA, and a 51.8 µm voxel size. Progress and Results: Before piercing and extracting the gas from sample 73001, an XCT scan of the bottom portion of the CSVC was used to confirm the location of the Teflon cap on the inner drive tube, to ensure it was not accidentally pierced during gas extraction. Similarly, after piercing, the bottom and top portions of the CSVC were scanned in order to capture engineering knowledge about the results of the piercing process, as well as the metal knife edge vacuum seal (SS into In-Ag alloy). Both scans will provide constraints on future work of this type, particularly for samples collected during the Artemis mission. Another finding from these "engineering" scans was that the device in the drive tube that immobilizes the regolith (the keeper) was not seated in the tube properly. This meant that (1) the drive tube could not be removed from the CSVC for the trip to UTCT, and (2) the procedure for opening and extruding the drive tube had to be modified. Had either of these things not been known prior to opening the CSVC, it could have led to an inability to XCT scan the whole core at high resolution and/or potential disruption of the core stratigraphy during extrusion. At UTCT, the entire length of the core was scanned at high resolution (12.9 microns per voxel). This scan serves multiple purposes: (1) A lower resolution (and uncorrected) version of these scans stitched together was used to help inform the processors of potential pitfalls during extrusion and dissection; and (2) the full resolution corrected data will serve as the permanent in situ record of the stratigraphy of the sample and will enable future researchers to perform a variety of analyses. So far, 92 of the 121 >4 mm particles separated during dissection pass 1 of sample 73001 have been individually scanned. These scans clearly show the lithology of each particle while keeping the particles in pristine condition. Because of the dust adhering to particle exteriors it would otherwise be impossible to determine lithologies in a non-contaminating way. Thus far the types of lithologies seen in sample 73001 (e.g., regolith breccias, impact-melt breccias, agglutinates, and basalts) are similar to those previously identified in sample 73002 [2]. By the time of the meeting, all particles from all 3 dissection passes will have been scanned and statistics on the different lithologies in 73001 compiled. References: [1] Shearer et al. (2020) 51st LPSC, abstract 1181. [2] Zeigler et al. (2020) 51st LPSC, abstract 3023. [3] Kent et al. (2022) This Volume. [4] McDonald et al. (2022) European Lunar Symposium. [5] Gross et al (2022) This volume.

Moon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-Ray Computed Tomography of Apollo Drive Tube 73001 as Part of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis Program

Introduction: Starting in 2019, the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Program has enabled consortium studies of specially curated Apollo samples that were previously unstudied (or under studied). This program was intended as a participating scientist program for these Apollo samples, as well as a preparation for upcoming lunar sample return missions (e.g., Artemis). The work began with studies of unsealed core tube 73002 [1,2] that is the upper ~35 cm of an Apollo 17 double drive tube (~70 cm total depth) collected on the landslide deposit near Lara Crater at Station 3 in the Taurus Littrow Valley. More recently the program extended to the study of a variety of frozen Apollo 17 samples [3], as well as the gas extraction [4] and dissection [5] of 73001, the lower half of the station 3 double drive tube. Sample 73001 was sealed under vacuum on the Moon in a Core Sample Vacuum Container (CSVC). In this abstract we will examine the role of X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT) during the preliminary examination process for sealed core 73001, including: (1) engineering scans to aid in understanding the gas extraction process, (2) whole-core scanning prior to opening to inform extrusion and dissection work, and (3) individual particle scanning to characterize rock fragment lithologies for follow on studies. Methodology: Sample 73001 is a 33 cm long, 4 cm diameter regolith sample collected inside a lunar drive tube (~1 mm aluminum walls). That drive tube was sealed inside a 0.5 mm thick stainless steel (SS) CSVC. XCT scans for engineering purposes were done on the Nikon XTH 320 system at Johnson Space Center using the 225 kV multi-metal reflection source at 215 kV, 179 A, and a 38.49 m voxel size. Individual >4 mm particles separated from the core during processing (then triply sealed in Teflon bags) were also scanned at JSC using the 180 kV source at 90 kV, 33 A, and a 2.98 – 10.65 m voxel size. Whole-core scans were done at the University of Texas High-Resolution X-ray Computed Tomography Facility (UTCT) on the 225 kV reflection source on the North Star Imaging cabinet XCT system. These scans included: (1) a series of 9 overlapping super-resolution scans each covering a ~4 cm length of the tube at 190 kV, 180 µA, and a 12.9 µm voxel size and (2) a lower resolution continuous helical scan of the entire core at 190 kV, 180 µA, and a 51.8 µm voxel size. Progress and Results: Before piercing and extracting the gas from sample 73001, an XCT scan of the bottom portion of the CSVC was used to confirm the location of the Teflon cap on the inner drive tube and whether there was an “air” gap between the Teflon cap and the CSVC. This was to ensure the Teflon cap (which immobilized the soil inside the drive tube) was not accidentally pierced during gas extraction. Similarly, after piercing, the bottom and top portions of the CSVC were scanned in order to capture engineering knowledge about the results of the piercing process, as well as the metal knife edge vacuum seal (SS into an In-Ag alloy). Both scans will provide constraints on future work of this type, both for the design of tools used on the lunar surface during Artemis, as well as how we open future samples of this type. An unexpected finding from these engineering scans was that the device in the drive tube that immobilizes the regolith (the keeper) was not seated in the tube properly. This meant that (1) the drive tube could not be removed from the CSVC for the trip to UTCT, and (2) the procedure for opening and extruding the drive tube had to be modified. Had either of these things not been known prior to opening the CSVC, it could have led to an inability to XCT scan the whole core at high resolution and/or potential disruption of the core stratigraphy during extrusion. At UTCT, the entire length of the core was scanned at high resolution (12.9 microns per voxel). This scan serves multiple purposes: (1) A lower resolution (and uncorrected) version of these scans stitched together was used to help inform the processors of potential pitfalls during extrusion and dissection (voids, angular fragments at the edges of the sample, etc.); and (2) the full resolution corrected data will serve as the permanent in situ record of the stratigraphy of the sample and will enable future researchers to perform a variety of analyses. All 121 >4 mm particles separated during dissection pass 1 of sample 73001 have been individually scanned. These scans clearly show the lithology of each particle while keeping the particles in pristine condition (they are individually triply bagged in Teflon within our N2 purged processing cabinets). Because of the dust adhering to particle exteriors, it would otherwise be impossible to determine lithologies in a non-contaminating way. Thus far the types of lithologies seen in sample 73001 (e.g., regolith breccias, impact-melt breccias, agglutinates, and bas-alts) are similar to those previously identified in sample 73002 [2]. By the time of the meeting, all particles from all 3 dissection passes will have been scanned and statistics on the different lithologies in 73001 compiled. References: [1] Shearer et al. (2020) 51st LPSC, abstract 1181. [2] Zeigler et al. (2020) 51st LPSC, abstract 3023. [3] Kent et al. (2022) This Volume. [4] McDonald et al. (2022) European Lunar Symposium. [5] Gross et al (2022) This volume.

Moon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

From Apollo to Artemis: How Processing ANGSA Core Samples 73001/2 Can Help to Prepare for Future Sample Return Missions to the Moon and Beyond.

Introduction: Apollo Sample 73001/2 is a ~71cm long double drive tube consisting of an upper part (73002) and a lower part (73001) that contains regolith collected near Lara Crater at the Apollo 17 site, Station 3. The double drive tube is believed to have penetrated a lunar landslide deposit that was transported from the slope of the South Massif into the Taurus-Littrow Valley [1]. As part of the ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analyses) initiative, preparing a preliminary examination (PE) catalog of 73001/2 is a crucial first step for the early identification of material types such as rock fragments and potential stratigraphy within the core. Many new curation and scientific tools such as X-ray computed tomography (XCT) [3], multi-spectral imaging [4], and gas extraction manifold with piercing tool [5-7], have been applied to the ANGSA core to benefit curation strategy, PE efforts, sample allocation to the planetary science community, and ultimately help to prepare for future sample return missions like Artemis. 73001/2 Preliminary Examination and Processing: Sample 73002 was successfully opened and extruded in Nov. 2019 and fully dissected at the end of 2021. Sample 73001 (Fig. 1) was successfully extruded in March 2022 after careful planning before opening the Core Sample Vacuum Container (CSVC) that was holding the drive tube of 73001. XCT, as part of PE, was used to scan the bottom and top part of the 73001 core tube within the CSVC prior to opening it to 1) facilitate non-destructive, rapid detection of any contamination potentials due to piercing of the CSVC during gas extraction [7]; and 2) to aid in the Artemis sample tool development and provide data on the knife edge seal of the CSVC. This knowledge will help us connect the mechanics of the implemented design (i.e., XCT data) to the performance of the seal (i.e., data on the gas samples will tell us how well the seal preserved the volatile record of lunar samples). Both type of information will feed forward into Artemis tool and storage strategies for future samples. Results and Lessons learned: The XCT data of the CSVC and core tube within showed that the bottom Teflon cap was not pierced during gas extraction (Fig. 1c) and thus, the sample integrity remained guaranteed during piercing and subsequent gas extraction. However, the XCT scan of the top of the core (Fig. 1b) revealed that the drive tube was overfilled with lunar soil and the tool that keeps the soil constrained within the drive tube was not fully deployed. These preliminary data allowed us to implement the necessary steps to prevent loss of sample integrity, including any potential stratigraphy shifts during extrusion. Processing Apollo core 73001/2, creating an informative PE catalog, and applying new and refined tools and technologies for sample analyses are invaluable activities that will assist in circumventing any potential pitfalls, aid in the characterization of samples, and help in the assessment of how well any lunar material has been collected and preserved in the past. This will aid in designing future sample collections and curation procedures and help to prepare for future human exploration and sampling missions such as Artemis. References: [1] Schmitt H. (2017) Icarus 298, 2-33. [3] Zeigler et al. (2021) LPSC 52nd, #2632; [4] Sun et al. (2021), LPSC 52nd, #1789; [5] Parai et al. (2021), LPSC 52nd #2665; [6] Schild et al. (2021) LPSC 52nd #1888; [7] McDonald (2022) ESL 2022.

ANGSA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applicability of Micro X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy to Astromaterials Curation and Research

Introduction: The Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) curates NASA’s astromaterial sample collections which includes: Apollo samples, Luna samples, Ant-arctic meteorites, cosmic dust particles, microparticle impacts into space-flown materials, Genesis solar wind atoms, Stardust comet Wild-2 particles, Stardust inter-stellar particles, Hayabusa asteroid Itokawa particles, Hayabusa 2 asteroid Ryugu particles, and future OSIRIS-Rex asteroid Bennu particles (landing in Sep-tember, 2023) [1–3]. To enhance JSC’s advanced cu-ration capabilities, we have recently installed a high-performance micro-X-ray fluorescence (µXRF) spec-trometer to assist in sample characterization through rapid, non-destructive, in-situ elemental analyses that do not require the sample preparation protocols (i.e., polishing and carbon-coating) commonly needed for electron beam analyses. With this new instrument, we are capable of detecting all elements down to carbon in a variable-pressure or He-purged chamber for anal-ysis of a wide range of sample types. Here we describe the instrumental set-up, capabilities, and applicability of µXRF analysis to astromaterials curation and re-search. Instrumentation and Methodology: The X-ray fluorescence and computed tomography lab (X-FaCT) lab at JSC is now equipped with a Bruker M4 Tornado Plus µXRF (Fig. 1). This system is an energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometer equipped with two 60 mm2 silicon drift detectors (SDD) that are able to be used simulta-neously for output count rates ~500,000 cps. New light element windows allow detecting and analyzing the entire elemental range from carbon to americium. Two x-ray tubes (micro-focus Rh with polycapillary lenses and W with collimators of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.5 mm) with max excitation parameters of 50 kV, 30 W and 50 kV, 40 W, respectively, allow for more flexibility of the analysis of high energy lines. The motorized X-Y-Z stage has a mapping range of 190 x 160 mm and can support samples up to 7 kg (~15.5 lbs) and a height of 120 mm [4]. Analytical modes include elemental analysis (down to ~20 µm spot size) via point, line, or area of bulk materials (rock surfaces, thin sections, thick sections, etc.) as well as coating analysis (determination of thickness and composition) of samples. This system has a variable vacuum chamber (1 mbar to 1 atm) that is also equipped with a He-purge system which accommodates vacuum sensitive samples while still allowing detection of light elements at atmospheric pressure. Utility and Applicability of µXRF in Astro-materials research and exploration science (ARES): Elemental analysis using µXRF is commonly em-ployed for both terrestrial and planetary geological science disciplines [5]. It is especially useful for analy-sis of astromaterials given the limited sample prepara-tion required, which is not feasible for certain materi-als. Here we show select applications of µXRF anal-yses of astromaterials that can, have, and will be done at JSC’s X-FaCT lab. Point analysis: In-situ spot analyses (~20 µm spot size) on a cut slab of Martian meteorite NWA 10922 allowed for the discovery, qualitative elemental analy-sis and determination of different feldspar minerals [6]. These point analyses served as an effective prelim-inary step for subsequent quantitative analyses. Ana-lytical standards can be employed for more accurate quantification of µXRF spot analyses. Area analysis: This analytical mode measures all detectable elements (from C to Am) at each pixel (>5 µm pixel size) in a user-defined area. The results are shown as elemental maps which can be extracted as 16-bit TIFF’s for further data processing. In Fig. 2. we show elemental distribution maps of the high-Ti basalt 73001,531 that have been processed using ImageJ software. From these maps you can accurately and quickly (this map took ~50 mins.) identify mineral components, such as pyroxene, plagioclase, oxides, and phosphates, compositional zoning, and mineral textures. Detection of high-Z phases: µXRF techniques are es-pecially effective at analyzing trace minerals with high-atomic-number (high-Z) elements because the high-energy characteristic X-rays used (relative to SEM EDS) allow for mapping of K lines in elements up to La (typically SEM maps use L X-ray lines for elements >Zn, and these can often have interferences). Thus, µXRF is especially suited for identifying minerals like zircon, baddeleyite, REE-rich phosphates, Fe-rich met-als, oxides, sulfides, and phosphides [4]. In Fig. 3 we show elemental distribution maps for 73001,530 where we are able to correlate the original video image with, Zr, Si, Y and Hf elemental maps together identi-fying the location of a zircon. In this location you would expect lower Si compared to surrounding mate-rial, as well as higher Zr, Y, and Hf content compared to surrounding material, all of which is confirmed by our XRF ele-mental distribution maps (Figure 2.) Conclusions: The new M4 Tornado Plus µXRF within the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation office at NASA JSC allows for rapid and non-destructive elemental analysis of astromaterials with limited or no sample preparation. µXRF analyses pro-vide crucial compositional knowledge for the prelimi-nary examination and curation of astromaterials. This instrument enhances the advanced curation capabili-ties in the X-FaCT laboratory at JSC by allowing pro-ductive, cohesive, and non-destructive multi-modal x-ray analyses on astromaterial samples, which is neces-sary for the comprehensive curation and study of our current and future astromaterial collections. Addition-ally, µXRF can provide complimentary information to researchers for studies on astromaterials. References: [1] Allen, C. et al., (2011). Chemie De Erde Geochemistry, 71, 1-20. [2] McCubbin, F. M. et al., (2016) 47th LPSC, abstract #2668 [3] Zeigler, R. A. et al., (2017) 48th LPSC, abstract #2772 [4] Bruker User Manual [5] Young et al., (2016) Appl. Geochemistry, 72, 77-87 [6] Mor-ris, R. V. et al., (2023) 54th LPSC.

E W O'Neal↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

4.32 Billion Year Old Impact Melts at Apollo 14: Dating the Procellarum Basin?

Introduction: Recent work has improved our understanding of lunar crustal structure and basin evolution on the Moon, but its early impact history and implications for solar system dynamics remain poorly established [1,2]. In particular, there is a derth of absolute ages, especially for the period >4.0 Ga, that could be related to basin-forming events. Here we present U-Pb isotopic data for Zr-rich minerals found in impact-melt fragments from Apollo 14 soil sample 14163 that, when combined with previously published data, dates an impact event at 4324±15 Ma. The compositions and ages of these impact-melt fragments provide unique information about the timing of early impact events and the composition of the lunar crust. Results: Fourteen rocklets ranging in size from 1 to 3 mm were extracted from soil 14163. Most are impactmelt rocks with 10-30% clasts of mostly pyroxene and plagioclase (100 to 500 μm) in a crystalline matrix. Textures of the matrix vary from subophitic, formed by intergrowths of 10-20 μm plagioclase and pyroxene crystals, to poikilitic, with plagioclase and pyroxene reaching 20-50 μm size. Some fragments that contain no visible clasts have similar textures are also interpreted as impact-melt rocks. All fragments contain notably large proportions of euhedral to subhedral ilmenite, zircon, apatite/merrillite and less abundant zirconolite and baddeleyite in the melt matrices. These grains often form intricate intergrowths with each other and rock-forming minerals, indicating their crystallization from the melt (Fig. 1). However, some slightly larger (~50 μm) zircon and phosphate grains can be interpreted as relict clasts based on their granular textures and relationships with the surrounding phases (Fig. 1). This implies that zircon and phosphate minerals were present in the target rocks. Some of these grains were profoundly remelted during the impact, which resulted in an oversaturation of the melt in Zr and P and crystallization of new grains of Zrrich minerals and phosphates during melt solidification. The presence of zircon and phosphates indicates that the melts were significantly enriched in KREEP components and ties their provenance to the Procellarum- KREEP Terrane (PKT) [3]. Combined U-Pb zircon data obtained for all fragments form two main clusters on a concordia diagram (Fig. 2), between about 4.3 and 3.9 Ga. Phosphate data mostly concentrate on the younger end of this age range but some analyses are almost as old as the older zircon grains (Fig. 2). Figure 1: Zircon (Zr) and phosphate (Apt; Mer) grains in impact melt fragments from Apollo 14 soil 14161. A-zircon grains crystallized from impact melt; B-phosphate grain inherited from the target; C- granular zircon grains Our interpretation of these data is that all U-rich minerals experienced variable resetting of the U-Pb system, with phosphate, where closure temperature is significantly lower than that in zircon, affected more profoundly by Pb loss than zircon. Our best estimate of the time of formation of zircon and phosphate is based on statistically valid analysis of grains interpreted texturally as grown from the impact melt (Fig. 2). Ten of these analyses define an age of 4324±15 Ma (MSWD=3.0, probability of fit P=0.002). Our best estimate for the time of resetting is obtained by combining data from phosphates that are statistically indistinguishable from 3.9 Ga within the analytical uncertainties. This group is represented by 18 analyses of 15 phosphate grains from different fragments (Fig. 2) and defines an age of 3922±6 Ma (MSWD=1.2, P=0.23). Conversely, a minimum age of the target lithologies, remelted in the impact that produced the rocklets studied here (Fig. 2), can be determined from the five oldest analyses of zircon clasts at 4338±13 Ma (MSWD=1.5, P=0.2), which is indistinguishable from the age of the impact melt within the uncertainties. The obtained ages, combined with textural evidence, imply that the impact melt was formed at 4324±15 Ma, and that it occurred in a zircon-rich target with a minimum age of 4338±13 Ma. Further reworking occurred during a second impact event at 3922±6 Ma. Discussion: The younger age of 3922±6 Ma can be interpreted as the time of the Imbrium impact. The older age of 4324±15 Ma would then be the time of formation of the impact melt, which was then caught in the Imbrium ejecta either at the Apollo 14 landing site or within the target rocks of the Imbrium impact. The presence of abundant accessory phases such as zircons and phosphates is consistent with a substantial KREEP component in the analyzed particles. The current distribution of KREEP on the lunar surface appears to be strongly influenced by Imbrum ejecta [4] so interpretation of the 4.32 Ga age depends in part on assumed structure of the pre-impact crust and distribution of KREEP within the crust. If KREEP was present only in the deep crust at 4.32 Ga, then a basin-scale impact possibly analogous to Imbrium or larger may be necessary to excavate a KREEPy impact melt at this time. However, if KREEPy materials were present closer to the surface perhaps due to redistribution related to Mg-suite magmatism, then smaller impacts might be able to rework KREEPy compositions at shallower depths. The coherence of the data on the particles analysed here suggests a large volume of melt that has been preserved since 4.32 Ga, consistent with a large impact event. Relict zircons and mineral clasts suggests that the igneous crust in the vicinity of this impact was well developed by at least 4.34 Ga, similar to the model age of KREEP and older than the isochron ages of many Mg-suite cumulates [5]. A problem that confronts all lunar sample studies using the current collection is that the pre-Imbrium geology of the PKT (the source of these 4.32 Ga impact melts) is not well constrained. The South Pole-Aitken basin contains regions that are moderately enriched in Th, but its ejecta is Th-poor [6]; therefore these A14 fragments are probably not SPA ejecta. Alternatively, these fragments may represent formation of a hypothesized Procellarum basin [7] although the lack of a clearly defined basin ejecta signature is a potential problem with that interpretation. In any case, they provide a younger limit on the age of lunar differentiation and formation of KREEP within the lunar crust. Figure 2: U-Pb data for zircon and phosphate grains from impact melt fragments. A-all data; B-data used for age calculations. References: [1] Orgel C., Michael G., Fassett C. I., van der Bogert C. H., Riedel C., Kneissl T., and Hiesinger H. (2018) J. Geophys. Res. Planets 123, 748- 762. [2] Evans A. J., Andrews-Hanna J. C., Head J. W., Soderblom J. M., Solomon S. C., and Zuber M. T. (2018) J. Geophys. Planets. 123, 1596-1617. [3] Jolliff, B.L., Gillis, J.J., Haskin, L.A., Korotev, R.L. and Wieczorek, M.A. (2000) J. Geophys. Res: Planets 105, 4197-4216. [4] Haskin L. A. (1998) J. Geophys. Res. Planets 103, 1679-1689. [5] Borg L.E., Gaffney A.M., and Shearer C.K. (2015) MAPS 50, 715-732. [6] Moriarty, D.P., Watkins, R.N., Valencia, S.N., Kendall, J.D., Evans, A.J., Dygert, N. and Petro, N.E. (2021) J. Geophys. Res. Planets 126. [7] Zhu, M.H., Wünnemann, K., Potter, R.W., Kleine, T. and Morbidelli, A. (2019) J. Geophys. Res: Planets 124, 2117-2140

M D Norman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Morphological Comparison of Debris Recovered Searching for the 2018 Meteorite Fall into the Pacific with Those Recovered From the Purportedly Interstellar 2014 Fall

On 08 Jan 2014 a bolide was detected by US DoD sensors over the Pacific north of Papua New Guinea. A claim was subsequently made that this event arose from a meteoroid of interstellar origin based on fireball parameters, although that interpretation has been challenged. A seagoing expedition recovered material from the seafloor at a location calculated to be the fall site, and that material included small melted spherules. The spherules were claimed to be of extrasolar origin based on appearance and composition. A recent publication finds a favorable composition match between the retrieved spherules and coal ash, a ubiquitous contaminant on Earth’s surface and seafloor.

M D Fries↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Collection, Usage, and Preliminary Examination of the Apollo Sample Suite: Lessons for Artemis

Apollo Sample Collection and Usage: From 1969 to 1972 there were six Apollo missions to the surface of the Moon during which the astronauts collected 382 kg of rock and regolith (~2200 samples). The samples collected fall into these general categories: rocks (~66% by mass), rake samples (~4%), bulk regolith (~24%), and specialty regolith (deep drill cores, drive tubes, sealed bulk regolith) samples (~6%). In each category there are a variety of different subtypes available for study, e.g., among the bulk regolith samples there are also skim, trench, and (partially) shaded regolith samples each sampling unique types or depths of regolith. This variety of subsamples has enabled a multitude of different studies over the past 55 years (>3400 individual requests). We are still averaging ~50 unique requests and have allocated >500 individual Apollo samples annually for the past 10 years (2020 excepted). Looking at the 4,675 non-ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis) samples allocated over the past 10 years, the proportions of allocated samples do not precisely align with the abundance (by mass) of those samples withing the collection: Rock (69.4 %); Rake (10.8 %); Bulk Regolith (15.5 %); Drive Tube (3.3 %); Core/Specialty (1.0 %). Apollo Preliminary Examination (PE): The PE process differs significantly for the various sample types enumerated above; we focus on regolith and rock samples here. During the Apollo mission era, the PE process evolved over the course of the missions; below is what was done for the Apollo 17 mission. For regolith samples, the PE process was: (1) documented bags containing regolith are opened, photographed, and described; (2) large rocks are removed and treated separately; (3) 25% to 33% of the bulk soil is scooped out, weighed, and stored in reserve; (4) the remaining sample is sieved to produce the size fractions <1, 1- 2, 2-4, and 4-10 mm, all of which are weighed. For rock samples, the process is: (1) removing rocks from the container(s) it came back from the Moon in; (2) rematching any materials that spalled off the rock to their original location; (3) numbering, weighing, and basic photographic documentation; (4) dusting with a gentle N2 gas jet; (5) Orthogonal photography; (6) detailed description of the textures and features of the rock; (7) rock modelling and measurement; (8) stereophotography; (9) determination of the orientation of the rock on the lunar surface. Drive tubes and deep drill cores were not characterized during PE beyond an initial weight and a sketch of the interior tube materials derived from 2D medical X-ray images. Catalogs: The ongoing utility of the Apollo samples is enabled by the robust cataloguing process for the samples [3-5], which allows the scientific community to accurately request samples uniquely suited to their proposed studies. A common misconception, however, is the amount of detail that goes into the initial catalog (e.g., [6]) for a collection from the preliminary examination (PE) period, versus what goes into the catalogs that come later in the life cycle of the samples from that mission (e.g., [7]). The only required data for a PE catalog is a weight, a basic photograph, and a description of the nature of the sample. Artemis PE: Over the past few years, the ongoing ANGSA project studied previously unopened Apollo 17 double drive tube samples 73001/2 [1], and a PE of the drive tubes was done. The PE took the existing core dissection process (developed during PE of Apollo cores in the 1970s, 1980s), and modernized it [7]. The main lesson from the ANGSA PE relative to future missions was that the physical work done during PE of lunar samples has not changed much over the past 5 decades. The use of “modern” technology during PE (e.g., XCT; multispectral analyses) resulted in an enhanced initial understanding of the 73001 and 73002 drive tubes, but greatly increased the time required. The lessons learned from recent astromaterial PEs (e.g., ANGSA and OREx) are important to consider when planning for Artemis, but the unique nature of the Artemis Campaign means many lessons learned from these mission will not be applicable. Given the time constraints (6 months) and likely number of samples that will be returned by Artemis (>200), the Artemis PE catalog will necessarily look much more like [4] than [6].

J Gross↗