New study of Apollo 16 moon samples reveals hidden lunar history

an astronaut in a bulky white suit walks on the dusty grey surface of the moon
Astronaut John W. Young, commander of the Apollo 16 lunar landing mission, is photographed collecting lunar samples near North Ray Crater during the third Apollo 16 spacewalk at the Descartes landing site on April 23, 1972. This picture was taken by astronaut Charles M. Duke Jr., lunar module pilot. (Image credit: NASA)

Scientists continue to piece together the moon's complex history using lunar samples collected during NASA's Apollo missions over half a century ago. 

A fresh analysis of lunar dust collected by Apollo 16 astronauts in 1972 offers a clearer picture of the effects of asteroid strikes on the moon, allowing scientists to reconstruct billions of years of lunar history. The findings could also help upcoming crewed missions pinpoint precious natural resources for establishing moon bases, scientists say.

After landing in the heavily-cratered Descartes region in the lunar highlands, astronauts John Young and Charles Duke collected roughly 200 pounds (96 kg) of material from the moon's surface. Chemical analyses of soil-like pebbles in those samples, which the astronauts had gathered by raking across the landing site, have revealed the presence of various noble gasses including argon and xenon. These trapped gasses serve as useful timestamps of space weather processes like solar wind and asteroid impacts that have helped shape and reshape the moon's surface over billions of years.

Most of the samples collected during the Apollo era have already been scrutinized. To take advantage of new science and technology, NASA cracked open one of the last sealed samples, collected during the Apollo 17 mission, just two years ago. Much of our knowledge about the moon and its evolution comes from these samples, including the moon's true age being 40 million years older than we thought.

But researchers say this new study of trapped lunar gasses is already revealing new chapters of lunar history.

"We can build a much more complete picture of the history of this part of the moon during the early solar system, where heavier impacts on the lunar surface in its first billion years or so gave way to less intense periods from two billion years ago or so," study lead author Mark Nottingham of the University of Glasgow in the U.K. said in a recent statement.

While analyzing samples collected during the Apollo 16 mission, Nottingham and his colleagues used mass spectrometry techniques to catalog various noble gasses and their abundance in the samples, which helped them "determine how much time the samples spent exposed on or near the moon's surface," Nottingham said in the statement.

Chemical makeup of gasses trapped in these "regolith breccias" — a result of moon dust fusing into rock under the sheer force of asteroid impacts — show they stood exposed to solar wind and asteroid impacts for a prolonged period. 

The specific exposure ages varied widely between samples, from 2.5 billion years ago to less than a billion, suggesting the moon's soil around the landing area is "well mixed," with some of it dredged up to the surface by more recent impacts, the new study reports. 

Nottingham says that studies like this one will help scientists better understand where noble gases and other elements might be found on the moon and in what abundance, helping humanity better plan for future lunar exploration.

"It's remarkable to think that the samples Apollo 16 brought back more than half a century ago still have secrets to reveal about the moon's history, and that they could yet help shape how we explore the solar system in the decades to come," Nottingham said.

This research is described in a paper published Oct. 15 in the journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science.

Editor's note 10/29: Only astronauts John Young and Charles Duke landed in the Descartes region while Ken Mattingly stayed in orbit. This article has been updated to reflect that.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Sharmila Kuthunur
Space.com contributor

Sharmila Kuthunur is a Seattle-based science journalist covering astronomy, astrophysics and space exploration. Follow her on X @skuthunur.

  • Unclear Engineer
    "After landing in the heavily-cratered Descartes region in the lunar highlands, astronauts John Young, Charles Duke and Ken Mattingly collected roughly 200 pounds (96 kg) of material from the moon's surface."

    But, Mattingly did not land in the LEM, he stayed in lunar orbit. I thought everybody knew that the LEM only carried 2 astronauts.
    Reply
  • Moonwatcher
    Glad that some good data could be had from the Apollo 16 samples. It was disappointing that neither Descartes nor Caley were volcanic in origin, so all the geologists in the backroom were wrong. Young and Duke knew this as soon as they landed and looked at the rocks. From then on in many respects it was deemed a "wasted mission", but nevertheless, we have the samples for study.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I would not call it "wasted" - we learned that our theory was wrong, so we could then fix it.

    Or at least move on to the next incorrect conclusion that needs to be discovered and corrected in order to make progress in our understanding.
    Reply
  • Moonwatcher
    Unclear Engineer said:
    I would not call it "wasted" - we learned that our theory was wrong, so we could then fix it.

    Or at least move on to the next incorrect conclusion that needs to be discovered and corrected in order to make progress in our understanding.
    Yes, even a "negative" provided information, but we knew the Apollo missions were capped at 17 due to the Congress and Nixon administration killing Apollo. Guess we ought to happy we still have some of the old hardware left to show naysayers who say we didn't go to the moon. Ugh. Still, given that we only had 16 and 17 left to fly, I wish they might have chosen another target. Apollo 16 was still an historic mission. One I remember well. Those were amazing times. They ended far too soon.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Out of curiosity, what other choices for landing sites would you have preferred for Apollo 16 and 17 missions? Were we capable of landing at the lunar south pole, then? Did we think there was water in craters at the south pole, then? Would we have risked landing on the far side with that technology and then-current knowledge?
    Reply
  • Moonwatcher
    It has been a few years, LOL, so I can't remember the other sites, (should be able to find them on a NASA website) but some of them I recall would have been very interesting to see and geologically significant. No, in those days no one suspected there was any water on the moon. Those findings came about much later (I think just about 10 years ago) due to unmanned orbiting probes by India and China and the U.S. We even crashed one vehicle intentionally so another orbiter could get data about the debris kicked up. Apollo didn't have enough delta-v most of the time to get into high (or low) latitudes on the moon. They were "stretching" it about as far as they could on 15 and 17. That's why the earlier missions mostly were in the equatorial regions. (But they were able to sample many things due to the ejecta from large craters and Mare Imbrium being flung far). Also, consider that 1960s Lunar Orbiters that helped them choose landing sites were also put into mostly equatorial orbits. Only sites well photographed and well vetted by those missions were considered for Apollo. The main focus of Apollo was to beat the Russians. Obtaining scientific knowledge was a secondary, but distant, concern to that main goal.
    Reply