Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ANGSA”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
NASA NTRS2020

Adapting Apollo-Era Instrumentation for Cold Sample Processing While Maintaining Curatorial Standard Practices

The goal of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Program is to study “specially curated samples,” that is, unstudied Apollo samples that have been preserved under unique conditions. A subset of the funded ANGSA work includes the study of Apollo samples stored under cold conditions since their return from the Moon. Ongoing ANGSA processing and future returned samples require cold curation strategies to preserve the integrity of organic and other temperature-sensitive constituents within those samples. Standard Apollo curation processing hardware and procedures are designed for room temperature operations, not cold conditions. This abstract details the major modifications of a heritage lunar cabinet in preparation for the first cold curation processing at Johnson Space Center. Future publications will provide greater detail on the low temperature materials and operation procedures. This work not only supports Apollo but also future cold sample return missions.

Amick, Cecilia L.↗
NASA NTRS2020

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. Last summer, 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 is 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 Xray 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 a first look at the 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.

Zeigler, R. A.↗
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 Moon. Although most Apollo samples are well characterized, several types of samples remain wholly or largely unstudied since their return: unopened and/or sealed drive tube samples, samples frozen upon return, and samples stored in a He-purged environment. NASA selected nine teams to participate in the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Program to study representative samples from each of these categories. The first sample studied as part of the ANGSA program is drive tube 73002, a 4 cm diameter unopened (but unsealed) 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, and the bottom half of the tube (73001)was sealed under vacuum on the Moon (and will be studied next). As part of the preliminary examination of sample 73002, the entire drive tube was imaged with a high resolution X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT) scan prior to opening and dissecting the sample. Additionally, >50 XCT scans have been made of “large” clasts (>4 mm) removed from the core as part of the ongoing dissection process. Here we will present both the whole drive tube XCT data showing the overall structure of sample 73002 prior to dissection, as well as XCT scans of individual clasts that reveal the types and abundance of different lithologies present within the drive tube. We will also discuss the utility of the scans as part of the curation and preliminary examination process, as well as the potential for future science returns from the XCT scans.

Ryan A Zeigler↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Oxidation State of Sulfur in Apollo Samples 71035 and 71055

Lunar apatites contain 100s-1000s ppm sulfur [1-3]. This was initially puzzling because lunar basalts are thought to form, including at the time of apatite crystallization, in low oxygen fugacity (fO2) conditions where sulfur exists in its reduced form (S2-), a substitution not previously observed in natural apatite. It has been recently shown, using S-XANES measurements of the oxidation state of sulfur in apatites and proximal mesostasis in the lunar basalts 12039 and 10044, that sulfur is indeed present as S2- in both the mesostasis glass and apatite when measurements were performed far from cracks or pits in the thin section [4]. This observation is consistent with other mineralogical indications of the low fO2 during formation of these samples (~IW-1) such as the presence of Fe-metal, ulvöspinel, ilmenite, fayalite, and silica in the thin sections. In the same study, in addition to clear spectral evidence for the dominance of S2-, analyses of apatite grains in both samples that occurred near cracks or pits in the thin section sometimes revealed non-negligible spectral evidence (e.g., S6+/ΣS > 0.03; [4]) for the presence of S6+. Because S6+ was not observed in the mesostasis glass near the apatite grains measured, or in any phase far from cracks or pits in the studied thin sections, this S6+ was interpreted as either primary S2- in the sulfide altered to S6+ in the thin section, or S6+ of secondary origin, deposited in the fractures of the samples [4, 5]. Whether this is of lunar or terrestrial origin is unknown but has implications for lunar petrogenesis if lunar [e.g., 5], or sample handling and curation if terrestrial. To test between lunar and terrestrial origins for observed S6+ in Apollo-era thin sections, we will measure the oxidation state of sulfur in apatite and associated phases in a specially frozen sample from a boulder sampled at Station 1A during the Apollo 17 mission as part of the NASA Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) program. Here, we present “control” measurements of samples 71035 and 71055, using Apollo era thin sections of aliquots of these rocks that were processed upon return to Earth and since stored under N2 atmospheres at room temperature. These will be compared to measurements using newly made thin sections of aliquots of the same rocks (71035 and 71055). In addition, 71036, which has been in cold storage (-20℃) since the return of the Apollo 17 mission to Earth, has been recently made available through the ANGSA program. With 71036 we can test the effect of storage temperature on potential oxidation of S2- to S6+ in the relatively oxidizing and warm conditions of Earth’s surface.

apollo↗
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

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

Initial Petrographic Analysis of Apollo 17 73002 Continuous Core Thin Sections Using QEMSCAN Mapping Techniques

In 1972, the Apollo 17 mission landed in the Taurus-Littrow Valley located in the southeastern edge of Mare Serenitatis [1].During EVA 2at Station 3,a double drive tube was used to collect a sealed core sample (73001/2)of the upper~70cm of the lunar regolith[2-4].The core was taken from the surface of the light mantle deposit, found at the base of the South Massif [3]. For nearly 50 years, the sealed core samples have remained unopened. This study is part of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) initiative to analyze the continuous thin sections from the Apollo 17 drive tubes opened in 2019[5-7].

QEMSCAN↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Processing Frozen Apollo Samples in a Nitrogen Environment

A few weeks after their return to Earth, several Apollo 17 regolith sample splits and one Apollo 17 basalt were frozen at -20˚C (under dry gaseous N2 like all other pristine Apollo samples), and have remained essentially unstudied within the Apollo sample collection at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC). As part of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) project, these frozen samples were selected for consortium study in 2019. Although the samples themselves were kept at -20˚C for nearly 50 years, the JSC Curation office has lacked a facility for processing frozen samples under pristine Apollo processing conditions. A temporary lab for this work was designed, built, and tested. Procedures were then developed for working in this unique environment, and the facility was sucessfully used to process the frozen Apollo samples for scientific allocation.

ANGSA↗
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

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

A METHOD TO REDUCE BIOBURDEN IN ASTROMATERIALS CURATION FACILITIES WITHOUT INTRODUCING UNWANTED CONTAMINATION

Introduction: NASA curates its Astromaterials collections in cleanrooms that are carefully monitored for particulate, inorganic and trace metal contamination. Current sample collections are not particularly susceptible to organic contamination or biological alteration. However, new collections like those from the OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa2 missions will have organic contamination requirements and are susceptible to biodegradation. It will be necessary sterilize or at least disinfect curation labs, as well as tools and equipment in a manner that does not introduce additional contamination and does not affect the samples 1. Current curation cleaning procedures utilize isopropyl alcohol which offers some bioburden reduction, but is not effective against spore-forming bacteria or fungal spores 2. We present a modified disinfection method that uses ultrapure hydrogen peroxide to reduce bioburden inside curation labs and glove boxes without introducing contamination or damaging curation equipment. We tested this method in the meteorite processing lab as well as on a glovebox being cleaned for use in processing ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis) samples and present the results of those tests. We discuss the limitations of this method and describe potential situations in which it will not be applicable. The CDC guidelines for disinfection andsterilization in healthcare facilities discusses over 15different methods for reducing bioburden in hospitalsettings 3. The most common method, steamsterilization, is well suited to sterilizing curationprocessing tools but cannot easily be used to sterilizecleanroom surfaces or large equipment likegloveboxes. Chemical sterilization with bleach(NaOCl) is also a common strategy in healthcare andpharmaceutical settings that presents materialcompatibility issues as well as serious inorganiccontamination concerns for curation facilities.Introducing a new source of Na and Cl into curationlabs is not acceptable. Other chemical methods likeethylene oxide, formaldehyde, iodophors andquaternary ammonium compounds could introduceorganic and inorganic contamination. We chose tofocus on hydrogen peroxide because it is generallycompatible with commonly used curation materialslike stainless steel, aluminum and Teflon and becauseit decomposes to oxygen and water. The CDCguidelines for hydrogen peroxide specify using a 7.5wt% solution at 25 ̊C with a contact time of 30 minutesfor high level disinfection and 6 hours for sterilization.High level disinfection is defined as a technique thatwill kill all microorganisms except large numbers ofbacterial spores 3. Methods: We prepared a solution of 7.5 wt%hydrogen peroxide from a stock solution of ultrapure30 wt% peroxide (JT Baker) and curation gradeultrapure water. This ultrapure water is already used incuration cleaning procedures and thus is not consideredand additional source of contamination. We conducteda materials compatibility test by exposing unanodizedand anodized 6061 T6 Al alloy to the peroxide solutionfor up to six hours and periodically inspecting thesurfaces for visible defects. We used this peroxide todisinfect the floor of the meteorite processing lab andthe interior of a curation glovebox by exposing thesesurfaces to the peroxide solution for 30 min. Thesurfaces were swabbed with a dry macrofoam swabbefore (Puritan Brand 2518051PFRNDFD) and afterperoxide treatment to collect microbes present on thesurfaces. Microbes were extracted by sonication fromthe swab into 15 ml of PBS (phosphate buffered saline)and inoculated onto the following media: TSA (trypticsoy agar) BA (blood agar), R2A (Reasoners 2 agar),Potato Dextrose Agar, Saboraud Dextrose Agar andSaboraud Dextrose Agar with 0.1 mg/ mlchloramphenicol. Four TSA plates and two BA plateswere inoculated with 0.1 ml of PBS each andincubated at 35 and 37 for 48 hours. Two R2A°C°Cplates (0.1 ml of PBS each) were incubated at 25 .°CThe remaining plates were inoculated with 0.2ml ofPBS and incubated at 30 ̊C for seven days. Afterincubation bacterial and fungal isolates were countedand transferred to new plates for identification usingthe VITEK24 automated system or by sequencing aportion of the barcode gene (16S rRNA for bacteria,small subunit gene for fungi) on an ABI 3500 Sangersequencer. Negative controls consisted of swabs thatwere opened in the sampling environment andanalyzed alongside the experimental samples.Results: A 6 hour exposure to hydrogen peroxideresulted in visible pitting on un-anodized 6061 Al, butnot on anodized surfaces. No visible pitting occurredafter a 30 minute exposure. Therefore, we decided tolimit our experimental tests to 30 min. exposures. 17bacterial CFU (colony forming units) representing 4distinct organisms were isolated from the meteorite processing lab floor prior to hydrogen peroxidetreatment. We were unable culture any organisms afterperoxide treatment. In the glovebox we were able toculture three bacterial CFU representing three distinctspecies, including a spore forming bacterium prior todisinfection with peroxide. After the peroxidetreatment we were unable to culture any organisms.Routine monitoring of the meteorite processing lab andthe glovebox did not indicate any increase in unwantedinorganic contamination after these peroxidetreatments. Discussion: A 30 minute treatment with 7.5 wt%peroxide appears to be an effective method forreducing bioburden on typical cleanroom surfaces. Themethod does not introduce unwanted organic orinorganic contamination and is compatible withcommonly used curation materials like stainless steel,Teflon and anodized aluminum alloys. Special careshould be taken with un-anodized aluminum.Prolonged exposure to hydrogen peroxide can causepitting on this material. We recommend using thismethod to disinfect curation labs and equipment whenbiological alteration is a concern. This method iseffective at room temperature and cannot be used todisinfect labs and equipment where the ambienttemperature is < 0 ̊C. Astromaterials samples shouldbe removed from the area where disinfection is tooccur. Hydrogen peroxide is a powerful oxidizingagent and will react with any organic carbon present inthe sample. References: [1.] Mccubbin, F. M. et al.Sp. Sci Rev(2019) doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0615-9. [2.] Mogul, R.et al.Astrobiology 18, ast.2017.1814 (2018). [3.]Rutala, W. A. & Weber, D. J. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. [4.] Pincus, D. H. in Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods (2005).

A. B. Regberg↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Stratigraphy of the Apollo 17 Landslide Core 73002 From FMR Maturity and VNIR and Mössbauer Spectroscopy

A suite of samples from the Apollo missions to the Moon (1969-1973) were set aside and stored under controlled conditions to have unexamined lunar samples available decades later for analyses that take advantage of evolved sample handling techniques, maturation of then existing instrumentation, and development of new analytical techniques and instrumentation [e.g., 1]. One preserved sample is the Apollo 17 double drive tube core (73001/2) that was driven into the lunar surface on the landslide deposit at Station 3 on the South Massif in the Taurus-Littrow valley [2]. The deeper section (73001) was stored frozen in a Core Sample Vacuum Container (CSVC) to maximize preservation of lunar volatiles. We report here, as a part of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Initiative [1,3], stratigraphy for the upper core section (73002) with respect to maturity (ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) maturity index Is/FeO [4-6]), visible-near-IR (VNIR) spectroscopy, and, for representative samples, grain-size analysis and Mössbauer spectroscopy. Stratigraphy provides data to model the dynamics of lunar landslide deposits and their post-emplacement evolution in comparison to impact-driven mixing on an airless body and stratigraphic context for volatile and (if any) organic behavior. Reported by [7] are preliminary results for multispectral imaging and hyperspectral scanning of the first dissection pass of 73002.

R. V. Morris↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

From Source to Surface: An Investigation of Magmatic Lunar Volatiles

Lunar missions led by NASA discovered water ice on the Moon’s surface [1-3], revolutionizing views of the abundance, distribution, and potential sources of H2O and other volatiles. Volatiles play an important role in affecting the rheological properties of minerals and melts and influencing magma eruption processes. In order to determine the indigenous volatile inventory of the Moon, it is vital to identify the magmatic and secondary processes that may have affected the volatile contents in lunar minerals [4]. As part of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) program we are investigating the petrogenesis of a set of four Apollo lunar basalts collected from the rim of Steno Crater 71035, 71037, 71055, and specially curated sample 71036. Our team is studying the petrology in 2D and 3D (this work), chronology (Pomeroy et al., LPSC 2022), oxidation state of sulfur in apatite (Brounce et al., LPSC 2022), and volatile inventory of the sample set in order to understand the age and genetic relationships among the basalts, their magma ascent conditions and eruptive signatures, and their degassing and surface histories. Here we present the first detailed study of the 2D and 3D mineralogy, textures, 3D vesiculation, and chemistry of these basalts to shed light on their magmatic, volcanic, and post-eruptive histories. Note: Extended abstract on document.

Z. E. Wilbur↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Chronology of Steno Crater Basalt

The Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) program was designed to investigate specially curated samples returned by the Apollo 15 and 17 missions [1]. As part of this effort, we are examining a suite of Apollo 17 basalts collected from the rim of Steno Crater, to investigate the magmatic and post-magmatic volatile histories of these samples. Here we report initial 207Pb-206Pb chronology of accessory phases for two steno crater basalts, which will ultimately be paired with (40)Ar*/(39)Ar chronology and (38)Ar exposure ages to constrain crystallization and surface histories. The chronology of these samples will help determine if the samples derive from the one lava sequence or represent multiple lava flows, and will allow us to place petrologic and volatile data into the wider context of the magmatic suite [1,2]. Note: Extended abstract on document.

S. J. Pomeroy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SURFACE EXOSURE TIMESCALES OF APOLLO CORE SAMPLE 73002 SPACE WEATHERED GRAINS

Introduction: Space weathering causes the surface regolith on airless bodies like the Moon to be morphologically, microstructurally, and chemically altered due to micrometeoroid bombardment and solar wind irradiation[1]. These processes produce a multitude of microstructural and chemical changes in individual soil grains that accumulate as grains are exposed on the surface over time. One microstructural feature produced by exposure to the solar wind is the development of ion-damaged rims on regolith grains via H+ and He+ ion irradiation. Also present are solar energetic particle (SEP) tracks, which are nanoscale lineations of ionization damage within grain interiors formed by high energy solar flare ions(primarily Fe group nuclei) which penetrate millimeters below the surface [2]. Recent work has confirmed that the thickness of solar wind-damaged amorphous rims on anorthite grains, nanocrystalline rims on olivine grains, and their respective SEP track densities are correlated with their surface exposure ages [3].Core sample 73002, recently released under the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) Program, has provided an opportunity to study material collected from the light mantle formation during Apollo 17. The light mantle is thought to have been deposited via a landslide originating from the neighboring South Massif [4]. Spectral profiles and ferromagnetic resonance measurements of bulk soils sampled at cm-intervals from 73002 indicate the existence of mature regolith extending ~8 cm below the surface, suggesting the presence of an in-situ reworking zone in the core[5,6].Here we present the distribution of SEP track densities, solar wind damaged rim widths, and the corresponding surface exposure ages of grains residing in the proposed in-situ reworking zone of core 73002. Methods: Bulk samples of regolith from the first eight intervals and every following fourth interval down the core (dissection Pass 2) were delivered to Purdue University as <45 μm size fractions. The first eight0.5 cm intervals, representing the top 4cmof regolith, were individually dry sieved to a<20 μm size fraction, and grains were prepared by ultramicrotomy for analysis in the scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM). Bright field (BF) and dark field (DF) STEM images of solar flare tracks and solar wind damaged rims were acquired on a JEOL 2500SE TEM, equipped with a 60 mm2ultra-thin window silicon drift energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectrometer at NASA John-son Space Center. Grain compositions were determined by EDX compositional spectrum imaging. SEP track densities and amorphous rim thicknesses were measured on BF and DF images. Results: The fraction of grains with discernable space weathering features decreased with depth, with 100% in the first interval exhibiting space weathering features as opposed to ~60% in Interval 8.BF and DF STEM images show splash-melt and vapor deposited rims on outermost grain margins with embedded Fe-bearing nanoparticles ranging in size up to ~10 nm in diameter. Images also show solar-wind damaged rims below the vapor deposits, and SEP tracks present in grain interiors. The rim thicknesses and SEP track densities were determined using the methods of [3] for 54grains spanning the top 4 cm. ~80% of the grains analyzed were anorthite and ~20% were olivine. The track production rate from[3] was used to estimate the surface exposure times of the grains in this study. The majority of exposure times are in the 1 -5 MY range for all intervals. The lowest value was 3.8x 10¬5years in Interval 8and the highest value was1.1x 107years in Interval 6. Grains with the highest solar wind damage rim thicknesses and SEP track densities are found in Interval 6.The highest rim thickness and track density observed for anorthiteis126.5 nm and4.7 x 1011tracks/cm2, while for olivine they are 98.6 nm and 1.83 x 1011tracks/cm2, respectively. Discussion: Intervals from the top 4 cm of 73002 show similar SEP track density and solar wind damaged rim thickness distributions. Spectral and ferromagnetic resonance measurements of 73002 indicate an in-situ reworking zone up to~8 cm below the surface[5,6].The depth analyzed in this work is within the core’s uppermost in-situ reworking zone and may serve as an explanation to the homogenous distribution of exposure ages. The decreasing abundance of space weathered features with depth is consistent with regolith mixing models showing an exponential decay in regolith maturity with depth over time[7].A maximum surface exposure age determined via SEP track density is approximately 10million years. This timescale is consistent with the lower estimate of surface exposure ages of the light mantle determined in previous studies, which can range from 10s to over 100 Ma [4].It also falls within the core regolith reworking development timescale of ~17 Ma [5,6]. Additional analysis will be performed for a further seven intervals in 73002.

J A McFadden↗
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

Thermodynamic Modeling of the Vapor in Equilibrium With Apollo 17 Basalts.

Lunar mare basalts sampled during the Apollo 17 mission provide insight to the chemical evolution of mare basalt magmas and their associated vapor as these samples erupted and cooled rapidly at the lunar surface. We focus on minerals present on vesicle and vug surfaces in Apollo 17 basalts, such as 71036, which was opened as part of the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis (ANGSA) program. The mineral assemblage observed includes native Fe, SiO2, and a Mg-P mineral, possibly merrillite [1, 2]. The pet-rographic context of these phases suggests that they may have been deposited directly from the vapor phase after eruption. Here we use thermodynamic modeling to assess the plausibility of the vapor-phase deposition hypothesis.

D. L. Thompson↗