Huge Lava Tubes: Our Moon Could Be Like Swiss Cheese
Mars is pockmarked with absolutely massive lava tubes, with ceilings as high as the Empire State Building, new research shows. And the moon hosts even more gargantuan tubes, with heights that dwarf Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and “skylights” as big as football fields.
These yawning, subterranean caverns, which are shielded from punishing solar radiation, could be used as sites for future human bases, scientists argue.
A lava tube is a tunnel under a world’s surface, formed by an intense flow of molten rock during a volcanic explosion. On Earth, they’re most easily spotted when they collapse, forming long furrows in the dirt. Partial collapses sometimes form chains of “skylights” that reveal hidden lava tubes that are mostly intact. Researchers have speculated that lava tubes might exist on Mars and the moon since the 1960s, but in recent years Martian and lunar orbiters have beamed home images showing how common these formations likely are, both on the Red Planet and on our moon. Now, researchers argue in a new paper published July 20 in the journal Earth-Science Reviews, it’s time to explore them in earnest.
Here’s why: These lava tubes are truly enormous, and might offer safer habitats than the lunar or Martian surfaces.
“The largest lava tubes on Earth are maximum [about] 40 meters [130 feet] of width and height,” said study co-author Riccardo Pozzobon, a geoscientist at the University of Padova, Italy. “So like a very large motorway tunnel.”
That’s certainly big enough space for some people to fit inside. But on Mars collapsed lava tubes tend to be about 80 times larger than Earth’s, with diameters of 130 to 1,300 feet (40 to 400 m). Lunar lava tubes seem to be still larger, the researchers found, with collapse sites 300 to 700 times the size of Earth’s. Lunar lava tubes likely range from 1,600 to 3,000 feet (500 to 900 m).
A lava tube on the moon, Pozzobon told Live Science, could easily contain a small city within its walls.
The sheer scale of these extraterrestrial lava tubes is likely a result of low Martian and lunar gravity, as well as differences in how volcanoes operated on those bodies compared to Earth.
To assess the size of lunar and Martian lava tubes, the researchers collected 3D laser scans of their counterparts — both collapsed and intact — on Earth. Then they collected all the available satellite images of collapsed lava tubes on Mars and the moon and modeled the size of the intact tubes based on the relationships between collapsed and intact tunnels on Earth.
Lava tubes make appealing human habitats for a number of reasons, including protection from meteors that don’t burn up as easily in the thin Martian and lunar atmospheres, the researchers wrote. They also likely contain useful chemicals, like water ice and volatile chemicals that can be used to make fuel. A thick layer of rock overhead can also, as Live Science previously reported, offer shielding against solar radiation. And skylights would still offer easy access to the surface.
Science-fiction authors like Kim Stanley Robinson have occasionally imagined pressurizing craters or lava tubes and filling them with air. But Pozzobon said that scenario is unlikely, not least because in the moon’s lava tubes, openings can be as wide as a football field.
“Due to their huge size and the possibility of having leaks due to the fracturing of the rocks, I would see pressurizing them very unlikely,” Pozzobon told Live Science. “What is more likely is to establish settlements within these voids, either to host humans or for storing equipment.”
Even stashing a base inside a lava tube presents challenges, however.
“Although a lava tube could provide a shelter to thermal excursion, radiation and micro impacts, it is not easily accessible and the basaltic rocks of its interior can be razor-like sharp and the terrain very uneven,” he said. “So the engineering challenges of placing inflatable habitats within such impressive caves is not trivial and requires very detailed studies.”
Read more at www.livescience.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
UniverseToday(.)com > Moon/Earth volume and mass ratios
Moon is 2% of Earth volume and 1.2% of Earth mass >
It is inconceivable that an impact broke off a volcanic chunk of Earth to create the Moon, alternate origin myths will be required.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Joseph,
Could the moon be a comet whose path was changed and its velocity decreased by the giant planets which was then captured by the Earth?
Herb
Reply
peter daley
| #
There is more information about the moon in Alex Collier’s book with more facts and its history. The Moon is hollow and artificial. It was formerly a moon of a planet between Mars and Jupiter which was destroyed over 18 million years ago, after which it was put in a precise orbit for the Earth.
According to this there was a time when we did not have a moon. There is mention in some ancient Greek text of a race called the ”Preselenites”.
The book is “Defend Sacred Ground, A Compendium of Andromedan letters” .Quite large and still free to download on the Internet.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Joseph and Peter,
IMO the main problem with pre existing Moon origin theories is that they do not convincingly explain how other satellites formed – particularly those that orbit in a retrograde direction.
I have previously suggested that our Moon exploded from Earth’s surface due to pent up rising gas pressure. The reaction to this explosion also provided the Earth with a different solar orbit. The explosion mechanism explains where Mars, Mercury, and other orbiting bodies came from, as well as how the volatile materials survived early solar system formation.
Of topical consideration to our lava tube discussion is the nature of the Lunar launch. A large quantity of molten magma accompanied the launch, so the Moon consists of a portion of Earth’s primordial crust as well as previously molten lava. When that material collapsed into a spherical shape, the lava continued to erupt providing the maria surfaces as well as the lava tubes. Subsequently, tectonic activity diminished both at the Moon and on Earth as nuclear activity subsides. More details at https://bosmin.com//PSL/PlanetsSatellitesLandforms.pdf
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert,
Suspect I have written this before but Newton (an others) had opportunity to observe two comets with tails which approached the Sun very closely and swung about the sun (incoming and outgoing) in little more than a day. And he pondered (Book III) how the tail trailed the incoming comet and the tail led the outgoing comet. Fact, read the Motte’s translation.
What was the tail? My answer, as I reconsider this, is non-volatile dirt particles. But if the comet was only non-volatile dirt particles: Why did the incoming tail form?
I have read the that the volatile components of a comet might be water, ammonia, and/or carbon dioxide. Next, question: How did these volatile gases condense in the near perfect vaccuum of ‘space’? My answer: Water and ammonia are among the tiniest molecule of matter that has strong (relative) intermolecular bonding capabilities known as hydrogen bonding. And carbon dioxide dissolves in liquid water because it reacts (in liquid water) to form the stable molecule dihydrogen carbonate.
It is hard to deny that water molecules are capable of condensing to liquid and/or solid water in the near vacuum of space.
Further, the comets are proof that initially that large planets had to form as cold matter. For we now understand that the core of the earth is molten because of the energy produced by nuclear fission reactions and that the energy of the stars is produced by nuclear fusion reactions.
I consider this is simple as Einstein stated that “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The tail of a comet always points away from the sun because the solar winds sweep any material being vaporized by the solar energy away from the body of the comet. The composition of the tail changes as the solar energy changes so at one distance it may be vaporizing ammonia which condenses into the tail as it is pushed into a weaker energy field, but closer to the sun the energy may be vaporizing lead and creating a tail. Just like the energy of the sun in the high atmosphere is able to overcome the bond strength of an oxygen molecule creating a layer of oxygen atoms, the closer a comet gets to the sun the more stable the bonds that will be broken, producing a comet’s tail with different elements.
When the comet travels towards the sun it will lose the more volatile elements in the tail while when moving away from the sun it will collect the heavier elements in the tail.
.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “The tail of a comet always points away from the sun because the solar winds sweep any material being vaporized by the solar energy away from the body of the comet.”
I agree with this totally for I had commented about the action of the solar wind earlier. However, I must admit that when I did this I did not consider it was acting upon the gaseous molecules as you have. And I agree that your explanation is clearly better than mine.
But based upon Richard Feynman’s light scattering figures I conclude it likely that water molecules (assumed major component of the solid comet) vaporized reconvenes back to snowflakes by which we see the evidence of the comet tail. Which was my point relative to the inter-molecular hydrogen bond of water molecules.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I believe the reason comets are thought to be the major component of a comet is where the Earth orbits that is the molecule being vaporized and shed. When the comet gets closer to the sun the energy increases so not only would the water be vaporized but the hydrogen-oxygen bonds would be broken. At the higher energy levels closer to the sun it would be compounds with higher melting points being vaporized then condensing back into molecules that scatter sun light, forming the tail.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Started rereading Newton and am now not sure I understand what he wrote about comet tails. Will study more to see if I can correct my problem.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb and Jerry,
This explanation of comet tails sounds logical to me.
I would add to Einstein stated that “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” The explanation should also include an illustralion. There are complex mathematical formula simply explained by illustration, and there are others which remain mostly in the mind of the composer. A good example of this is ‘the Mexican hat’ description of the Higgs boson particle. See https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/19578/how-can-i-make-a-plot-of-the-higgs-potential
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I believe nothing produced by accelerators. Until someone can explain how quarks can account for a neutron producing energy when it is formed (by the combining of a proton and an electron) and also produce energy (gamma ray) when it spontaneously decays into an electron and proton and why this doesn’t violate the first law of thermodynamics I will not believe in quarks. Since accelerators have “proved” the existence of quarks to me all they have done is proven the method of proof invalid.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
Drawing a Fynamore diagram should help with this. See https://www.quora.com/If-the-nucleus-of-an-atom-contains-only-protons-and-neutron-how-can-it-radiate-electrons
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The diagram is inaccurate. It doesn’t show the gamma ray that is emitted in beta decay.(the anti neutrino is another imaginary particle unsupported by evidence.) which occurs when a neutron decays.
This is another example of violating the first law of thermodynamics. The unstable nucleus (weak nuclear forces) emits an electron (which would help bind the protons together), creates a proton (which increases the repelling force in the nucleus), expends energy both by overcoming the attraction between the beta particle and protons and emitting a gamma ray, yet after all these things that would make a more unstable nucleus, somehow the strength of the nuclear forces increase forming a stable atom. (see my article in PSI Why the Nuclear Forces Don’t Exist).
The trouble with diagrams is that unless they conform to reality they are illusions, not illustrations. Instead of clarifying an idea they delude the observer into believing they understand. A prime example is the diagram used with Einsteins general relativity. The 4 dimensions of the space time continuum is represented by a 2 dimensional plane. The mass is represented by a 3 dimensional image (5 dimension for the mass?). The vortex created in the plane (again a 5th dimension) is created in which the mass orbits. This is hogwash just like the image that shows you can go up 4 flights of stairs an arrive at your starting point. It is using dimensional inconsistency to create an illusion and delude the observer into a belief of understanding. If you are going to portray the 4 dimensional space time continuum as a 2 dimension plane you must use a 1 dimensional dot as the mass. If yours a 3 dimensional cube to represent the space time continuum you must use a 2 dimensional disc to represent the mass. Since neither of these images would produce the vortex desired they are not used. The illusion produced by dimensional inconsistency is offered as propaganda to delude the reader.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks Herb,
It sounds a though you have just set yourrself some more homework.
Reply