Lab Building at the Desert Research Station at Zzyzx Road, CA.

On this third day of our research project in the Mojave Desert, we did a series of tests on the biological soil crusts and soil samples we collected yesterday at three sites along Kelbaker Road near Baker, CA.

Parag and Rakesh demonstrate extraction protocols

The laboratory building at the Desert Research Station is set up with standard equipment for chemical and biological tests, including flasks, test tubes, Bunsen burners, sinks, a fume hood, etc. Most of the detailed equipment and supplies was brought by Rakesh Mogul and the other scientists working on this project, including a centrifuge, a spectrometer, pipettes and pumps, and test kits and reagents for the extractions and analyses we’d be doing.

Inside the lab building at Zzyzx Road

The students and scientists had set up a series of protocols for the tests and a plan of attack for how to identify each sample. First, a group were taking samples of the crusts at each location and extracting the DNA from them. Each time, the scoop was sterilized with a Bunsen burner. The solution was then centrifuged to settle out the non-dissolved portions. Another group was at work using polymerase chain reaction techniques to increase the DNA yield so that the final sequencing could be done in a specialized lab. We’ll have the lab look at the specific species in the crusts, including the cyanobacteria, fungi, lichens, mosses, and archaea present in these symbiotic communities.

Extracting DNA from the biological soil crusts

Parag Vaishampayan worked with a group to extract ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which will give us a measure of metabolic rate in the crusts at each site. We sampled not only the crust itself but the soil directly underneath each sampled crust, and will look at ATP of the crust compared as a ratio to the ATP in the soil. The hypothesis is that the healthier crust will have a higher ratio.

Testing for ATP

Meanwhile, the soil itself was analyzed. Mary Beth Wilhelm and Liza Coe used a soil test kit to look for trace elements in the soil, such as aluminum, iron, chlorine, and magnesium. I helped do some of this analysis, since my background is in chemistry and geology. Rosalba Bonaccorsi, Ruben Hovanesian, and Leonard Bacon separated the soils using sieves to find the relative sizes of particles and materials at each site.

Testing the soils chemically

A final group of pre-math teachers developed a series of statistical tests to look at results of all these tests, including some ANOVA (analysis of variance) tests, which I vaguely remember from my masters degree program.

Instruction on pipette techniques

We got quite far with the tests today – it helps to have a group of people who are experienced and work well together. Although they come from all over the California State University system, the students are all in their second year in the program and know what to do and what each other’s strengths and weaknesses are. We all helped out where we had experitise. It was fun to see what college students can accomplish. We have one major remaining test for tomorrow: chlorophyll extraction and spectral analysis.

Allison and Kristen working on statistical models

I also talked with Geoff Chu, Paul Mans, and Ryan Piaget from NASA Ames who are developing a prototype rover built from a commercial off-the-shelf RC car, with video camera provided by an Android phone controlled from a laptop over a local network. Motor servos are controlled by an Arduino brick. The point of this rover is to analyze the soil crusts remotely without having 20-odd people stomping around on them. The rover will be equipped with a stereoscopic IR camera that can read 3D depth, along with an RGB camera. My goal is to take the height data from the IR camera and convert it into a grayscale heightmap of the various crust locations, then turn the heightmap into a 3D model in Daz3D Bryce. The RGB photo will be mapped over the top of the model as a texture. Ultimately, the model can be uploaded to an online app where people can rotate and explore the crusts themselves.

Geoff Chu and Paul Mans working on the RC rover

We had a preliminary results meeting after supper to look at what we have so far. The ATP analysis was not consistent across sites, possibly because the results changed as the day warmed up, but we’ll send the samples to labs for more accurate results.

Review session for today's results

Site 1 for testing biological soil crusts in the Mojave Desert

I’m in the Mojave Desert with a group of astrobiologists from NASA Ames, JPL, and the California State University system, along with student teachers in the Spaceward Bound program.

Rakesh Mogul, Chris McKay, and Parag Vaishampayan

Today, March 19, 2012 we officially began the main activity of this field research: collecting samples of biological soil crusts. We hope our research is on the cusp of crusty research . . . or something like that. We have two questions: First, what are the components and abundances of crusts in various locations; and second, what causes these crusts to change density from site to site? We discussed how to approach these questions on Sunday night and decided on an experimental procedure. Dr. Rakesh Mogul first led us in an activity on assigning planetary protection protocols to various types of space missions as a way of looking at the variables and possibilities of contamination. Then we got down to business on the study itself. We decided to sample three locations along Kelbaker Road, which heads east from Baker across the Mojave National Preserve to Kelso Depot. We brought with us sampling tools and equipment, including a field handheld ATP analyzer and collection tubes.

Photographing Site 1 location A

We collected after breakfast on a cool morning. The wind had calmed down from the night before and it looked to be a beautiful day as we loaded the vans and headed out. We stopped first at a site about five miles east of Baker which had been scouted out earlier. This site had an intermediate or average amount of biological soil crusts (BSC). Chris McKay described the general goals at each site, and Rakesh worked through the procedures as we divided up tasks.

We had several things we needed to do: First, locate an origin point with an average amount of soil crust and lay down a frame and grid aligned to the compass and its GPS coordinates recorded. Then we set up a vertical tripod and took photos of the location. All of this was to allow for determining the density of the crust – how many of the grid squares were covered.

Second, Rakesh and some of the teachers collected samples to test for ATP using a handheld analyzer. This wound up being a slow procedure and took some

Sampling ATP at Site 1

Third, Dr. Parag Vaishampayan of JPL collected samples near the grid, both of crust and non-crust areas, that we would use to extract the DNA and perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedures to increase the DNA for testing (this would be done back at the Desert Station lab). We also collected soil samples to analyze chemically. At each location, we also sampled four other locations, each randomly selected using GPS coordinates in an array around the original location.

Collecting soil samples at Site 1

With all this done and samples labeled and stored, we moved on down the road to the second site, this one with a dense growth of BSC. We ate lunch, then followed the same procedure to collect samples at five locations at the site. Since the crust was so dense, we had to be very careful not to step on any areas unless there was a wash or stream without crust.

Sample grid at Site 2

Dense, mature soil crust at Site 2

We then loaded up again and travelled back through Baker to our third site about two miles west of town across the road from Silver Lake. Here, the soil was very poor in soil crusts – we found a few small spots about the size of a quarter coin, all surrounding small puddles where organic matter and water had ponded. The BSC was much lighter in color and much sparser. We followed the same procedures, setting up grids, collecting samples, testing ATP, etc.

Site 3 near Baker, CA.

Collection Site 2

By then the afternoon had worn on and it was time to head back to the Zzyzx station. As soon as we got there our math wizards started setting up statistical searches and crunching the numbers. Tomorrow we’ll do the laboratory tests and prepare the samples by extracting DNA, sorting the soil, and testing the soil chemistry. We hope our results will be worthy of publication in their own right, as well as point to future ideas and techniques for studying life on other planets.

Chris McKay at Site 3

ATP sampling at Site 3

Anaxagoras and Empedocles, from the Nuremburg Chronicles

In my last post, I showed the statistics of what this blog has accomplished so far. I feel very good about where we’ve been, but now it’s time to describe where I plan on going this coming year.

Given that I am not teaching chemistry this school year, my work on the Elements Unearthed project has slowed down a bit as my attention has been diverted elsewhere by the astrobiology projects (the podcasts and CLOE animations) and other projects that I’ll describe next week. I anticipate teaching chemistry again next year, and I am in the process of writing up a series of grant proposals (all of which have to be done by Feb. 1) that, if successful, will provide funds for purchasing some iPad tablets and probeware that will allow us to do some environmental field research.

Fluorite and emerald crystals in the collection of Keith Proctor

In the meantime, I have a large backlog of videos that I have taped of various mine tours and interviews I’ve done across the country. I need to edit these into final videos and report on them in detail on this site. In order to keep myself on track, I’ve created a schedule for when I’d like to do each video and the topics I’ll cover here as I work on them.

This January, 2012, I am going to start at the beginning and look at ancient chemistry and our knowledge of the elements in prehistoric and early historic times. Then in February, I will start to work on my Greek Matter Theories videos. I have previously created all the script and narration and have even set up the video files and begun the graphics and animations. It’s high time I finished these. I’ll start with an overview of the Greek Ideal in philosophy and science, then talk about Thales and the Miletian School, then Parmenides and Zeno and the Eleatics. In March, I will talk about Heraclitus and Empedocles and the atomic theory and Plato. In April, I’ll move on to Aristotle, Epicurus, and the debate on elements versus atoms, ending in the theology of St. Thomas Aquinus and how atomic theory came down through the Middle Ages.

In May and June I’ll discuss the practical side of chemistry, with a look at ancient crafts, including metalworking, glass making, and other medieval technologies, including a detailed look at Agricola’s De Re Metallica (which I have many photos of).

Diagrams of molecules by John Dalton

By July I should have the funding I need in place to start the field research. My plan is to partner with another school, perhaps Tintic High School or Wendover High School, to travel out to nearby mining sites and use the probeware and iPads to collect and record data on soil and water environmental conditions, such as the pH of soil and runoff water near old mine dumps. I’m especially interested in seeing if the EPA efforts to mitigate contaminated soil in and around Eureka, Utah have been successful. I’ve talked about those efforts in previous posts (especially here: http://elementsunearthed.com/2010/06/09/the-legacy-of-the-tintic-mining-district/ ), so I won’t talk about them again now. We would use GPS coordinates and GoogleEarth to set up a grid of sample sites both in and out of the recovered area. We would sample the surface and two feet below ground. It would require several trips and coordination with local students to gather the data, but it is a project that would fit very nicely with the research I’ve already done. If I can get enough money together, I would like to rent a portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer which can read element abundances nondestructively on the site.

In preparation for all this, I need to make one more trip to the Tintic district in June to photograph and videotape the mines in the southwest area, which were the first mines discovered, including the Sunbeam and Diamond mines. One of my great grandfathers, Sidney Tanner Fullmer, died as a result of injuries suffered in an accident while working in the Diamond mine, leaving my grandmother an orphan to be raised by her aunt and uncle. So this history has a particular interest to me.

One thing I plan on doing, if we can work out a partnership, is to set up an evening in Eureka at Tintic High School where townspeople can come in with photographs and tell their stories of mining and life in Eureka before and after the EPA efforts. We’ll scan the photos and videotape the recollections, then combine all that with the video I’ve already done of the Tintic Mining Museum and local area. Ultimately, my students will help me script and edit a three-part video on the Tintic District, perhaps even done well enough that we could market it to KUED, the PBS station in Salt Lake City.

Ore loading platform in the Tintic Mining District

The months July, August, and September will be dedicated to this effort and will result in the best documentation created so far on video of the history and present of the Tintic Mining District.

October will be dedicated to Zosimos of Panopolis and such Arabic alchemists as Jabir ibn Hayyan. November will begin a discussion of European alchemists, from Roger Bacon and Ramon Llull through the Middle Ages. I’ll draw on the many photos I’ve taken on alchemical texts at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. The history of alchemy will continue through December, 2012 and on into January, 2013. In February and March, 2013, we’ll discuss the emergence of modern chemistry through Boyle, Priestley, and Lavoisier through Dalton, Avogadro, Berzelius, and others.

In April through June of 2013 we will switch gears and talk about nucleogenesis and the origin of the elements, then the physicists and chemists that have helped us understand the structure of the atom and quantum mechanics. From there, I will probably begin to talk about individual elements and how they are mined and refined, with examples of the mining districts where they come from, such as the history of the Viburnum Trend in Missouri and the lead mines there, or the gold mines of Cripple Creek, Colorado. I really do have enough materials now to keep this blog going for at least two years. And I’ll be gathering more all the time. I will also dedicate occasional posts to my efforts as a chemistry teacher and to science education in general, including my experiences at conferences, etc.

Portrait of Joannes Baptista van Helmont

Well, it is an ambitious schedule. I hope to do at least one post per week, probably on weekends. I hope to complete at least one video segment every two months or so. Next week, I’ll start us off with an overview of the history of chemistry.

Monthly Stats for the Elements Unearthed Blog

So here is where this blog stands: As of today, there have been a total of 67,620 visits to this site. As seen by the histogram, the number of visits has shown a definite annual pattern consistent with the school year – visits are lower in the summer when school is not in session, rise in August and September, stay high in October and November, dip a bit in December due to Winter Vacation, then rise again in January and February and peak in March, then gradually decrease as the school year winds down in April and May. This same pattern has repeated for the last three school years, but has grown each year. Last year, in the 2010-2011 school year, my best months were slightly above 3000 visits. Now they are topping out above 4000 and I hope they will hit 5000 by March.

Granted, compared to some popular blogs with thousands of hits per day, 5000 per month doesn’t sound like much. However, I am pleased – this is a rather esoteric blog dedicated to the history of chemistry and chemistry education. The yearly pattern shows that I am reaching my intended audience of high school students and teachers. This is also shown by the types of searches that reach my blog.

Although there are always some unrelated search terms that somehow reach my blog (the biggest ones are “Ocean City, New Jersey” and “Punxsatawney Phil” because I visited both places in 2009 and showed some pictures), by far the majority of search terms are related to chemistry and its history or to science education in general. I’ve gone through the search terms and compiled them into categories, mostly so that I can make plans for the future. Here are the top searches that reach this blog: (1) Greek Matter Theories (3473 searches) with Aristotle, Democritus, and Thales being the biggest ones; (2) the Periodic Table of elements (2288); (3) beryllium (1600); (4) Alexandre Beguyer de Chancourtois (1397) – this is a bit surprising, but apparently my animation of his telluric screw periodic system and description of his work is one of the few sites out there about him; (5) the Tintic Mining District (1041); (6) the history of the periodic table (868); (7) science education (862), especially using iPads in science classes; (8) early modern chemistry (822), including Lavoisier, Boyle, Priestley, Dalton, and Newton; (9) alchemy (732), with love potions, Khunrath, Basil Valentine, Zosimos, and Maier the highest; (10) water and wind turbines (618); (11) strange attractors (586) – this is another odd one, since I only mentioned it once, but it was in my most popular post; (12) mercury (554); (13) early technology (514), such as Roman glass, Pliny the Elder, Agricola, Neri, and others; (14) mining in general (455) – such terms as overburden, open pit mine, ball mill, and headframe; and (15) Cripple Creek, Colorado (315).

Top Posts for the Elements Unearthed Blog

The videos that I have created for this project are posted on this blog (under the video tab) and on YouTube. The History of the Periodic Table, featuring Dr. Eric Scerri of UCLA, is my biggest hit so far. All parts of this video have been watched a total of 11,474 times as of 1/7/2012. There are even a few derivative works on YouTube that take parts of my video – a section on Henry Moseley, for example – and combine it with parts of other videos with Bill Nye, etc. I’ve had quite a few comments on how useful this video has been for chemistry teachers out there, and I am very pleased with the results so far. There is also a version with Portuguese subtitles done by a professor in Brazil; I’m not sure how many times that has been seen. My separate video that showed only some animations of the periodic table has been watched 416 times.

The second most popular videos have been the two parts on beryllium – its properties and uses, and how it is mined and refined. It has been watched a total of 3219 times, with the separate video on the geology of beryllium watched itself an additional 153 times. The Discovery of Synthetic Diamonds has been watched 745 times and the demonstration of Glass Blowing 754 times. These have been the most popular videos related to this project.

In conclusion, the most important question is: Have I succeeded in my attempt to bring the history of chemistry and chemistry education to the general public, and specifically to teachers and students? All indications, based on these statistics, are that I am succeeding and that that success is continuing to grow.

The last several posts have been about astronomy and space science education, and although some search terms have reached these posts, not many have. For various reasons, not the least of which is that I want to keep this blog focused on my original intent, I am starting a new blog which should be up and running by Wednesday night on space science education and resources for teachers to use now that we are in the golden age of astronomy. I will be doing quite a bit of education outreach on these topics over the next few years, if all goes well, and they deserve to have their own blog. I will include links here once that is ready to visit. I will post to this new blog once per week on Wednesdays.

The statistics also point out which topics have been most popular, and give me direction on what to post about in the future. In my next post, I will give you a schedule of what I intend to discuss over the next year and a half and when I will have the related videos completed. I will try to post once per week, probably on weekends. I have much more material from my fellowship at the Chemical Heritage Foundation that I haven’t shown or discussed here yet, and I look forward to digging into it all. I have also visited many sites related to mining and refining of the elements which I have only mentioned in passing. It’s time to edit all that footage and photos into videos for this site and YouTube. I expect the next few years to be busy, productive, and rewarding and to reach even more people than I already have.

Mazie recording her paragraphs for the podcast

I realize the last three blogs I’ve posted here have been about astronomy instead of the elements (although the elements are mentioned here and there). I tend to write about what’s been on my mind, and since I’m not teaching chemistry this year, but I am teaching astrobiology, you’ve been getting quite a bit about the Moon and now about Mars and the stars. I hope you don’t mind.

My astrobiology students are now hard at work creating podcasts for the 365 Days of Astronomy website. The first episode was uploaded this evening and is scheduled to “air” on Friday, Dec. 2. Three other episodes will follow, on Dec. 8, 14, and 19. Here’s a link to the website: http://365daysofastronomy.org/

Cali records her portion of the podcast

This first episode was researched and recorded by Mazie, Cali, and Tia and is about how stars are named. They describe the four most common methods: Common names (such as Bellatrix or Rigel or Sirius), the Bayer naming system (such as Alpha Centauri), the Flamsteed System (such as 61 Cygni), and various star catalogs such as the various Durchmusterungs, the Henry Draper, Hipparcos, etc.

Title page for Uranometria by Johann Bayer

Rather than steal their thunder, I am attaching the audio file here:

Naming_Stars_Podcast

And here is the transcript of their presentation:

Naming_Stars_transcript

Unfortunately, as I was preparing this post and gathering images (such as this one of Virgo taken from Johann Bayer’s Uranometria) I discovered that we made one mistake. We had listed the star Zuben Eschamali as being in Libra when it is really in Virgo. This was my mistake, and one I should have caught before now.

Virgo as drawn in Uranometria. The bright stars on the left are Zuben Elgenubi and Zuben Eschamali. The very bright star is Spica.

Hopefully that is the only mistake we’ve made. The students did the research, with notations and edits by me, developed it into a script, and recorded their parts this last week. We went through each paragraph (and sometimes each sentence) several times to get good takes. I also recorded myself at home doing the second episode, which is on my own take on the Drake Equation. I’ll have that one edited and transcribed by tomorrow evening.

I’ve also ran into a major difficulty in that my laptop’s hard drive died last week and I’ve been trying to recover files and software ever since. The Mac store I went to would only install the system software that originally came on my computer, even though I had upgraded to Snow Leopard. So now much of my software that I’ve reinstalled doesn’t work because I have to wait for the Snow Leopard disk to arrive in the mail to get my OS up to speed. Then there is the whole fiasco with buying Final Cut Studio off of e-Bay only to have it arrive without the installation disks. So I got a refund and have to mail it back tomorrow and wait for my new purchase (hopefully complete this time) to arrive. In the meantime, I’ve been editing these podcasts using iMovie and Audacity – not my first choice, but it is working.

The worst part of losing the hard drive is that I had literally thousands of photos on it from my research at the Chemical Heritage Foundation and from visits I’ve made to mine sites since then that I don’t want to lose, so I will need to pay an extra amount to get the data recovered. Hopefully it can be. Now I know to back up all my photos as well as the video projects I had already backed up.

I hope you enjoy the podcasts. I’ll let you know how the data recovery goes.

Mare Imbrium features, created using LOLA data in Daz3D Bryce

We’ve made it to the end of first term and are starting in to second term at Walden School. In our astrobiology class, the students have studied in detail the formation and evolution of the Moon according to best evidence as well as the history of lunar exploration and the Apollo program.

Apollo 15 landing site at Hadley-Apennine

The students have drawn up storyboards of the animation we’re developing for the Center for Lunar Origin and Evolution. One of these storyboard frames is shown below. We will now pass these over to my 3D modeling class, who will soon start the process of planning and developing the models and scenes necessary to make the animations work. The multimedia students will then do the final assembly and special effects/post production work.

Southern Lunar Highlands around Apollo 16 landing site

In the meantime, I have been working on ways to get the Moon and Mars 3D elevation data to work in my favorite 3D modeling program (Daz 3D Bryce). If I can get the data into a grayscale image, then I can turn it into a 3D terrain in Bryce. I’ve discovered that the LOLA (Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter) data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the MOLA (Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter) data from Mars Global Surveyor can be imported directly into Adobe Photoshop using the Photoshop Raw format (as long as I know the exact size of the .img file). But I’ve encountered a problem: Photoshop has problems with the positive and negative altitude data, as there isn’t any such thing as a negative color. So the high areas are showing up as dark colors and the low areas as high colors, with the Lunar and Martian mean elevation (like sea level on Earth) represents the breaking point between.

Apollo 16 landing site: Descartes Highlands

I’ve tried using the Exposure setting in Photoshop, with some success, but it always creates a border between the two areas that requires blurring and loss of detail no matter how careful I am. If anyone out there knows of a solution using Photoshop, such as how to automatically add a certain number to each color value in a selected area, then I’d appreciate you letting me know! I’m having one of my students, who is also in the 3D class and good at computer programming, develop a python script that can do this for us. I don’t want to use the automatic software on the data website, because it digests the data too much and won’t allow us to create our own textures and animations. Regardless, I have managed to do test animations in Bryce zooming in on the six Apollo landing sites, along with text showing the geographical surroundings. I’m including some images here.  My astrobiology class will create 3D images for Mars sections tomorrow and my 3D class will create animations flying around the Moon in the next week. I’ll be able to show these to the CLOE people as a progress report.

Storyboard for Solar System Formation

Now we’re beginning to study Mars and its potential as a source of life. We’re working through the Mars lesson plans I developed earlier this year for the Mars Education Challenge sponsored by Explore Mars and the National Science Teachers Association. On Monday, October 24^th, I had the opportunity to share my lesson plans with other teachers through an online webinar hosted by Chris Carberry and Artemis Westenberg of Explore Mars. Howard Lineberger, the first place winner, shared his lessons this last Wednesday, and Andrew Hilt, the second place winner, shared his in September. The whole Mars Education Challenge has been a wonderful opportunity, not only to go to the NSTA conference in San Francisco this last March, but also to be a part of a larger community of educators interested in teaching Mars exploration in the classroom. I’m also not done with the opportunities this program has provided; I’ve been invited to the launch of the Mars Science Lab, but I don’t have the funds to go (and I have a large video project to finish). This coming March, we will have the chance to spend several days in the Mojave Desert with Chris McKay doing field research. Chris has confirmed the dates, and I look forward to the experience, even if it is somewhere out beyond Zzyzyx Road at the end of the Earth.

Physical model compared with actual terrain

Students in astrobiology making a physical model of a hidden terrain

As part of the Mars lessons, my students have used a graduated lollipop stick to measure the height of locations in a hidden terrain box (modeling clay in a pencil box with holes drilled in the lid in a grid pattern). The measurements were written down and typed into a word processing program separated by commas. This data was saved as a .txt file and imported into ImageJ, a program developed by the National Institutes of Health to analyze biological images. ImageJ can turn the numbers directly into a grayscale image. One group used the numbers to cut drinking straws to the right length and imbed them into a layer of modeling clay to make a physical model of the terrain. They did quite well. The grayscale image was imported into Daz3D Bryce and turned into a virtual model, as seen here. Now we move on to actual data of Mars instead of simulated data only.

A virtual model of the Gusev Crater clay terrain

An artist's concept of a large impact hitting Earth during the period of heavy bombardment

Last week I wrote about the leading theories for how our moon formed. This week, I’d like to write about what’s happened to the Moon since then and what lunar rocks and element isotopes tell us about the Moon’s evolution.

You would expect that once most of the material in Earth orbit was swept up into the new moon (a process that took only about 10-100 years), the debris that remained would have gradually continued to collide, adding to the Moon’s mass, but slowly tapering off. The leftover planetesimals in the solar system would have occasionally collided, but that should taper off as well to a point almost, but not quite, equal to zero today. However, the rocks brought back by Apollo tell a different story.

The Earth rising over the Moon as seen from Apollo 8

The original surface of the Moon was crystallized out of a magma ocean (the formation of the Moon within less than 100 years would have created sufficient heat to melt the crust). We know this from the pieces of anorthosite brought back, especially the famous Genesis rock found by Dave Scott and Jim Irwin on Apollo 15. These rocks date back to 4.5 billion years. Yet by far the most common type of rock brought back from the six landing sites and the several Luna sample return missions and by lunar meteorites found on Earth are lunar brecchias: small, angular pebbles and regolith (lunar soil) fused together from the heat of lunar impacts. And they’re all the same age; a narrow window between 3.85 and 3.95 billion years ago.

Potassium-40 is fairly common in lunar rocks (in the form of feldspar) and once it breaks down to Argon-40, the argon atoms are too big to escape the rock if it has crystallized, so determining the amount of Argon-40 in a rock gives a very accurate age of crystallization. We hardly find any rocks on the Moon (at least we haven’t found many yet) that date to the time between 3.9 and 4.5 billion years. It’s as if some event occurred that reset the isotope clocks at 3.9 billion years in most of the lunar rocks.

When we look at the lunar highlands, which are the oldest surfaces on the Moon, we see only craters. It’s as if the surface of the Moon has been pounded and pounded repeatedly, so that no area is without craters. Craters lie on top of craters, from the very large basins all the way down to the microscopic level. The pounding has thrown up pulverized rock and fragments that has formed a powdery layer the consistency of flour called regolith that is very deep in some places (it can’t properly be called soil because it wasn’t formed by erosion). The large basins themselves are from big impacts that occurred around 3.9 billion years as well, with the Imbrium basin among the most recent (it overlaps the others).

Cross sectional diagram of the Moon

There are other oddities as well. The lunar maria (what ancient people thought were seas) are large areas of basaltic lava that have filled in the huge impact basins, such as Mare Serenitatis and Mare Nectaris. These lava flows, accompanied by rivers of lava, volcanic domes, lava tubes, and other features, occurred between 3.8 and 3.2 billion years ago. Of the 50 some odd basins, by far the majority are on the near side of the Moon (maria basalts cover about 37% of the near side and only 2% of the far side). Data from the Apollo seismic monitors show that the far side of the Moon has a thicker crust and therefore fewer maria; lava had further to go to reach the surface. How could this be?

At the same time period (3.9 billion years ago), Mars and Mercury also show evidence of heavy bombardment. This is called the Noachis Period on Mars. Until recently, we had only seen 1/3 of the surface of Mercury in detail. Now, with the Messenger probe orbiting Mercury, we see craters on top of craters as well. The solar system at that time was a violent, dangerous place as large planetesimals roamed through the inner solar system and pummeled the planets. Earth would have been hit as well, maybe ten times as often as the Moon. It would have been difficult for any life that developed prior to that point to survive, except a few extremophilic bacteria similar to those living in hot springs today. Interestingly, life on Earth seems to date from about 3.8 billion years, just as soon as this heavy bombardment settled down. Perhaps it was already here but all evidence before that was blasted away. Or maybe life gets going quickly where conditions are favorable.

The heavy bombardment could not have been just a regular trail-off of impacts left over from the formation of the solar system. Something extraordinary happened that dramatically increased the numbers of planetesimals reaching the inner solar system. There are several theories for this increase. One is that a large asteroid or small planet was broken up by Jupiter’s gravity. Contrary to what we might like to think, the solar system hasn’t always been a fixed and stable configuration of planets in nice, regular orbits. At present, 4.5 billion years later, it mostly is, but not back then. The regular pattern of planetary orbits first noticed by Kepler (who thought he’d found the music of the spheres) isn’t an accident or coincidence. The masses and orbits of the planets created resonances that pulled and pushed the planets and other objects around as the solar system settled down. These resonances could have broken up a planet trying to form where the asteroid belt is now and sent pieces flying around to smash into the young inner planets.

Another theory is that Jupiter migrated around in an unstable orbit as it grew larger; Saturn also wobbled around, and when these two planets reached a 2:1 resonance, the combined gravity of Saturn and Jupiter sent Uranus and Neptune spiraling outward, which in turn scattered the large number of planestimals and Kuiper Belt Objects. Many objects were spun outward and escaped the solar system. Some were tossed inward. Computer models show this possibility and agree that about 500 million years after the formation of the solar system would have been a likely time for such a resonance to occur. It was like a cosmic shooting gallery. These icy bodies could have provided much of Earth’s water supply, and caused the blasting of medium and large craters seen on the Moon, Mars, and Mercury.

Cut away diagram of the Moon, with known facts

Since the maria basalts stopped erupting about 3.1 billion years ago, the Moon settled down into a basically steady state. Occasional moonquakes occur deep in the mantle near the boundary with the Moon’s asthenosphere. These are weak and long lasting (several minutes) and help reveal the Moon’s interior. Now and then meteorites still hit the Moon, splashing bright rays over the dark maria (such as those of Tycho, Copernicus, and Kepler craters). But that’s about all.

There’s a great activity done in many Earth Science classrooms to demonstrate the sequence of events that shaped the Moon’s surface. Start with a cake pan about ½ full of flour and sit it on a tarp or drop cloth. Take a number of small and medium  sized rocks and drop them from various heights and angles into the flour, carefully removing the rocks each time so as not to disturb the craters made in the flour. After a while, the craters start overlapping, with younger craters showing sharp and clean and older craters getting obliterated. This is the lunar highlands. Then drop in larger rocks to make deep basins. Take cocoa powder and sprinkle it carefully in a thin layer in the deepest holes. This is the maria basalts. Then take small rocks and drop them into the maria. The white flour underneath will splash out over the top of the dark maria, making rayed craters. When you’re done, you have a very convincing model of the Moon’s surface.

Moon crater simulation activity

Earth and Moon today

We’re back in session at Walden School of Liberal Arts and this year I’m teaching courses in astrobiology, forensic science, multimedia, 3D animation, and computer literacy. We alternate chemistry every other year, since we are a small school, and therefore I’m able to teach some unusual science classes. Because my focus is on astrobiology this semester, the blog posts for this Elements Unearthed website will have a decidedly planetary science flavor for the next few months. As much as possible, I’ll try to weave the stories of the elements into our quest for life elsewhere in the universe.

I’ve spent much of the summer trying to arrange authentic learning experiences using real data for my students and for the students in the physics classes. I still get e-mails from NASA programs that I’ve participated in, and these often contain some wonderful student opportunities. I’ve been pretty successful finding some fun and meaningful projects.

Our Moon today

Our first is to create a realistic animation of how the moon formed for the Center for Lunar Origin and Evolution (CLOE) in Boulder, Colorado. Here is a link to their website: CLOE Homepage. They are part of the NASA Lunar Science Institute and study the evidence brought back by the Apollo astronauts, trying to determine how our moon first formed and how it evolved over time. This has important implications for astrobiology because it gives us clues to the early solar system and how planets form in general and how some planets (such as Earth) develop life and others (such as the Moon) don’t.

A successful theory of the Moon’s formation has to explain some strange, anomalous facts about the Moon and its rocks. First, the Earth-Moon system has too much angular momentum compared to other planetary-moon systems. No other planet (unless you count Pluto) has a moon so massive compared to the planet, and adding up the total mass and rotational and orbital speeds gives too much energy for a stable system. In fact, the Moon is slowly spiraling away from the Earth.

Second, the rocks brought back show that at one point about 4.5 billion years ago the entire surface of the Moon was molten, a magma ocean, at a time when the Earth already had a solid crust. If the moon formed slowly, by accretion, then there wouldn’t have been enough energy to totally melt the surface. The moon must have formed quite quickly (in a period of only a few years) for there to have been enough heat. Also, since the Moon is smaller than the Earth, one would expect it to have cooled down sooner, not later.

Third, the elemental composition of the Moon’s crust very closely matches Earth, especially Earth’s mantle, right down to the precise isotopes of elements. Fourth, the Moon has a smaller iron core than it should have for an object its size (Earth, for example, has an iron/nickel core that takes up 1/3 of its mass, the Moon’s iron core is less than 5%). If it formed on its own either in Earth obit as a twin planet or was captured later, it should have different isotopes and a larger iron core than it does.

Fifth, the Earth’s axis is tilted about 23.5° from the plane of the solar system (the ecliptic) and the Moon’s orbital path is closer to Earth’s tilt than it is to the ecliptical plane (only about 5° off). Otherwise, we would have lunar and solar eclipses each month.

Sixth, the moon’s elements are different than one would expect for an object that size compared to other similar objects in the solar system. It has more titanium and aluminum but much fewer volatiles – that is, chemicals like water, methane, and ammonia that evaporate easily. Even the rocks are extremely dry, without any hydrates to speak of except small deposits in shadowed craters near the lunar poles. So the Moon is both very similar and somewhat different than the Earth.

How do you account for these facts? The theories of lunar formation prior to Apollo were: 1.) The Moon formed at the same time as the Earth, both accreting from the same cloud of planetesimals, with the Moon already in orbit around the Earth as it formed. 2.) The Earth started out rotating very fast and spun the Moon off. 3.) The Moon formed elsewhere and was captured into Earth’s orbit.

A careful look at each theory shows facts that contradict it. Theory 1 (co-formation) is negated by the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. Theory 2 (spin-off) is contradicted by the magma ocean early in the Moon’s history and by the fact that the Earth couldn’t have ever spun fast enough for this to happen. Theory 3 was the leading contender for years, despite the Moon’s large size, but the identical isotopes show that the Moon must have come from the Earth, not elsewhere. None of these theories can account for the unusually small iron core and lack of volatiles.

Giant impact of a Mars-sized object 4.5 billion years ago

Gradually, during the 1970s and 1980s, a new theory emerged and gained acceptance in planetary science circles. It is called the Giant Impactor theory. If true, then about 50-100 million years after the Earth formed (4.5 billion years ago), a large object about the size of Mars collided with Earth. It wasn’t a head-on collision, more of a glancing blow, and it knocked off a goodly amount of the Earth’s mantle into space and knocked Earth partially on its side while leaving Earth’s core intact. This planetesimal, called Theia, would have formed nearly in the same orbit as Earth and the closing speed was slow – only about 5 km per second. The impactor was demolished after the first collision – most of its iron core spiraled in and joined with Earth, the rest of it joined the splashed mantle material to form a ring around the Earth. The lighter volatile materials escaped from Earth’s gravity entirely. Within a fairly short time (maybe only ten years or so) most of the ring coalesced into the Moon. The heat of this rapid formation caused the Moon’s surface to melt and crystallize. The final lunar surface was therefore a mix of the Earth’s mantle (similar isotopes of oxygen and other elements) and impactor material (different aluminum and titanium). Here is a poster from CLOE that summarizes this theory: Moon formation poster

I find it really fascinating from both a chemical and a planetary science standpoint that by analyzing a few hundred kilograms of moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts, we can tell so much about events 4.5 billion years ago and answer age-old questions. This is why we must eventually send humans to many locations on Mars – even with sample return robotic missions, the chances of answering the riddles of the Red Planet are small unless we have people with trained minds and eyes on the surface to put it all in context and find the right specimens to study back on Earth.

Our job will be to take this theory and turn it into a believable animation. My astrobiology students will research the details and evidence, create the storyboards, and ensure the accuracy of the animation while my 3D modeling students create the actual objects, textures, scenes, and animations. It will be challenging, involving particle effects, physics, and some very sophisticated compositing techniques, but I think we’re up to it. I look forward to the challenge! Meanwhile, I continue to apply to programs that we can participate in where our unique capabilities will be put to good use.

If you’d like a more detailed description of the giant impactor theory, check out this link: http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec98/OriginEarthMoon.html

David Black presenting foam demonstration

Yes, I know this is late. The new school year is about to start and I am only just finishing up the last school year. This post will describe the Grand Finale of the school year for my science classes, which was our First Annual Science Showcase at Walden School.

We had been working toward this all year, as you have seen from previous posts. Students in my astronomy and chemistry classes joined into small groups (2-3 students) and chose topics based on what interested them and what materials and equipment I had available. Then during first term, they conducted background research. My chemistry students created posters and several of them contributed posts to this blog. During second term, the teams condensed their research into a script for a presentation or mini-lesson on their topic which was to include explanation, background, and some type of demonstration or hands-on activity. The teams practiced and refined their scripts, then I divided the teams in half. Half of each class presented their demonstrations/lessons to their peers in class, and I had their fellow classmates fill out an evaluation form with Likert-style point scales and room for comments. The other half presented to our elementary classes and wrote evaluations on themselves. In astronomy, the students merely presented for the elementary classes once.

Assignments for Science Showcase

During third term in chemistry, the teams went over their evaluations and improved their scripts. I had them start to create Powerpoint slide shows or add YouTube videos to increase the depth of their presentations. Then the teams presented again – those that presented to their peers now presented to the elementary classes and vice versa. Evaluations were again filled out, with even more detail. I also wrote up my own detailed suggestions for each team.

Copper group presenting at Science Showcase

Finally, fourth term, we made our final preparations and practiced and set up our Science Showcase on May 16. I also asked the astronomy students to return and reprise their presentations, and had my geology students help out. Since our school is small, many students presented twice (and got extra credit for it). We set up an invitation for the parents and had it e-mailed out to the whole school mailing list. It took a lot of preparation, and wouldn’t have been possible without the support of the Air Force Association Educator Grant, which helped to pay for materials and supplies that were used up each time we presented (like plastic cups, red cabbage, white glue, etc.).

Schedule for Science Showcase

We set up the evening to be in three classrooms and outside on the school’s back patio (for the dangerous or messy presentations). The teams were assigned carefully so that those who were doing more than one session could make it to each one. Some students also got credit for helping film the sessions, making sure the refreshments were done (homemade root beer and ice cream, which were actually presented at two sessions), acting as hosts for each room, etc. For four sessions we had four presentations going at the same time, or about 16 topics altogether.

Dry ice group presenting at Science Showcase

It was a bit frustrating to get the students all there on time (an hour early) and a few things I wanted to do didn’t get done, but overall the night was a huge success. I had about 30 students involved, and there were about 40-50 other people who attended, some other students, some parents, some siblings. A few of the sessions were too short, and the student hosts in each room didn’t watch the clock well enough, so the schedule got a bit messed up by the end, and we had to take a break for refreshments. The homemade root beer (we already had dry ice) and ice cream (another presentation) went over well. Some of the sessions only had a few in the audience, others were packed.

Flame test abstract

The last session was done by Jerry and Karl on properties of the elements and how fireworks are made, and in addition to the methanol flame test, Karl had made his own sparklers. He’d looked up a recipe online, but I didn’t have all the exact ingredients, so we substituted and experimented for a few days and came up with a viable recipe, one that actually works better than commercial sparklers. It was nice to have a grand finale, so to speak.

Homemade sparkler demonstrated at Science Showcase

We videotaped and photographed everything, and I am still trying to capture and compile the video. I have only two weeks left until school starts, and my goal is to put together a final 15 minute video of all our presentations for the year before school begins so that I can show it to my next classes and post it here.

Toasting the Runt: A solid rocket booster

As an assessment of the evening, I didn’t have any kind of feedback forms, but based on overheard comments, feedback from parents and other teachers, and general excitement of my students, I’d say the evening was a great success. Everyone had fun, most of the presentations worked well, the students came through very well, and I saw some genuine learning and expertise displayed by my students. Certainly they have come to feel comfortable using lab equipment and presenting to their peers and others. What they presented they have now learned deeply and will never forget, long after stoichiometry and thermochemistry have faded away. For our first year doing this, we have set up a good foundation. There are things that can be improved, of course, and I hope to get the other science teachers involved this coming year. At least now my students know what to expect.

Homemade root beer

I hope to have several students display their science experiments, where they designed, observed, and analyzed their own data for science fairs. My one science fair student displayed his computer game project and it was well attended and received. Next year, as we are involved in authentic NASA research, we’ll have more students doing the real thing. But more on that next post.

Moon formation and evolution demonstration

Demonstrating the "Salt the Slug" game

Silver group presenting

Students preparing for an acid-base titration

My last post told about our school’s trip to Moab in March and about the discovery of uranium in that area by Charlie Steen. Since then I have not been as active on this blog because I have been spending much of my spare time finding and applying for grants and now preparing for my fall classes. The last term in chemistry was also fairly hectic as we went through several units, including acids/bases, electrochemistry, and thermochemistry.

Finding the equivalence point in an acid-base titration

The grant game isn’t a very fun one to play. There are many losers and only a few winners, and a great deal of effort is required for what is often no reward at all. Unfortunately, as science teachers, we know that to do the engaging, exciting hands-on activities that are the hallmark of good teaching, we often need funds well beyond what our school districts can provide. During difficult financial times, when district budgets and state tax revenues are shrinking, more and more of us are applying for ever scarcer opportunities. So it becomes a numbers game; the more grants you apply to, the more your odds of success for a few of them. Sometimes you luck out.

During the period between March and May, when classes ended for the year, I applied to three grants. Two I haven’t heard back from yet (the Dreyfus grant program and the Presidential Award for Excellence in Math and Science Teaching [PAEMST]) but one, the McCartney-Dressman Grant, sent me a form e-mail last week saying we had not been selected. There were over 400 applications. In many cases, including this one, grant monies have stipulations such as requiring the schools to have a high number of underrepresented students, which means having a certain percentage of students with minority status, or classified as poor by the percentage applying for free or reduced lunches, or by being in an urban or rural geographical area. Walden School is located in Provo, Utah, which is not rural or urban, and although some of our students are on free or reduced lunches, the percentage isn’t particularly high. In other words, we’re not considered underrepresented. I knew that going in, but decided to try anyway.

For the PAEMST program, this is the first year in 15 that I have qualified. To apply, one has to be a science or math teacher (at least 50% load) in a public or private school and the application process is pretty intimidating. I went to a presentation at the Utah Science Teachers Association conference this last February, and found that in addition to a lengthy essay with supplemental exhibits, one has to also provide a 45 minute video of teaching that has no breaks in it – just one continuous lesson. This is harder than you might think, even for a video professional like myself (maybe especially for me) because I want good quality video as well as good quality teaching. I filmed my chemistry classes on two different days doing activities – one was testing Charles Law that gases expand when heated by having them measure the diameter of balloons as they were dipped in water of different temperatures. That video looked good and had some good comments by the students, but as I moved the camera the video started and stopped on its own, so I couldn’t use it.

One of the requirements of the PAEMST application: Provide proof of student learning

Then I videotaped my students doing a lab testing the voltages between different metal electrodes. Not as interesting, perhaps, but it went well enough. I got some nice letters of recommendation from a student, a fellow teacher, and my school’s director, wrote up the essay, created a ten-page supplement document, and sent all of this off by the deadline in May. Now the people in Utah have to decide which applications to send on to the national selection committee, and we won’t find out if we’ve won until next May (a whole year). Then in December, 2012, if I’m selected, I get a trip to Washington, D.C. to meet President Obama (maybe – sometimes the president doesn’t show up to present the award named after him) and receive a check for $10,000. Yes, it’s quite a process and if I don’t make it (I don’t know how many actually finished applications – probably ten or so) then I have to wait for two years (2013) before I can apply again as they alternate high school and elementary teachers. Each state gets one math teacher and one science teacher per year (although sometimes the national committee doesn’t select anyone from a state if they feel none qualify).

Results of the Charles Law lab

As I was looking over the list of previous Utah awardees, I came across the name of a teacher I used to teach with at Juab High School. Janet Sutorius is an excellent math teacher who has also participated in the NASA Educator Workshop program at Dreyden Field Research Center at Edwards Airforce Base. Even after I left Juab HS, I did a workshop presentation with Janet on NASA educational programs at a state conference. Here is a nice article about Janet as an alumnus of Brigham Young University: Janet Sutorius Presidential Award. Other past awardees I know include Duane Merrill (I learned how to teach conceptual physics from him), Ron Cefalo, and others. These are all excellent teachers and role models for me.

The fact that I’ve been out in the wilderness teaching multimedia for ten years means I haven’t been in the spotlight for science teaching (even though I was doing all the NASA stuff). I was actually better known outside of Utah than inside. I did present at the USTA conference frequently, including this year. Many of the people I worked with as a NASA/JPL Solar System Educator had been Presidential Awardees, and when I asked about the program they all said I should apply. But I had to be an official science teacher before that could happen, and this year is the first time since Juab High School. I think I have a strong application – I’ve certainly done more on the national level for teacher professional development that anyone else I know in Utah, but that is just one dimension they look at. I think my content knowledge is excellent, and I’m strong on the other dimensions as well. Anyway, win or lose, I have tried. There have been many times in the past when I have applied for similar programs and thought I could never be selected but was. Maybe this will be one of those times. I just wish I didn’t have to wait so long to find out!