National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

IS20

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

35812
The NASA STI Program...in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA 

maintain this important role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by 

Langley Research Center, the lead center for 

NASA’s scientific and technical information. The 

NASA STI Program Office provides access to 

the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of 

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional 

mechanism for disseminating the results of its 

research and development activities. These results 

are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant 

phase of research that present the results of 

NASA programs and include extensive data 

or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations 

of significant scientific and technical data 

and information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA’s counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers but has less 

stringent limitations on manuscript length and 

extent of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical conferences, 

symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored 

or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, 

or historical information from NASA programs, 

projects, and mission, often concerned with 

subjects having substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI 

Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating 

custom thesauri, building customized databases, 

organizing and publishing research results...even 

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI Program 

Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

<http://www.sti.nasa.gov>

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

<help@sti.nasa.gov>

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443 –757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

443 –757–5802

• Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320
i

NASA/TM—2010–216438

Design and Specifications for the Highland 

Regolith Prototype Simulants NU-LHT-1M 

and -2M

D.B. Stoeser

United States Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado

D.L. Rickman

Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

S. Wilson

United States Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado

August 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Marshall Space Flight Center • MSFC, Alabama 35812
ii

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076 –1320

443–757–5802

This report is also available in electronic form at

<https://www2.sti.nasa.gov>
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION SPECIFICATION ............................................................. 2

3. SPECIFICATIONS FOR LUNAR HIGHLANDS TYPE COMPONENTS ..................... 3

3.1 Crystalline Component .................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Glass Component .......................................................................................................... 5

4. MIXING SPECIFICATION ............................................................................................... 7

5. PARTICLE SIZE SPECIFICATION .................................................................................. 8

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 9
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Cumulative grain size distribution for six Apollo 16 regolith samples .......................... 8

2. Figure 2 of Carrier (1973) showing regolith grain size distribution envelope 

based on Carrier’s compilation of grain size information for Apollo 11–15

regolith samples ........................................................................................................... 8
v

LIST OF TABLES

1. Average Apollo 16 “soil” composition from table 7 ..................................................... 3

2. Calculated normative mineral content based on the NASA (1982) average 

from table 1 (using IGPET 2005 and CIPW norm programs by Michael Carr, 

Terra Softa Inc®) ......................................................................................................... 4

3. Crystalline source materials used for LHT-1M and -2M ............................................. 5

4. Chemical composition of Stillwater mill waste (average of two analyses, in Wt%). 

The only sulfur (S) value on hand is <500 ppm S, so S is not included 

in the analysis .............................................................................................................. 5

5. Calculated normative mineral composition of the Stillwater mill sand using 

data of table 3. Oxides were normalized to 100% and an estimate of FeO:Fe2O3

calculated following the method of Irvine and Baragar ............................................... 6

6. Specified proportions of crystalline to glassy components for LHT 

prototype simulants ..................................................................................................... 7

7. Compilation of average composition of lunar soils for 80 elements ............................. 9
vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS

ANXX relative abundance of the anorthite mineral endmember in the plagioclase 

solid solution series

CIPW Cross, Iddings, Pirsson, and Washington

KREEP potassium, rare-earth elements, and phosphorus

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LHT lunar highlands type

LOI lost on ignition 

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

S sulfur

TM Technical Memorandum

U.S. United States

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HIGHLAND REGOLITH 

PROTOTYPE SIMULANTS NU-LHT-1M AND -2M

1. INTRODUCTION

In discussions with the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), it was agreed that the first 

prototype regolith simulants produced by the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey (USGS) 

would simulate the lunar highlands regolith predicated on the NASA decision to put a base at 

one of the lunar poles that are highlands sites. It was also agreed that these simulants would be 

based on sample information for the Apollo 16 site because it is the only Apollo site that is close 

to being representative of the lunar highlands since it is more than 200 km away from the nearest 

mare. However, compositional modeling and petrographic studies indicate that Apollo 16 regolith 

samples contain a variable but significant amount of mare and potassium, rare-earth elements, and 

phosphorus (KREEP) components (up to 5% plus mare and up to 20% KREEP1). The effect of 

this “contamination” is that, although the Apollo 16 regolith is not completely representative of 

“typical” highlands overall, it is still compositionally quite close as determined by orbital elemental 

and lunar highland meteorite studies.2

The goal of these prototype simulants is to develop reproducible basic methodologies and 

procedures to produce simulants and to match the modal mineral and glass content and grain-size 

distribution of the Apollo 16 regolith samples as closely as possible. The purpose of this Technical 

Memorandum (TM) is to detail the specifications that were used to develop the lunar highlands 

type (LHT)-1M pilot and LHT-2M prototype simulants.
2

2. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION SPECIFICATION

After studying the literature on the Apollo 16 regolith and samples, it was decided to base 

the specification on an average chemical composition of the Apollo 16 regolith samples rather than 

any specific surface or core regolith sample. The basis of this decision was that an average composition would be more representative of the highlands regolith as a whole than would any specific 

sample. A second reason was that, after a literature survey, it was realized that the available data 

and information available for the Apollo 16 regolith samples was inadequate for the investigation 

requirements.

Specifically, no studies provided the mineralogical information required to prepare simulants. Highly detailed and excellent particle-type modal analyses exist for Apollo 16 regolith 

samples but no mineral modal analyses exist. That is, no mineral modal data exists that specifies 

the amount of minerals (or glass) present in a regolith sample. The published particle-type modes 

present the amount of lithic, breccia, monomineralic, agglutinate, and glass particles present in the 

regolith. Thus, if the question is asked of how much olivine is present in a specific sample, the only 

available data is for the amount of monomineralic olivine. However, olivine may also be present 

in the lithic, breccia, and glass clasts; therefore, the total amount of olivine present in the sample 

is undetermined. Also note that a particle-type mode does not provide the total amount of glass 

present in a sample since glass can also be present in the lithic and breccia particles, and agglutinate 

particles are only partially composed of glass.

The literature was reviewed for average chemical analyses and one analysis was selected to 

be the basis for the preparation of the LHT simulants. The one selected (see appendix A) was compiled from the database compilation of the Lunar Sample Curator, was representative when compared to other averages, and had the additional virtue of being the only compilation that included 

nearly complete averages for the minor and trace elements.
3

3. SPECIFICATIONS FOR LUNAR HIGHLANDS TYPE COMPONENTS

In order to create the LHT simulants, the two basic component materials required are 

crystalline and glass. The crystalline component is that portion of the simulant that is created by 

blending natural and synthetic crystalline source materials that contain one or more of the required 

minerals to simulate the lunar regolith (Stillwater norite, anorthosite, etc.). The glass component 

is composed of the two subcomponents pseudo-agglutinate and “good” glass. The specifications 

for each component are presented in sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. The feedstocks used were 

obtained with the cooperation and generous assistance of the Stillwater Mining Company of Nye, 

MT. The rock components were hand picked from the mine’s waste dump. The mill sand used was 

provided by special arrangement with the company, which provided the wet material in 55-gallon 

drums.

3.1 Crystalline Component

Table 1 identifies the average composition of Apollo 16 soils taken from NASA, 1982.3 The 

data presented is a subset of the source data that presents data for 80 elements. The subset for this 

TM is the elemental data required to calculate major and minor minerals.

Table 1. Average Apollo 16 “soil” composition from table 7.

SiO2

TiO2

Al2O3

FeO

MnO

MgO

CaO

Na2O

K2O

P2O5

Cr2O3

S

Total

45.09

0.56

27.18

5.18

0.065

5.84

15.79

0.47

0.11

0.12

0.107

0.064

100.58

Table 2 presents the calculated normative mineralogy for the Apollo 16 averages of table 1. 

Table 2 presents two different normative mineral amounts—weight percent (Wt%) and mole percent (cationic) (Mole%). These normative mineral amounts are the target for preparing LHT-1M 

and -2M. That is, the goal was not matching the chemical composition shown in table 1 but matching the calculated mineral amounts of table 2 (i.e., total plagioclase, orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene, 

olivine, ilmenite, apatite, and pyrite). 
4

Table 2. Calculated normative mineral content based on the NASA (1982) 

average from table 1 (using IGPET 2005 and CIPW norm programs 

by Michael Carr, Terra Softa Inc®).

CIPW Normative Minerals

Wt. % Mole %

Q (Quartz)

OR (Orthoclase)

AB (Albite)

AN (Anorthite)

Total Plagioclase

AN Content

DI (Diopside Clinopyroxene)

HY (Hypersthene Orthopyroxene)

Total Pyroxene

OL (Olivine)

IL (Ilmenite)

AP (Apatite)

CM (Chromite)

PR (Pyrite)

0.00

0.65

3.96

71.33

75.94

–

4.70

10.14

14.84

7.60

1.05

0.28

0.16

0.12

0.00

0.64

4.19

71.20

76.03

94.44

4.62

10.23

14.85

7.92

0.77

0.25

0.12

0.06

The study procedure was to use the chemical composition of available source materials 

(table 3) to run a reiterative process of calculating bulk chemical compositions from source material blends utilizing a mixing program (an Excel routine) and calculating Cross, Iddings, Pirsson, 

and Washington (CIPW) normative mineral proportions until the best possible mineralogical 

match was achieved. This procedure involved simply matching the amounts of the normative 

minerals calculated for the source materials to the target normative mineral amounts without 

consideration of mineral composition (i.e., the amount of target plagioclase was matched without 

consideration of ANXX content (molecular Ca/(Ca+Na)) since composition of these minerals 

in the source materials is fixed). The source materials have lower Ca/(Ca+Na) and higher 

Mg/(Mg+Fe) ratios than lunar regolith, which will be inherent to any mix.

The calculated best match mix then determines the amount of the source materials to be 

mixed to create the crystalline component of LHT-1M and -2M (i.e., that will be mixed with the 

glass components). The primary difference between 1M and 2M is that the study only specified 

and allowed for the minerals (plagioclase, pyroxenes, olivine, and ilmenite); whereas, for 2M, 

the other minor minerals were also included (i.e., synthetic whitlockite (β-tricalcium phosphate), 

fluorapatite, and pyrite (troilite substitute)). The proportion of whitlockite to fluorapatite was 

arbitrarily set at 2:1, since data do not exist for the amount of these minerals in Apollo 16 regolith 

samples; however, Frondel does indicate that “...in lunar rocks, whitlockite is much more abundant 

than apatite...”5
5

Table 3. Crystalline source materials used for LHT-1M and -2M.

Lithology Minerals Used For

Stillwater Norite Plagioclase, Orthopyroxene, Clinopyroxene 1M, 2M

Stillwater Anorthosite Plagioclase, Clinopyroxene 1M, 2M

Stillwater Hartzburgite Olivine, Orthopyroxene, Chromite 1M

Twin Sisters Dunite Olivine, Chromite 2M

Natural Ilmenite (Beach Sand) 1M, 2M

Synthetic Whitlockite (β-tricalcium phosphate) 2M

Natural Fluor-apatite 2M

Natural Pyrite 2M

3.2 Glass Component

Section 3.1 specifies the mineral composition for the crystalline component of the LHT 

prototypes. The crystalline component is mixed with some amount of glassy materials (pseudoagglutinate and other glass) to create the final blend. The glasses in the Apollo 16 regolith are 

highly variable in composition, ranging from high alumina to mafic (Mg + Fe rich). No average 

composition for Apollo 16 regolith glasses has been published but it is assumed that their average 

will be approximately the same as the bulk compositional average. On this basis, it would be 

reasonable to use the crystalline mix defined by the crystalline specification as the basis for making 

glasses; however, because of convenience, the mill waste, termed “mill sand,” from the mill processing the ore from the Stillwater Mine was used. This decision was predicated on the fact that 

the waste material has the composition of a feldspathic norite (table 4) and whose normative 

mineralogy is similar to that of the crystalline component (table 5).

Table 4. Chemical composition of Stillwater mill waste (average of two analyses,

in Wt%). The only sulfur (S) value on hand is <500 ppm S, so S 

is not included in the analysis.

Oxide Wt. %

SiO2

TiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3*

MnO

MgO

CaO

Na2O

K2O

P2O5

LOI**

Cr2O3

Total

46.60

0.115

21.55

5.65

0.09

9.50

12.60

0.965

0.12

0.07

2.74

0.12

100.12

Notes: 

* All Fe as Fe2O3.

** LOI, lost on ignition volatiles.
6

Table 5. Calculated normative mineral composition of the Stillwater mill sand 

using data of table 3. Oxides were normalized to 100% and an estimate 

of FeO:Fe2O3 calculated following the method of Irvine and Baragar.

CIPW Normative Minerals

Wt % Mole%

Q (Quartz)

OR (Orthoclase)

AB (Albite)

AN (Anorthite)

Total Plagioclase

Calculated AN Content

DI (Diopside)

HY (Hypersthene)

Total Pyroxene

OL (Olivine)

MT (Magnetite)

IL (Ilmenite)

AP (Apatite)

CM (Chromite)

0.00

0.73

8.43

55.87

65.03

–

6.51

22.71

29.22

2.93

2.42

0.23

0.17

0.19

0.00

0.72

8.81

55.05

64.58

86.20

6.46

23.71

30.17245.53

3.22

1.72

0.16

0.15

0.13

The study simulant design specified two types of glassy material, pseudo-agglutinate (or 

agglutinate for short) and simple or “good” glass. Both materials were prepared using a plasma 

melter at the laboratories of Zybeck Advanced Products®, Boulder, CO.

The goal for producing pseudo-agglutinate was vesiculated cindery glass particles that 

contain a significant amount (>10%) of included crystalline material. This material was created 

through a custom partial melting process. The proportion of glass to crystalline material is highly 

variable due to the process used, and no attempt or consideration was given to trying to constrain 

the ratio other than it should be dominantly glass. An unplanned but useful byproduct of the 

agglutinate process was the generation of a small amount of glass beads (spherules) of variable 

composition that were also included in the simulants. In effect, these beads simulate the glass beads 

that occur in small amounts in most lunar soils (typically about 1–2%6,7).

Complete melting of Stillwater sand without vesicles or inclusions was the method used 

to produce “good” glass.
7

4. MIXING SPECIFICATION

The amount of agglutinate in the lunar regolith is basically a function of maturity or length 

of time the surface material is exposed to micrometeorite impacting, which produces agglutinate.8

The amount of agglutinate in the regolith varies from approximately 0–65% with an average 

of about 25–30% for regolith surface samples.2,9 However, studies of Apollo 16 cores show that 

maturity in the cores generally decreases downwards.10,11 It should be noted that maturity is 

primarily determined by the magnetic resonance value IS/FeO and that agglutinate content only 

approximately correlates.9 The amount of agglutinate was arbitrarily set somewhat lower than 

the surface average value to reflect this decrease in maturity in the Apollo 16 core for LHT-1M 

(table 6). On further reflection that many user applications would likely be simulations involving 

surface materials, the agglutinate content of LHT-2M was adjusted to reflect a more typical 

Apollo surface regolith value of 30% (table 6).

Table 6. Specified proportions of crystalline to glassy components 

for LHT prototype simulants.

Crystalline

(%)

Agglutinate

(%)

Good Glass

(%)

LHT-1M

LHT-2M

80

65

16

30

4

5

A survey of the literature that contain detailed modal analyses indicates glass particle contents (other than agglutinate) of approximately 1–5%, not including the glass present in the breccia 

and lithic particles; thus, the good-glass target was set at the high end of the range (table 6).

Note that the total glass content of the LHT simulants will be somewhat less than the total 

of agglutinate plus glass since the agglutinate subcomponent is vesicular and contains crystalline 

inclusions and, thus, is not all glass.
8

5. PARTICLE SIZE SPECIFICATION

It was determined by agreement that LHT-1M and -2M would not contain particles greater 

than 1 mm and thus would consist of grains from ≥1 mm to dust size. The primary guideline for 

particle size distribution is Butler et al.,12 who published detailed data on 19 Apollo 16 surface soil 

samples for 16 size fractions (fig. 1). The grain size distribution envelope established for the lunar 

regolith by Carrier for the <1-mm soil fraction (fig. 2) is also used.13

Cumulative Rel. Particle Size Apollo 16 Samples

Particle Size (micron)

100

80

60

40

20

Cumulative Rel. Particle Size

0

5 10 20 30 37 44 53 74 105 125 149 177 250 420 841

60051, 2

64421, 23

61501, 8

61141, 3

64501, 4

63501, 30

Figure 1. Cumulative grain size distribution for six Apollo 16 regolith samples.

Particle Size (mm)

Percent Finer By Weight

Percent Coarser By Weight

100

50

0

0

50

100

–2 0 2 4 6 8

10 1 .1 .01 .001

ø:

Sand-Size

USCS: Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine

Silt-Size

Apollo 15 

(19 Samples)

Apollo 11,12, and 14 

(92 Samples)

15241

15401

15411

Figure 2. Figure 2 of Carrier (1973) showing regolith grain size distribution 

envelope based on Carrier’s compilation of grain size information 

for Apollo 11–15 regolith samples.
9

APPENDIX

Data from (NASA, 1982) is presented in table 7. Major elements (>0.1%) are reported first 

as both the usual oxide notation and elements. Data is compiled from the Data Base 

Compilation of the Lunar Sample Curator, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.

Table 7. Compilation of average composition of lunar soils for 80 elements.

Mare

High Ti Low Ti Highland Basin Ejecta

A-11 A-17 A-12 A-15 L-16 A-16 L-20 A-14 A-15 A-17

Al2O3, Wt. % 13.78 10.97 13.71 10.32 15.51 27.18 23.07 17.41 17.54 20.6

CaO, Wt. % 12.12 10.62 10.55 9.74 12.07 15.79 14.07 10.79 11.57 12.86

Cr2O3, Wt. % 0.3 0.46 0.35 0.53 0.29 0.107 0.15 0.22 0.28 0.26

FeO, Wt. % 15.76 17.53 15.41 19.75 16.41 5.18 7.35 10.36 11.58 8.59

K2O, Wt. % 0.15 0.076 0.27 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.08 0.58 0.17 0.16

MgO, Wt. % 8.17 9.62 9.91 11.29 8.79 5.84 9.26 9.47 10.41 10.29

MnO, Wt. % 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.065 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.11

Na2O, Wt. % 0.44 0.35 0.48 0.31 0.36 0.47 0.35 0.7 0.42 0.41

P2O5, Wt. % 0.12 0.07 0.31 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.5 0.16 0.14

SiO2, Wt. % 42.17 39.87 46.17 46.2 43.96 45.09 44.95 48.08 46.59 45.08

TiO2, Wt. % 7.67 9.42 3.07 2.16 3.53 0.56 0.49 1.7 1.32 1.62

Al, Wt. % 7.29 5.8 7.25 5 .46 8.31 14.38 12.2 9.21 9.28 10.9

Ca, Wt. % 8.66 7.59 7.54 6.96 8.63 11.29 10.06 7.71 6.27 9.19

Cr, Wt. % 0.21 0.31 0.24 0.36 0.2 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.19 0.18

Fe, Wt. % 12.25 13.63 11.98 15.35 12.76 4.03 5.71 10.36 9 6.68

K, Wt. % 0.12 0.063 0.22 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.066 0.46 0.14 0.13

Mg, Wt. % 4.93 5.8 5.98 6.81 5.3 3.52 5.59 5.71 6.28 6.21

Mn, Wt. % 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.05 0.085 0.11 0.12 0.085

Na, Wt. % 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.23 0.27 0.35 0.26 0.52 0.31 0.3

O, Wt. % 41.6 39.7 42.3 41.3 41.6 44.6 44.6 43.8 43.8 42.2

P, Wt. % 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.06

S, Wt. % 0.12 0.13 0.1 0.063 0.21 0.064 0.08 0.088 0.08 0.06

Si, Wt. % 19.84 18.63 21.57 21.28 20.54 21.07 21 22.46 21.77 21.06

Ti, Wt. % 4.6 5.65 1.84 1.29 2.11 0.34 0.29 1.02 0.79 0.97

Ag, ppb 9 9.8 62 50 95 9.6 16.2 17.5 56 6.5

Ar, ppm 1 1.2 0.3 0.7 – 1.2 – 1 – –

As, ppm 0.32 – 0.082 0.01 0.41 0.14 0.28 0.066 – –

Au, ppb 3.7 2.5 2.2 2.11 2.5 8.47 4.93 6.7 3.3 4.9

B, ppm 3.5 2 9.3 – 4.3 5.9 39 19 – –

Ba, ppm 140 85.7 413 122 215 127.3 89.6 767.5 279 190

Be, ppm 2 – 5 1.31 2.2 1.2 – 5.5 2.8 –

Bi, ppb 1.5 7.7 1.5 0.36 4.9 1.8 2.7 1.7 0.17 –

Br, ppm 0.239 0.093 0.165 – 0.21 0.217 0.13 0.41 0.06 –

C, ppm 135 82 104 95 – 106.5 – 130 125 155

Cd, ppm 0.045 0.032 0.046 0.062 0.8 0.097 0.048 0.181 0.042 0.04
10

Table 7. Compilation of average composition of lunar soils for 80 elements (Continued).

Mare

High Ti Low Ti Highland Basin Ejecta

A-11 A-17 A-12 A-15 L-16 A-16 L-20 A-14 A-15 A-17

Ce, ppm 50 25.3 104 31.4 33.4 30.3 20.5 185 54 46

Cl, ppm 30.2 5.7 31 7.6 53.5 20.9 13 44 5.9 –

Co, ppm 32 35 43 54.4 37 25.3 40.5 35.8 42 33

Cs, ppm 0.18 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.95 0.11 0.11 0.63 0.19 0.18

Cu, ppm 11.5 11 10.3 8.2 31 8.26 19 11.1 7.9 6.4

Dy, ppm 20.2 12.2 24.6 8.6 10.9 6.8 5 39 13.6 11

Er, ppm 11.5 7.9 15.35 5.13 6.3 4.39 2.5 23.5 7.86 6.5

Eu, ppm 2 1.66 1.9 1.01 2.3 1.23 0.98 2.64 1.3 1.35

F, ppm 278 – 132 45 242 72 37 219 60 –

Ga, ppm 4.3 7.5 4.3 4.43 4.4 4.5 3.7 6.8 3.6 4.7

Gd, ppm 16.3 11.4 25.7 8.1 9.8 6.7 3.06 34.8 11.74 10.07

Ge, ppm 1 0.198 0.32 0.17 1.44 0.76 0.46 0.7 0.42 –

H, ppm 51 59.6 45 63.6 – 56 – 79.6 52 98

He, ppm 60 36 10 8 – 6 – 8 – –

Hf, ppm 8.9 7.3 12.7 5.2 4.75 3.9 2.9 22.2 7.6 5.5

Hg, ppm 0.015 – 0.023 – – 0.004 – – – –

Ho, ppm 5.4 – 5.3 1.7 2.5 1.5 0.88 7.8 3.3 –

I, ppb – 2 – – – 5.6 12 – 35 –

In, ppb – 2.4 90 3.4 35.6 31 19 89 7.6 3.4

Ir, ppb 7.8 5.4 5.6 3.1 9.7 12.4 9.5 12.4 8.3 8.8

La, ppm 17.3 7.32 38.8 11.3 11.5 11.7 7.6 69.4 24 16.9

Li, ppm 16.5 9.77 19.5 9.09 9.7 7.4 5.7 29.8 10.8 11.7

Lu, ppm 1.6 1.03 1.93 0.72 0.84 0.59 0.4 3.1 0.98 0.88

Mo, ppm 0.7 – 0.34 – – 0.34 – – – –

N, ppm 119 60 84 80 134 89 107 92 190 81

Nb, ppm 15.8 19.1 34 13 15.9 12.8 12 56 16 18

Nd, ppm 42.6 23 75.6 23 26.9 19.3 10.8 105 35 27.6

Ne, ppm 5 2 2 2 – 1 – 2 – –

Ni, ppm 206 131 189 146 174 345 208 321 282 286

Os, ppb 14 – 6 1.79 30 22 – – – –

Pb, ppm 2.9 0.8 4.8 1.033 6 2.58 1.15 10.02 2.5 1.922

Pd, ppb 21 – 9.7 6.2 – 24 – 50 – –

Pr, ppm 7.7 – 10.1 3.8 – 4.97 4 23 – –

Rb, ppm 3 1.2 7.28 2.7 1.85 2.48 1.65 15.25 5 4.21

Re, ppb 5.26 0.47 0.34 0.39 0.36 0.82 3.19 1.15 – –

Rh, ppm 0.1 – 0.4 – 0.077 – – – – –

Ru, ppm 0.6 – 0.047 – 0.046 0.01 – – – –

Sb, ppb 4.1 25.4 47 30 3.8 9.7 5.7 3.4 – 26

Sc, ppm 62.8 65 39.2 37.1 39.9 8.9 17 21.9 22 18

Se, ppm 0.39 0.27 0.3 0.18 0.39 0.24 0.3 0.031 – 0.23

Sm, ppm 11.7 8 20.3 5.85 8.8 5.38 3.39 30.9 9.6 8.1

Sn, ppm 0.7 – 0.3 – 1.7 0.22 0.8 – – –

Sr, ppm 193 166 138.9 104.2 234 168 140.8 183.8 152 150

Ta, ppm 1.5 – 1.58 0.55 1.4 0.5 0.5 4.1 1.05 0.87

Tb, ppm 3.3 2.63 4.07 1.4 1.5 1.07 0.8 6.4 4.2 1.72

Te, ppm 0.07 0.01 0.05 – 0.088 0.023 0.051 0.031 – –

Th, ppm 2.24 0.82 6.63 1.76 1.07 1.87 1.44 13.5 4.15 3.01

Tl, ppb 2.1 1.4 2 0.94 1.6 7.7 6.2 22 – 2.4
11

Table 7. Compilation of average composition of lunar soils for 80 elements (Continued).

Mare

High Ti Low Ti Highland Basin Ejecta

A-11 A-17 A-12 A-15 L-16 A-16 L-20 A-14 A-15 A-17

Tm, ppm 1.5 – 2.02 – 0.73 0.67 0.41 3.9 – –

U, ppm 1.37 0.26 1.61 0.483 0.3 0.52 0.45 3.48 0.99 0.9

V, ppm 66 128 110 191 73.5 25.5 38 49 84 52

W, ppm 0.24 0.14 0.74 0.31 – 0.31 – 1.9 – 0.52

Y, ppm 107 74 145 47 48 39.3 49 242 73 64

Yb, ppm 10.6 7.48 13.7 4.53 5.59 3.86 2.4 22.7 7.3 6.15

Zn, ppm 23 49 6.3 12.8 25 24 34.1 28 14.5 20

Zr, ppm 331 236 503 175 308 163.8 192 842 278 262
12

REFERENCES

 1. Korotev, R.L.: “Lunar Terranes and the Composition of the Regolith,” Lunar and Planetary 

Science Conference XXX, Abstract 1302, 1999.

 2. Lucey, P.; Randy, L.; Korotev, R.L.; et al.: “Understanding the Lunar Surface 

and Space-Moon Interactions,” Rev. in Mineral. and Geochem., Vol. 60, 

pp. 83–219, 2006.

 3. NASA: “Table 4.1—Compilation of Average Composition of Lunar Soils for 80 Elements,” 

Proceedings of the 1980 NASA/ASEE Summer Study, NASA Conference Publication 2255, 

(table available online at <http://www.answers.com/topic/advanced-automation-for-spacemissions-chapter-4-2>), 1982.

 4. Frondel, J.W.: Lunar Mineralogy, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1976.

 5. Irvine, T.N.; and Baragar, W.R.A.: “A Guide to the Chemical Classification of the Common 

Volcanic Rocks,” Can. J. Earth Sci., Vol. 8, pp. 523–548, 1971.

 6. Rao, K.J.; and Cooper, A.R.: “Optical Properties of Lunar Glass Spherules From Apollo 

14 Fines,” Proceedings of the Third Lunar Science Conference, Supplement 3, Geochim. et 

Cosmochim. Acta, Vol. 3, pp. 3143–3155, 1972.

 7. Scarlett, B.; Buxton, R.E.; and Faulkner, R.G.: “Formation of Glass Spheres on the Lunar 

Surface,” Geological Society of London, Abstract 285, pp. 279–284, 1977.

 8. McKay, D.S.; and Basu, A.: “The Production Curve for Agglutinates in Planetary Regoliths,” 

Proceedings of the Fourteenth Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Part 1, J. Geophys. 

Res., Vol. 88, pp. B193–B199, 1983.

 9. Simon, S.B.; Papike, J.J.; Hörz, F.; and See, T.H.: “An Experimental Investigation of 

Agglutinate Melting Mechanisms: Shocked Mixtures of Apollo 11 and 16 Soils,” Proceedings 

of the Seventeenth Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Part 1, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 91, 

pp. E64–E74, 1986.

10. Morris, R.V.: “The Surface Exposure (Maturity) of Lunar Soils; Some Concepts and IS/FeO 

Compilation,” Proceeding of the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 9, pp. 2287–2297, 

1978.

11. Korotev, R.L.; and Morris, R.V.: “On the Maturity of the Lunar Regolith,” Workshop 

on New Views of the Moon: Integrated Remotely Sensed, Geophysical, and Sample Datasets, 

Houston, TX, Abstract 6019, 2 pages, 1998.
13

12. Butler, J.C.; Greene, G.M.; and King, Jr., E.A.: “Grain Size Frequency Distributions and 

Modal Analyses of Apollo 16 Fines,: Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Science Conference, 

Supplement 4, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, Vol. 1, pp. 267–278,1973.

13. Carrier, III, W.D.: “Lunar Grain Size Distribution,” The Moon, Vol. 6, pp. 250–263, 1973.
14

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining 

the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 

this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operation and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF

 PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

Design and Specifications for the Highland Regolith Prototype 

Simulants NU-LHT-1M and -2M

D.B. Stoeser,* D.L. Rickman, and S. Wilson,*

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546–0001

Unclassified-Unlimited

Subject Category 91

Availability: NASA CASI (443–757–5802)

Prepared by the Earth Sciences Office

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification only. 

* United States Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225

M–1287

Technical Memorandum

NASA/TM—2010–216438

Lunar simulant, NU-LHT-1M, NU-LHT-2M, design, specification

01-08-2010

UU 20

NASA

U U U

The first two prototype lunar regolith simulants were to replicate characteristics of the lunar highlands. A major change from initial plans was 

to use an estimate of typical Apollo 16 highland material rather than a specific core. This change was compatible with project objectives and 

necessitated by the lack of adequate data from a single core. To make the initial simulant, a crystalline component and a glass component were 

deemed necessary. Lithic feedstocks were obtained with the assistance of the Stillwater Mining Company. The mixing of the rock constituents 

was done based on normative mineralogy rather than modal mineralogy. This was done to simplify development. A major design decision was 

not to attempt simulation of the range of glass chemistries observed in Apollo samples. A single glass was assumed to be adequate for engineering 

purposes for which the simulant would be used. Glass was made in a process developed at Zybek Advanced Products of Boulder, Colorado. Mill 

sand was used as the feedstock for this process. A second generation of the simulant was made that incorporated the additional minerals apatite, 

synthetic whitlockite, and pyrite. The olivine source was changed to the commercially produced Twin Sisters Dunite, and a pseudo-agglutinate 

product was invented and added to the -2M product. The pseudo-agglutinate captures all of the lunar agglutinate features but does not attempt 

to incorporate nanophase Fe.

STI Help Desk at email: help@sti.nasa.gov

STI Help Desk at: 443–757–5802
The NASA STI Program...in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA 

maintain this important role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by 

Langley Research Center, the lead center for 

NASA’s scientific and technical information. The 

NASA STI Program Office provides access to 

the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of 

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional 

mechanism for disseminating the results of its 

research and development activities. These results 

are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant 

phase of research that present the results of 

NASA programs and include extensive data 

or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations 

of significant scientific and technical data 

and information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA’s counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers but has less 

stringent limitations on manuscript length and 

extent of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical conferences, 

symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored 

or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, 

or historical information from NASA programs, 

projects, and mission, often concerned with 

subjects having substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI 

Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating 

custom thesauri, building customized databases, 

organizing and publishing research results...even 

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI Program 

Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

<http://www.sti.nasa.gov>

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

<help@sti.nasa.gov>

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443 –757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

443 –757–5802

• Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

IS20

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

35812