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—2010–216446

Lunar Regolith Simulant User’s Guide

C.M. Schrader

BAE Systems, Huntsville, Alabama

D.L. Rickman, C.A. McLemore, and J.C. Fikes

Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

September 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. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 2

3. FIGURES OF MERIT ....................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Objective of Figure of Merit ........................................................................................ 3

3.2 Figure of Merit Composition ....................................................................................... 3

3.3 Figure of Merit Particle Size Distribution .................................................................... 4

3.4 Figure of Merit Shape and Density .............................................................................. 4

3.5 Figure of Merit Software .............................................................................................. 4

4. LUNAR REGOLITH REFERENCE MATERIAL .......................................................... 5

5. COMPOSITION ................................................................................................................ 7

5.1 Lunar Regolith Data Used for Composition Figure of Merit ....................................... 7

5.2 Simulant Data Used for Composition Figure of Merit ................................................. 9

5.3 Composition Figure of Merit Results ........................................................................... 12

5.4 Comments .................................................................................................................... 13

6. SIZE .................................................................................................................................... 15

6.1 Lunar Regolith Data Source ......................................................................................... 15

6.2 Simulant Data Sources ................................................................................................. 15

6.3 Figure of Merit Particle Size Distribution Results ........................................................ 16

6.4 Comments .................................................................................................................... 17

7. SHAPE ............................................................................................................................... 19

8. SIMULANT FIT-TO-USE MATRIX ................................................................................ 21

8.1 Oxygen Production ....................................................................................................... 23

9. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 26

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 27
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Particle-type compositional data for highlands regolith simulants 

and the lunar reference 64001/64002: (a) Contains highlands data 

and (b) contains modal data ...................................................................................... 10

2. Area modal data for major phases in mare regolith simulants and the lunar

 reference 64001/64002: (a) Contains highlands data and (b) contains modal data ..... 11

3. Area modal data for minor phases in mare regolith simulants 

and the lunar reference 64001/64002: (a) Contains highlands data 

and (b) contains modal data ...................................................................................... 12

4. Qualitative graphical comparison of shape parameters for simulants derived 

by QEMSCAN analysis. Units are in weight percent of typical geologic 

classification bins ....................................................................................................... 19
v

LIST OF TABLES

1. MSFC simulant program members ............................................................................ 1

2. Particle type modal data and plagioclase molar percent anorthite for the 

 lunar reference material and regolith simulants .......................................................... 8

3. Results of FoM composition analysis. FoM Revision 1 algorithm used with 

 lunar reference material 64001/64002 ......................................................................... 13

4. Qualitative description of glass found in simulants .................................................... 14

5. FoM size results for all simulants against 64001/64002 lunar reference material ......... 16

6. Shape parameters of simulants derived by QEMSCAN analysis ................................ 19

7. Simulant fit-to-use matrix for excavation/flow, drilling, and abrasion/wear ................ 22

8. Simulant fit-to-use matrix for O production and human health studies ...................... 23
vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Ca calcium

CaAl2Si2O8 anorthite

CaO calcium oxide

Cl chlorine

EDS energy dispersive spectroscopy

F fluorine

Fe iron

FeO iron oxide

FeS troilite

FoM figure of merit

H2 hydrogen

H2O water

HCl hydrogen chloride

HF hydrogen fluoride

ISRU in situ resource utilization

JSC Johnson Space Center

MOE molten oxide electrolysis

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

Na sodium

NaAlSi3O8 albite
vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)

NORCAT Northern Centre for Advance Technology Inc.

O oxygen

OH hydrous

PSD particle size distribution

S sulfur

SEM scanning electron microscope

SiO2 silicon dioxide

SSD sectional size distribution

Ti titanium

TiO2 titanium oxide
viii
1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

LUNAR REGOLITH SIMULANT USER’S GUIDE

1. INTRODUCTION

This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes information on existing lunar regolith 

simulants. It focuses on primary characteristics of the simulants, which are the inherent properties of the material rather than their responses to behavioral (geomechanical, physiochemical, etc.) 

tests. This TM defines these inherent or primary properties to be particle composition, particle size 

distribution, particle shape distribution, and bulk density. When data allow, simulant properties are 

quantitatively compared to those of a lunar highlands regolith reference material by use of figure 

of merit (FoM) algorithms and software.

Some of the simulants mentioned in this TM are no longer available for use. However, if 

any simulant has been analyzed, used in a proof-of-concept study, or used for hardware testing, it is 

necessary to understand the properties of that simulant relative to the lunar regolith.

NOTE: Before choosing or using a simulant, simulant users are strongly encouraged to 

contact one of the members of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) simulant program listed 

in table 1. It is not intended for the FoM scores or the simulant use matrices to substitute for consultation with experts. Where expertise is lacking, this TM can guide the user to the appropriate 

resources.

Table 1. MSFC simulant program members.

Program Member Organization/Position Phone Number E-Mail Address

Technical

Dr. Douglas Rickman

Jennifer Edmunson

NASA/Geologist

BAE System/Geologist

256–961–7889

256–961–7546

Douglas.L.Rickman@nasa.gov

Jennifer.E.Edmunson@nasa.gov

Management

Carole McLemore

John C. Fikes

NASA/VP33/Project Manager

NASA/VP33/Deputy Project Manager

256–544–2314

256–544–5570

Carole.A.McLemore@nasa.gov

John.Fikes@nasa.gov
2

2. DEFINITIONS

All definitions for minerals are based on Dana’s New Mineralogy.1 Definitions for rock 

types are based on IUGS classifications found in reference 2. Particle type definitions for the submillimeter portion of lunar regolith are based on Basu and McKay.3
3

3. FIGURES OF MERIT 

The FoM mathematics and algorithms provide a means for formal, quantitative comparison 

of two particulate materials composed of geologic components.4,5 A reference material serves as 

the benchmark against which a second material is compared. In this case, the reference material is 

an average of lunar subsamples within a lunar core (see section 4 of this TM). The simulants are 

compared against this reference. Though it is beyond the scope of this work, it is worth mentioning that the FoM can be used to compare multiple batches of simulant, multiple samples of lunar 

regolith, or any other two materials.

3.1 Objective of Figure of Merit

The FoM was designed as a practical and efficient way to characterize and compare materials. Towards this end, the parameters for evaluation are chosen to be:

• Definable: Many characteristics of materials are not yet rigorously defined. Only properties 

defined in reference 5 are used.

• Measurable: Parameters were chosen that could be measured economically, in a timely fashion,

and with results reproducible across laboratories.

• Useful: For simplicity of design, parameters were chosen that correlate to properties important 

to the functioning of simulant under expected conditions.

• Primary versus derivative: This concept recurs throughout the FoM logic. All else being equal, 

some characteristics are inherent to a material (whether it is a mineral or glass) like the 

composition of its constituents, while other properties, like the behavior of a material during 

heating, are derivatives of the composition.

3.2 Figure of Merit Composition

Composition describes attributes of a particle that exist without regard to size or shape. 

Here, the term particle is used to mean a piece of solid matter mechanically separable from others, 

such as by using a sieve. All particles in lunar regolith or simulant will be comprised of glass and/

or mineral “grains,” but particles may be amalgams of grains that result in lithic fragments (rock 

particles) or agglutinates.

Therefore, the first order of classification of constituents includes mineral grains, glass 

grains, lithic fragments (which include breccia fragments), and agglutinates. Measuring proportions of particle types by volume is known as a “modal analysis” and is usually reported in modal 

percent by each constituent. Although not required by the FoM, it is ideal that modal analyses be 

obtained for a material in several different size fractions. This is because the percentages of constituents of any bulk material will tend to vary by size due to differential susceptibility to grinding 

and crushing.
4

3.3 Figure of Merit Particle Size Distribution

For the FoM, particle size is measured on a particle-by-particle basis and reported as a 

distribution. The number of bins and the size of the bins are defined by the user, but a more precise 

FoM evaluation is rendered by an approximation to the lunar regolith dataset. These data can be 

found in reference 6.

3.4 Figure of Merit Shape and Density

Preliminary definitions for particle shape distribution and bulk density with regard to 

FoMs have been developed, and algorithms and metrics are being developed. These FoMs are not 

included in this TM.

3.5 Figure of Merit Software

The software used here for size FoM ratings is FoM v.1.0, released in 2007, and v.2.0, 

released in 2009. The composition FoMs presented here were calculated using the algorithm of 

FoM Revision v.2 software.
5

4. LUNAR REGOLITH REFERENCE MATERIAL

The reference material used here for FoM calculations is the integrated suite of subsamples 

from Apollo core 64001/64002, which is a sample of lunar highlands regolith from Apollo 16 

Station 4. A highlands sample was chosen in line with the current lunar architecture that calls for 

an outpost in the polar region—a region best approximated by highlands regolith (to the best of 

current knowledge). A lunar core was chosen as opposed to a soil sample because it provides an 

integration of the surface and shallow subsurface, this at least partially counters the bias lent by 

surface processes like “space weathering.” Core 64001/64002 was specifically chosen because it is 

a complete and intact core, it is deemed representative of Apollo 16 site regolith, and it has been 

reasonably well studied.7
6
7

5. COMPOSITION

5.1 Lunar Regolith Data Used for Composition Figure of Merit

The FoM v.2 software combines particle type data, as described in section 3.2, with limited mineral composition data for comparison. Mineral composition data are measurements of 

the average chemistry of mineral phases with variable compositions. Many minerals, including the 

most common ones in lunar regolith (plagioclase feldspar, clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, and olivine), have chemical compositions that vary between fixed points. This is called solid solution and 

it varies between end members. FoM v.2 software allows incorporation of solid solution chemistry 

into the composition comparison, but there is sufficient data available for reasonable comparison 

only for plagioclase feldspar. The other solid solution minerals are either undifferentiated, as with 

olivine, or grouped into subclasses, as with clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, and the spinel minerals. 

5.1.1 Literature Data

Modal particle type data was averaged for sample 64001 (the lower ≈30 cm of the core) from 

reference 3 and from 64002 (the top ≈30 cm of the core) from reference 7 for use as the basis for 

the FoM lunar reference material. Each study examined six size fractions from 20 to 500 μm of six 

subsamples of the core at ≈5-cm intervals. The studies classified particles according to the system 

found in reference 3. A weighted average (by weight percent of the size fractions) of the compositions of each subsample was calculated. These subsample averages were then combined to a single 

mean particle type composition of the 20–500-μm portion of the 64001/64002 core.

This particle classification has primarily been used with data generated by optical microscopy of very fine particles;3 as a result, some mineral types are not classified to the desired level of 

specificity. For instance, pyroxenes are not differentiated to clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene, and 

all spinel minerals (chromite, spinel, and ulvöspinel), ilmenite, and sulfides are undifferentiated as 

“opaques.”

More than 90% of the particles by weight of most lunar regolith samples fall below 

500 μm.6 An average of ≈20 wt. % of most regolith falls below 20 μm, but modal data for this 

fraction are scarce; therefore, this is considered to be the most reasonable available dataset for the 

purposes of this TM.

5.1.2 Scanning Electron Microscope/Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy Data

Modal data was generated from electron beam analysis of Apollo 16 samples from drive 

core 64001/64002. The analyzed lunar samples were thin sections 64002,6019 (5–8-cm depth) and 

64001,6031 (50–53.1-cm depth) and sieved grain mounts 64002,262 and 64001,374 from depths 

corresponding to the thin sections, respectively. Four size fractions were analyzed from each grain 

mount sample: 500–250-μm, 150–90-μm, 75-45-μm, and <20-μm fractions. These data are not 
8

particle type modal data, but they are total area modal percent by phase, such as by mineral type 

and glass. 

For the lunar reference composition, ratios of certain mineral classes from these scanning 

electron microscope/energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) data are used to augment particle 

type modal data from the literature. For instance, when the Houck7 and Basu and McKay3 data 

report only “pyroxene,” this TM subdivides these into clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene based on 

the electron beam-generated ratio. Furthermore, their “opaques” are divided into ilmenite, iron 

(Fe)-sulfide, and spinels (not further differentiated).

5.1.3 Plagioclase Composition

Plagioclase feldspar is the only mineral for which chemical compositional variability in the 

FoM algorithm is currently evaluated. The generally accepted composition of An95 is used for 

lunar highland regolith plagioclase,8 which means that the plagioclase is 95 molar % of the anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8) end-member and only 5 molar % of the albite (NaAlSi3O8) end-member. Plagioclase composition is included in the FoM because of the following:

• It is the most abundant mineral in the highlands regolith.7

• It is the only mineral for which there is reasonable compositional data in both the regolith 

and the simulants.

• Lunar highlands plagioclase is more calcic than almost any terrestrial plagioclase, and closeness 

to lunar plagioclase composition is viewed as a significant marker of simulant fidelity.

5.1.4 Populating the Lunar Reference for Figure of Merit

The literature and SEM/EDS data are combined to yield a highlands lunar regolith reference composition, which is shown in table 2 along with simulant data.

Table 2. Particle type modal data and plagioclase molar percent anorthite for the lunar 

reference material and regolith simulants.

64001/ 64002 NU-LHT-1M NU-LHT-2M OB-1 JSC-1 JSC-1A JSC-1AF FJS-1 MLS-1

Lithic fragments 

Glass

Agglutinates

Plagioclase

(Plag. An%)

Olivine

Clinopyroxene

Orthopyroxene

Spinel minerals

Fe-sulfide

Ca-phosphates

Iimenite

Native iron

Other (sim. only)

Total

31.1

8.9

32.5

23.3

95

–

0.6

3.2

0.03

0.01

0.12

0.1

0.01

–

100

–

22.4

29.0

38.8

80

2.9

2.0

4.4

0.05

0.00

–

0.3

–

0.2

100

–

7.2

23.5

54.9

80

9.5

4.0

0.2

0.01

0.04

0.43

0.2

–

0.1

100

–

52.6

–

43.9

75

0.0

0.1

–

0.19

–

–

0.0

–

3.1

100

90.9

–

–

1.5

68

5.6

1.3

–

–

–

–

–

100

90.9

–

–

1.5

70

5.6

1.3

–

0.04

–

–

0.1

–

0.5

100

91.9

–

–

3.4

70

4.1

0.4

–

0.02

–

–

0.0

–

0.1

100

80.2

0.5

–

14.1

50?

1.1

1.2

–

0.05

–

–

0.1

–

2.6

100

52.3

36.6

–

2.6

47

0.0

2.2

–

0.03

–

–

1.1

–

5.2

100
9

5.2 Simulant Data Used for Composition Figure of Merit

Particle type modal data for the regolith simulants is from electron beam analysis. Plagioclase composition is based on the limited data of feedstock analysis or, when available, electron 

microprobe analysis of the simulant.

5.2.1 Scanning Electron Microscope/Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy Data

All simulants analyzed have been considerably less texturally complex than the analyzed 

lunar regolith. Particle type data on the simulants by QEMSCAN® SEM/EDS analysis has been 

consistently obtained. The software used for textural analysis and particle identification is the iDiscover 4.2 package developed by Intellection Ltd. and incorporated into QEMSCAN technology. It 

differentiates and classifies basalt as lithic fragments in mare simulants and the pseudo-agglutinate 

fragments (identified as agglutinates) in the NU-LHT series highlands simulants. It is these particle 

type modal analyses that are used in the FoM v.2 composition routines. The data for major particle types are shown in plots with the lunar reference data in figure 1. Tabulated data are shown 

in table 2. In addition, the SEM/EDS analysis yields total modal area percent for the simulants as 

it does for the lunar material. For numerous reasons, the FoM composition definitions and algorithms use the particle type modal data; however, the area modal data for simulants and the lunar 

reference material are presented in figure 2 (major phases) and figure 3 (minor and trace minerals) 

for completeness.

There are some apparent inconsistencies between the particle type and the area modal data. 

For instance, the area modal data (fig. 2) show simulant OB-1 to contain measurable amounts 

of the mafic (Fe- and magnesium (Mg)-bearing) minerals olivine and pyroxene while the particle 

modal data (table 2 and figure 1) show neither as a free mineral. An examination of the phase maps 

indicates that this is due to pixels in the OB-1 olivine slag glass being reported as mafic phases. 

These may be crystals, on the scale of microns to tens of microns, formed by devitrification of the 

slag glass or they may be compositional inhomogeneities in the glass. The processing by the iDiscover software classified these as glass particles. 

5.2.2 Plagioclase Composition

Table 2 contains the values used in the FoM analysis for plagioclase composition for simulants and lunar regolith.

The particle type composition of the Chenobi simulant is not shown in table 2 because it 

has not been analyzed; however, it incorporates the same anorthosite feedstock used in OB-1 and 

thus has plagioclase with An75%.
10

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Modal (%)

Lithic Fragments

Plagioclase

Olivine

Clinopyroxene

Orthopyroxene

Glass

Agglutinates

64001/64002

NU-LHT-1M

NU-LHT-2M

OB-1

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Modal (%)

Lithic Fragments

Plagioclase

Olivine

Clinopyroxene

Orthopyroxene

Glass

Agglutinates

64001/64002

JSC-1

JSC-1A

JSC-1AF

FJS-1

MLS-1

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Particle-type compositional data for highlands regolith simulants 

and the lunar reference 64001/64002: (a) Contains highlands data 

and (b) contains modal data.
11

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

64001/64002 Average

NU-LHT-2M

NU-LHT-1M

OB-1

Area Modal (%) Area Modal (%)

(a)

(b)

 Plagioclase Pyroxene Olivine Glass

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

 Plagioclase Pyroxene Olivine Glass

64001/64002 Average

JSC-1

JSC-1A

JSC-1AF

FJS-1

44 MLS-1

44

67

54

45 45 44

25

3 3 5 5

1

10 10 10

13

35

39

5253

38

3 1 1

12 14

45

34

29

19

8

17

12

8

5

16 17

22

35

Figure 2. Area modal data for major phases in mare regolith simulants 

and the lunar reference 64001/64002: (a) Contains highlands data 

and (b) contains modal data.
12

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0

64001/64002 Average

NU-LHT-2M

NU-LHT-1M

OB-1

Area Modal (%)

(a)

(b)

 Ilmenite Ca-phospates Native Fe Spinel Sulfides

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0

Area Modal (%)

 Ilmenite Ca-phospates Native Fe Spinel Sulfides

64001/64002 Average

JSC-1

JSC-1A

JSC-1AF

FJS-1

MLS-1

To 

8.1%

To 

2.1%

Figure 3. Area modal data for minor phases in mare regolith simulants 

and the lunar reference 64001/64002: (a) Contains highlands data 

and (b) contains modal data.

5.3 Composition Figure of Merit Results

All composition FoMs were run using FoM v.2 data entry forms and algorithms. The FoMs 

were calculated using Matlab software because the final user version of v.2 was not released at the 

time the data for this TM was produced.

See table 3 for FoM v.2 composition results for all simulants tested against the 64001/64002 

lunar reference material.
13

Table 3. Results of FoM composition analysis. 

FoM Revision 1 algorithm used with 

lunar reference material 64001/64002.

Simulant

64001/64002 

Reference

NU-LHT-1M

NU-LHT-2M

OB-1

JSC-1

JSC-1A

JSC-1AF

MLS-1

FJS-1

0.65

0.55

0.28

0.33

0.35

0.43

0.35

0.36

5.4 Comments

The FoM is a powerful tool still in development. Innovation and updating of the approach, 

algorithms, and software continues. Composition is a complicated concept for granular geologic 

materials as it may capture particle type and chemistry (as reflected in and controlling the mineralogy and phase assemblage), etc.

5.4.1 Lithic Fragments and Agglutinates

It is a complex problem to consistently classify fragments of rock and breccia in lunar 

and terrestrial material. In regolith, they form a spectrum of particle types composed of varying 

amounts of minerals and glass and of varying and unknown mechanical competency. For this 

reason, all rock fragments and breccias are classified as lithic fragments and compared to the abundance of all rock and breccia fragments in the regolith.

Agglutinates are members of the particle spectrum including lithic and breccia fragments, 

but they are interpreted to be sufficiently unique in their properties and abundance as to be worth 

differentiating. Furthermore, their characteristics as irregularly shaped, often vesicular particles 

composed of minerals in a glass matrix make it possible to identify them with automated beam 

technology.

Because the lunar regolith reference 64001/64002 is composed of ≈32-modal % agglutinates 

and 31-modal % lithic fragments, simulants that do not approximate these abundances will score a 

low composition FoM score; however, they may still be appropriate simulants for many purposes 

by virtue of their chemistry, shape, or size distribution. Conversely, a simulant with an appropriate 

abundance of these particles may be inappropriate for some uses.

5.4.2 Glass Composition

Glass is an amorphous material with no crystalline structure that can have an almost 

unlimited range of chemical compositions. The lunar regolith has a range of glass populations 
14

of different origins and different chemical compositions. Various approaches for evaluating glass 

compositions are being evaluated for incorporation into FoM v.3. This FoM analysis (v.2) treats all 

glass particles as the same and compares them to the 8.9 modal % in the lunar reference material.

Most glasses behave broadly similarly for geomechanical purposes. Simulant users who need 

certain chemical fidelity to lunar material will need to take glass composition into consideration 

and consult with experts. Table 4 contains an overview of glass contained in simulants. Quantitative analyses are not available but a consideration of feedstock sources presents some constraints.

Table 4. Qualitative description of glass found in simulants.

Simulant Qualitative Glass Description

NU-LHT series

OB-1

Chenobi

JSC-1 series

FJS-1

MLS-1

Glass is derived by melting of noritic feedstock in a plasma stream. Si-Al-Ca with moderate Fe and Mg.

Glass is an olivine slag, Si-Fe-Mg.

Glass is derived by melting of the anorthosite feedstock in a plasma stream Si-Al-Ca.

Natural basalt glass. Si-Al-Ca-Fe-Mg with lesser Na.

Natural basalt glass. No analyses available.

In the sample analyzed, glass is derived by plasma melting of basaltic feedstock, Si-Al-Fe-Mg-Ca.
15

6. SIZE

6.1 Lunar Regolith Data Source

The particle size distribution data (PSD) for 64001/64002 is taken from reference 6. It is an 

average of 12 subsamples by weight percent of each size fraction.

6.2 Simulant Data Sources

Multiple sources of simulant size-distribution data were used. In most cases, multiple data 

sources are represented per simulant. Data methods are clearly listed in the results.

6.2.1 Dry Sieving

Some data are from dry sieving methods and reported by weight percent. Data for OB-1 

comes from Trow Analytical, Ltd. Analyses for Johnson Space Center (JSC)-1A and NU-LHT-1M 

were performed in the lab of Susan Batiste at the University of Colorado.

The dataset for Northern Centre for Advanced Technology Inc.’s (NORCAT’s) Chenobi 

simulant is a combination of dry sieve data above ≈75 μm and laser diffractometry data for the 

finer portion.

Particle size distribution data is available for NU-LHT-2C, but the bin sizes are skewed to 

show the coarse fractions and are too broad to use for FoM analysis.

6.2.2 Scanning Electron Microscope and Image Processing

The authors of this TM have size data from QEMSCAN SEM/EDS analysis, reported by 

weight percent, for all simulants except NU-LHT-1D. It should be said that grain mounts used for 

SEM imaging are polished and thus provide a sectioned sample, and that most particles will not be 

sectioned at their plane of greatest diameter equivalent. For this reason, such results are sometimes 

referred to as a sectional size distribution (SSD) rather than a PSD. The high number of particles 

counted partially offsets this effect, but there will always be a slight bias towards finer particles in 

an SSD. This can be partially compensated for by stereological techniques, and this approach is 

being pursued. For now, users are cautioned to take this into account, but are also reminded that 

all simulants were measured by this method; therefore, any problems will be consistent across that 

portion of the dataset.

6.2.3 Liquid Dispersion and Laser Diffractometry

The authors of this TM have data for NU-LHT-1M, -2M, and -1D, and JSC-1A from 

liquid dispersed laser diffractometry. Susan Batiste, at the University of Colorado, measured 

NU-LHT-1M and JSC-1A, while the Bureau of Mines analyzed NU-LHT-2M and -1D.
16

These data are presented as volume percent rather than as weight percent. If the particle 

composition distribution was consistent across the size fractions, the data would be equivalent, but 

this is not true for lunar regolith and is likely not to be true for simulants. However, it is judged 

likely that the deviations in density across the size fractions are of small effect. It is left to the 

user to evaluate these ratings until more data are gathered and analyses are presented. Again, the 

method is consistent for the four simulants measured and thus is of comparative value.

The <75-μm portion of the Chenobi simulant dataset is determined by laser diffractometry 

and converted to weight percent. 

This analytical method yields more bins of data (smaller size fractions) than the FoM software allows. The bins have been summoned to best match the reference 6 bins.

6.3 Figure of Merit Particle Size Distribution Results

Table 5 contains FoM size results for all simulants against the lunar reference material 

64001/64002. Several subsets of reference data are compared to simulant size datasets obtained by 

different methods. Simulant datasets were compared against the bulk average of 64001/64002, the 

<1–mm subset of the data, and the <90-mm subset of the data. Both reference subsets were recalculated to 100%. The analytical method is in parentheses.

Table 5. FoM size results for all simulants against 64001/64002 lunar reference material.

64001/2 

Bulk Average

64001/2 

<1-mm Average

64001/2 

Average to 90 μm

OB-1 (section image analysis)

NU-LHT-1M (section image analysis)

NU-LHT-2M (section image analysis)

JSC-1 (section image analysis)

JSC-1A (section image analysis)

JSC-1AF (section image analysis) 

MLS-1 (section image analysis) 

FJS-1 (section image analysis)

OB-1 (dry sieve)

NU-LHT-1M (dry sieve)

JSC-1A (dry sieve)

Chenobi (dry sieve + laser diffractometry)

NU-LHT-2M (laser diffractometry)

NU-LHT-1D (laser diffractometry)

NU-LHT-1M (laser diffractometry) 

JSC-1A (laser diffractometry) 

0.23

0.23

0.17

0.22

0.25

0.06

0.20

0.26

0.59

0.26

0.35

0.77

0.29

–

0.26

0.28

0.54

0.58

0.48

0.53

0.56

0.23

0.29

0.45

–

0.75

0.74

0.73

0.82

–

0.64

0.74

–

–

–

–

–

0.60

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.54

–

–

6.3.1 Comparison to the Entire 64001/64002 Particle Size Distribution

The range of size bins for 64001/64002 from reference 6 is broader than for any of the simulants. All simulant PSDs are compared to the entire 64001/64002 PSD and the results are shown in 

the first column of table 5.
17

6.3.2 Against Normalized Subsections

6.3.2.1 <1-mm Fraction. Most of the simulant PSDs only extend to ≈1 mm. The second 

column of table 5 shows comparisons of all simulants to the <1-mm fractions of 64001/64002. 

These fractions were recalculated to sum to 100 wt. %.

6.3.2.2 <90-μm Fraction. For the two simulants specifically intended to be dust simulants, 

another normalized subset of reference 6 data was used for comparison, this time recalculating the 

<90-μm fraction to sum to 100 wt. %. The results for this subset are shown in column 3 of table 5.

6.4 Comments

Of the simulant PSDs run in the FoM size analysis, only OB-1 sieve data and the Chenobi 

sieve plus laser diffractometry data had particles in the larger fraction that matched the bins of 

the reference data. The simulant NU-LHT-2C contains particles to 10 cm and the PSD apparently 

matches well with Apollo regolith; however, as mentioned in section 6.2.1, the resolution of 

NU-LHT-2C PSD data is insufficient for FoM analysis.

The FoM size analysis is sensitive to how data are binned. Within any one method/data 

type, all datasets have identical binning, so comparison within groups is reliable.
18
19

7. SHAPE

FoM Revision 1 software is capable of comparing aspect ratio and angularity of particle 

shape distributions, but the defining of the metrics and parameters for analysis has not yet been 

completed.

As part of the QEMSCAN analysis, the iDiscover software returned shape metrics for all 

simulants, which are shown in table 6 and compared graphically in figure 4. These are given in 

terms typical for geological studies but should provide a qualitative comparison between simulants. No data in these terms exist for lunar regolith. However, the Moon lacks the flowing water 

and wind that cause rounding in terrestrial sediments; therefore, only glass spherules are likely to 

be rounded or well rounded. Units in table 6 are in weight percent of typical geologic classification 

bins from very angular to well rounded.

Table 6. Shape parameters of simulants derived by QEMSCAN analysis.

Particle Shape 

Classification

NU-LHT-1M 

(wt. %)

NU-LHT-2M 

(wt. %)

OB-1 

(wt. %)

JSC-1 

(wt. %)

JSC1A 

(wt. %)

JSC-1AF 

(wt. %)

FJS-1 

(wt. %)

MLS-1 

(wt. %)

Very angular

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Well rounded

Total

2.4

4.2

15.3

43.3

34.4

0.2

100

1.5

1.8

7.3

36.2

52.8

0.6

100

1.7

2.3

10.4

40.7

44.5

0.3

100

2.9

5.1

17.0

42.9

31.9

0.1

100

4.7

7.0

16.3

40.0

31.6

0.3

100

1.1

3.1

13.0

39.2

43.4

0.3

100

2.0

4.2

20.9

49.2

23.6

0.1

100

0.4

3.0

11.5

37.5

30.8

16.9

100

NU-LHT-1M

NU-LHT-2M

OB-1

JSC-1

JSC-1A

JSC-1AF

FJS-1

MLS-1

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Weight (%)

Very Angular Angular Sub Angular Sub Rounded Rounded Well Rounded

Figure 4. Qualitative graphical comparison of shape parameters for simulants 

derived by QEMSCAN analysis. Units are in weight percent 

of typical geologic classification bins.
20
21

8. SIMULANT FIT-TO-USE MATRIX

NOTE: Before choosing or using a simulant, simulant users are strongly encouraged to contact one of the members of the MSFC simulant program listed in table 1. It is not intended for the 

FoM scores or the simulant use matrix to substitute for consultation with experts. Where expertise 

is lacking, users can be guided to the appropriate resources.

This TM represents a best estimate of appropriateness of each simulant for common types 

of investigations. The material behaviors important to these investigations are largely derived from 

the four “primary” properties captured in the FoM for simulant evaluation.5 These material properties are particle composition, PSD, particle shape distribution, and bulk density. Table 7 is the 

fit-to-use matrix for excavation/flow, drilling, and abrasion/wear.

Two simulants (NU-LHT-2C and Chenobi) are included in the matrix that are not included 

in particle type FoM evaluations in sections 1 through 7 of this TM. Further, NU-LHT-2C is not 

included in the PSD section (section 6), though PSD data is presented for it. Chenobi is included 

in the matrix because the composition is understood to be composed of the same material as the 

anorthosite fraction of the OB-1 feedstock; a portion of this anorthosite was then melted to make 

the glass portion of Chenobi. NU-LHT-2C is derived from the same materials as NU-LHT-2M, 

but a portion of the material was partially fused to make a coarser fraction that is added back in 

after milling and grinding. Though these simulants were not analyzed in the same fashion as other 

simulants included in sections 1 through 7 of this TM, the authors feel that these simulants are sufficiently understood to be evaluated in the fit-to-use matrix in table 7.

In assembling this matrix, the attempt is to extrapolate from the known primary characteristics of simulants to their behavior under the relatively complex conditions of these investigative 

environments. For instance, the behavior of a simulant during excavation may be affected by its 

abrasiveness and angle of repose. These properties in turn result from the hardness and cleavage 

behavior of its particles (particle composition), PSD, particle shape distribution, and maximum 

packing density. The response of a simulant to heating in the presence of hydrogen (H2) for oxygen (O) extraction will be largely a result of its particle type composition—neglecting reaction rates 

that may be due to its PSD and packing/density properties.

Researchers have a reasonably good understanding of these simulants’ particle compositions and PSDs (see sections 1 through 7 of this TM), though more detail is needed in some areas. 

They have only a rudimentary survey of the particle shape distributions or density properties but 

are aided by having some initial studies on O extraction, angle of repose, and abrasiveness.
22

Table 7. Simulant fit-to-use matrix for excavation/flow, drilling, and abrasion/wear.

Excavation/Flow* Drilling* Abrasion/Wear

NU-LHT-1M Recommended: It has been demonstrated 

that pseudo-agglutinates affect geomechanical behavior that may be important to 

excavation.

Recommended: Fidelity to 

mineral and glass% should yield 

appropriate abrasiveness. Presence of pseudo-agglutinates may 

aid fidelity to regolith.

Recommended: Fidelity to mineral 

and glass% should yield appropriate 

abrasiveness. Presence of pseudoagglutinates may aid fidelity to regolith.

NU-LHT-2M Recommended: It has been demonstrated 

that pseudo-agglutinates affect geomechanical behavior that may be important to 

excavation.

Recommended: Fidelity to 

mineral and glass% should yield 

appropriate abrasiveness. Presence of pseudo-agglutinates may 

aid fidelity to regolith.

Recommended: Fidelity to mineral 

and glass% should yield appropriate 

abrasiveness. Presence of pseudoagglutinates may aid fidelity to regolith.

NU-LHT-1D Not recommended: Unrealistically fine 

PSD.

Not recommended: Unrealistically fine PSD.Recommended with reservations: Unrealistically fine PSD for many uses.

NU-LHT-2C Most recommended: It has been demonstrated that pseudo-agglutinates affect 

geomechanical behavior that may be 

important to excavation.

Most recommended: Fidelity to 

mineral and glass% should yield 

appropriate abrasiveness. Presence of pseudo-agglutinates may 

aid fidelity to regolith, good PSD.

Recommended: Fidelity to mineral 

and glass% should yield appropriate 

abrasiveness. Presence of pseudoagglutinates may aid fidelity to regolith.

OB-1 Recommended: Good PSD at coarse 

end. Lack of lithic fragments or pseudoagglutinates may affect flowability or angle 

of repose. This should be examined.

Most recommended: Fidelity to 

mineral and glass% should yield 

appropriate abrasiveness, best 

PSD for coarse fractions.

Most recommended: Fidelity to mineral 

and glass% should yield appropriate 

abrasiveness, best PSD for coarse 

fractions.

Chenobi Recommended: Good PSD at coarse 

end. Lack of lithic fragments or pseudoagglutinates may affect flowability or angle 

of repose. This should be examined.

Most recommended: Fidelity to 

mineral and glass% should yield 

appropriate abrasiveness, best 

PSD for coarse fractions.

Most recommended: Fidelity to mineral 

and glass% should yield appropriate 

abrasiveness, best PSD for coarse 

fractions.

JSC-1, -1A Recommended: Relatively angular 

particles, reasonable PSD.

Recommended with reservations: Uncertain but probably 

reasonable fidelity to highland 

abrasiveness.

Recommended with reservations: Uncertain but probably reasonable fidelity to 

highland abrasiveness.

JSC-1AF Not recommended: Unrealistically fine 

PSD.

Not recommended: Unrealistically fine PSD.Recommended with reservations: Unrealistically fine PSD for many uses.

FJS-1 Recommended: Low-g tests show it has a 

high angle of repose with relatively angular particles and reasonable PSD.

Recommended with reservations: Uncertain but probably 

reasonable fidelity to highland 

abrasiveness, low glass.

Recommended with reservations: Uncertain but probably reasonable fidelity to 

highland abrasiveness, low glass.

MLS-1 (processed 

for glass component)

Not recommended: relatively poor PSD. 

Shape distribution is skewed towards wellrounded particles.

Not recommended: High pyroxene/plagioclase may adversely 

affect particle cleavage behavior, 

rounded grains.

Not recommended: High pyroxene/

plagioclase may adversely affect particle 

cleavage behavior, rounded grains.

* Quantitative data on shape is lacking, and shape is important to geomechanical behavior.

It is very important to remember that all simulants here are measured relative to the highlands lunar reference sample Apollo core 64001/64002 (see Simulant User’s Guide (2008) for justification). For example, some simulants that may be appropriate for investigations pertaining to 

a high-titanium (Ti) mare regolith deposit will be judged poorly by the standards of the Simulant 

User’s Guide. It is equally important to remember the necessarily speculative nature of some of 

these judgments. They have been made in some cases without the benefit of direct measurement. 

This document will be updated with input from the user community and the engineering and scientific community.
23

8.1 Oxygen Production

There are many approaches to O production for in situ resource utilization (ISRU), but 

three primary methods are currently being investigated: H2-reduction, carbothermal reduction, 

and molten oxide electrolysis (MOE). The first requires heating to the point of sintering and partial 

melting while the latter two require total melting of the material. Table 8 presents data regarding 

the simulant fit-to-use matrix for O production and human health studies.

Table 8. Simulant fit-to-use matrix for O production and human health studies.

Oxygen Production** Human Health Studies

NU-LHT-1M Recommended for highlands: Chemistry: Slightly low FeO relative 

to lunar reference (≈4 vs. 5 wt.%) but significantly closer than other 

simulants. Mineralogy: Contains ilmenite. High Fe in silicates relative to 

reference, which will slow reduction.

Suitable composition: It lacks the added phosphates and sulfides of NU-LHT-2M; reasonable 

PSD but too coarse in fine fraction.

NU-LHT-2M Most recommended for highlands: Chemistry: Slightly low FeO relative to lunar reference (≈4 vs. 5 wt.%) but significantly closer than other 

simulants. Mineralogy: Contains ilmenite, phosphates, and sulfides; 

the presence of which is realistic but possibly hazardous to ISRU 

processes. High Fe in silicates relative to reference, which will slow 

reduction.

Most suitable composition: Reasonable PSD 

but too coarse in fine fraction.

NU-LHT-1D Recommended for highlands: Should be similar to NU-LHT-1M but 

possibly with lower FeO.

Suitable composition: It lacks the added phosphates and sulfides of NU-LHT-2M; good PSD in 

fine fraction.

NU-LHT-2C Recommended for highlands: Chemistry: Slightly low FeO relative to 

lunar reference ≈4 vs. 5 wt.%) but significantly closer than other simulants. Mineralogy: Contains ilmenite, phosphates and sulfides, the presence of which is realistic but possibly hazardous to ISRU processes. 

High Fe in silicates relative to reference, which will slow reduction

Most suitable composition: Good PSD.

OB-1 Not recommended: It is expected that the abundance of Fe-rich glass 

will result in unrealistically high oxygen yields per energy input; no glass 

analyses are available.

Unsuitable composition: This is due to high 

Fe-glass. May be acceptable for testing where 

abrasiveness is of primary importance.

Chenobi Recommended for highlands with reservations: Will serve, in a 

way, as a worst-case example of the highlands regolith with the highest 

anorthositic fraction and that with the least mare contamination (i.e., 

very low FeO).

Partially suitable composition: It lacks added 

phosphates and sulfides, and it represents one 

end-member of regolith composition; good PSD in 

fine fraction.

JSC-1, -1A Recommended with reservations: Chemistry: FeO is significantly high 

relative to lunar reference (≈11 vs. 5 wt.%). Mineralogy: Contains natural phosphates, Ti-magnetite instead of ilmenite. Use will likely result in 

unrealistically high oxygen yields; may be a good mare simulant (e.g., 

Apollo 14) for this use.

Possibly suitable composition: Reasonable 

PSD but too coarse in fine fraction.

JSC-1AF Recommended with reservations: Should be similar to JSC-1A. Possibly suitable composition: Good PSD in 

fine fraction.

FJS-1 Recommended with reservations: Chemistry: FeO is significantly high 

relative to lunar reference ≈11 vs. 5 wt.%). Mineralogy: Contains natural 

phosphates, Ti-magnetite instead of ilmenite. Use will likely result in 

unrealistically high oxygen yields; may be a good mare simulant (e.g., 

Apollo 14) for this use.

Possibly suitable composition: Poor PSD in 

fine fraction.

MLS-1 (processed 

for glass component)

Not recommended for highlands: Chemistry: FeO is very high relative 

to lunar reference (>14 vs. 5 wt.%). Mineralogy: Contains abundant 

ilmenite but also hydrous minerals. May result in extremely unrealistically high oxygen yields; may be an acceptable high-Ti (Apollo 11) 

simulant, but hydrous minerals are still problematic.

Unsuitable composition: Unsuitable PSD in fine 

fraction.

** See associated text for details on different oxygen production methods.
24

There are intricacies to the methods, and the O yield/energy input depends on a number 

of material compositional details and methodologies. It is the judgment of the researchers that a 

simulant to be used for O production should have reasonable compositional fidelity to the reference 

lunar material in the following ways:

• Chemically, it should contain iron oxide (FeO) weight percent close to the FeO weight percent of 

the lunar reference material. (Here, FeO is not a phase but the chemical species Fe2+-O found in 

minerals, glasses, and the melt.)

Justification: The breaking of metal-O bonds liberates O, and the amount of energy required to 

break them is inversely proportional to their free energy of formation. Of the major lunar chemical oxides, FeO has the highest free energy and calcium oxide (CaO) the lowest. For this reason, 

during H2 reduction, O yield correlates to FeO weight percent in the starting material.9 Some 

silicon dioxide (SiO2) (chemical) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) (chemical) are also reduced.

In processes involving melting (i.e., carbothermal reduction and MOE), these chemical species 

are more completely reduced. It is generally possible to reduce all of the Fe2+ through these 

methods.

• The oxidation state of the Fe in a simulant should be as close as possible to that in lunar regolith. 

Practically speaking, no natural rock, and thus no nonsynthetic simulant, can emulate the oxidation state of lunar rocks. It is important for users to be aware of this.

Details: On the Moon, Fe dominantly occurs as Fe2+ (FeO) with lesser FeO. In terrestrial rocks, 

Fe occurs as a combination of Fe2+ (FeO) and Fe3+ (Fe2O3).

During H2-reduction, Fe2O3 will initially reduce to FeO and thus produce more O per unit Fe 

than will lunar regolith. During MOE, reaction with Fe3+ behaves parasitically with regard to 

electronic conduction and reduces the efficiency of the process by 20–30% relative to Fe2+.

• The Fe-bearing phases (i.e., its assemblage of Fe-bearing minerals and glasses) should be similar 

in kind and abundance to the reference material. This is true especially for H2-reduction work 

and less so for MOE or carbothermal.

Justification: The O is liberated primarily from Fe-bearing phases. In the case of H2-reduction, 

the O is derived most efficiently from FeTiO3 then from the glass phase, and then, and only partially, from the Fe-bearing silicate minerals olivine and pyroxene.9

Although O yield during H2-reduction is proportional to FeO weight percent when run to completion (3 hours for the study in reference 9), almost 75% of the O is extracted relatively quickly 

due to the efficiency of liberating it from ilmenite and glass.10 Therefore, the phases in which the 

Fe resides exert a strong control on yield/energy input, especially for the H2-reduction method.

• The presence of hydrous- (OH-) or hydrated (H2O-) bearing minerals in a simulant is undesirable, especially if it is to be used for H2-reduction work.
25

Justification: There are no OH or H2O materials on the Moon, except possibly in shadowed craters. In the H2-reduction method, O is liberated as H2O; therefore, any H2O or OH- present will 

skew results of the test.

• Simulants should have an assemblage of trace minerals, especially halogen-bearing (fluorine- (F-) 

and chlorine- (Cl-)) and sulfur- (S-) bearing phases, similar to the lunar reference material in kind 

and abundance. Halogens are especially important to H2-reduction work, while S is particularly 

significant for MOE.

Justification: Fluorine and Cl occur in minor amounts in trace minerals (primarily fluorapatite) 

in the lunar regolith; however, at high temperatures, these elements (especially Cl) are strongly 

partitioned into the vapor phase yielding hydrogen chloride (HCl) and possibly hydrogen fluoride 

(HF). It has been demonstrated that these can have a corrosive effect on equipment, even in the 

short term.

Sulfur occurs in troilite (FeS) in the lunar regolith. For MOE, S acts parasitically regarding electronic conductivity and diminishes the efficiency of the process.
26

9. CONCLUSIONS

There are a number of studies documenting other properties of simulants including geomechanical properties, abrasiveness, behavior during O production procedures, etc. It is recommended 

that users consult these studies when relevant to their needs. 

Users are encouraged to contact the authors at MSFC for advisement as to simulant use. It 

is predicted that this document will be updated at least annually, but new information is available 

constantly. These evaluations are ongoing, as is FoM development. Most importantly, simulant 

development is continuing. 
27

REFERENCES

 1. Gaines, R.V.; Skinner, H.C.W.; Foord, E.E.; et al.: Dana’s New Mineralogy: The System of 

Mineralogy of James Dwight Dana and Edward Salisbury Dana, 8th ed. Wiley, New York, NY, 

1997.

 2. Igneous Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms: Recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks, R.W. 

LeMaitre, A. Streckeisen, B. Zanettin, et al. (eds.), 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2005.

 3. Basu, A.; and McKay, D.S.: “Classification of Lunar Highlands Submillimeter Particles,” in 

Workshop on Apollo 16, O.B. James and F. Hörz (eds.), LPI Technical Report 81-01, Lunar 

and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, pp. 36–39, 1981.

 4. Rickman, D.; Hoelzer, H.; Carpenter, P.; et al.: “A Quantitative Method for Evaluating Regolith Simulants,” Space Technology And Applications International Forum, Albuquerque, NM, 

February. 11–15, 2007.

 5. Rickman, D.: “Lunar Regolith Simulant Requirements,” MSFC–RQMT–3503 Predecisional 

Draft, 90 p., August 31, 2006.

 6. Graf, J.C.: “Lunar Grain Size Catalog,” NASA Reference Publication–1265, 464 p., 1993.

 7. Houck, K.J.: “Modal Petrology of Six Soils From Apollo 16 Double Drive Tube 64002,” Proceedings of the 13th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Part 1, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 87 

Sup, pp. A210–A220, 1982.

 8. Heiken, G.; Vaniman, D.; and French, B.M.: Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the Moon, 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain, 1991.

 9. Allen, C.C.; Morris, R.V.; and McKay, D.S.: “Oxygen Extraction From Lunar Soils and Pyroclastic Glass,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 101, No. E11, pp. 26,085–26,095, 1996.

10. Allen, C.C.; Morris, R.V.; and McKay, D.S.: “Experimental Reduction of Lunar Mare Soil 

and Volcanic Glass,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 99, No. E11, pp. 23,173–23,185, 1994.
28

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

Lunar Regolith Simulant User’s Guide

C.M. Schrader,* D.L. Rickman, C.A. McLemore, and J.C. Fikes 

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

*BAE Systems, Huntsville, Alabama 35805

M–1295

Technical Memorandum

NASA/TM—2010–216446

lunar simulant, comparisons, usage recommendations

01–09–2010

UU 36

NASA

U U U

Based on primary characteristics, currently or recently available lunar regolith simulants are discussed 

from the perspective of potential experimental uses. The characteristics used are inherent properties of 

the material rather than their responses to behavioral (geomechanical, physiochemical, etc.) tests. We 

define these inherent or primary properties to be particle composition, particle size distribution, particle 

shape distribution, and bulk density. Comparable information about lunar materials is also provided. It is 

strongly emphasized that anyone considering either choosing or using a simulant should contact one of 

the members of the simulant program listed at the end of this document.

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