NASA/TM—2013– 217497

Sources and Transportation of Bulk,

Low-Cost Lunar Simulant Materials

D.L. Rickman

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama

December 2013
	




Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

	
	
		
	


		

maintain this important role.





!	"#	
$

	


%	
	

		
	&

'



the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of 

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

%	

(
	

mechanism for disseminating the results of its 

research and development activities. These results 

(
	
"


$)	(

)	

*

+ -#4#!67!#&"




9		


phase of research that present the results of 

NASA programs and include extensive 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.

+ -#4#!;-;"<6;&	


	

		
	

	

=
	

$&&$>(
$

)	$	


	
	

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

	&

+ #"#""-"&	
	



		
	?	


contractors and grantees.

+ #@-"-#-67!#&#



	
	

			$

$	$

		


	
&

+ -#!67!#&	
$
	$

or historical information from NASA programs, 

projects, and mission, often concerned with 

subjects having substantial public interest.

+ -#4#!"!&

 English-language translations of foreign 

	
	

	

		



NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI 

%
'		(

	

custom thesauri, building customized databases, 

organizing and publishing research results...even 

providing videos.

@	
	(



$
)	*

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

B

*CC)))&
&	&'F

+ -?(>(
	'
	
	

 

BG
&	&'F

+ 	
4<
 

757 –864–9658

+ P

*

 	
	<

 Mail Stop 148

 !	"#	


 4
	$QRUVWXYRXZZ$6
i

NASA/TM—2013–217497

Sources and Transportation of Bulk,

Low-Cost Lunar Simulant Materials

R.L. Rickman

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama

December 2013

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Marshall Space Flight Center • Huntsville, Alabama 35812
ii

Available from:

NASA STI Information Desk

Mail Stop 148

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681–1299, USA

757–864–9658

This report is also available in electronic form at

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

Acknowledgments

 The many companies that provided samples and information were very important to the success of this effort 

and noted throughout this Technical Memorandum. See the appendix for a listing. Hannah Wright took the photographs of volcanic cinder cone materials as the rock from McCoy, Colorado.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 2

3. TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................... 3

 3.1 Trucking ....................................................................................................................... 4

 3.2 Railroads ...................................................................................................................... 9

 3.3 Comparison of Rail Versus Truck From Flagstaff to Marshall Space 

 Flight Center ................................................................................................................ 10

4. GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 11

5. PRODUCERS .................................................................................................................... 14

6. BASALT AND METABASALT PRODUCERS ................................................................ 17

 6.1 Central Oregon Basalt Products, LLC .......................................................................... 17

 6.2 Napa Valley Mining Co., LLC ...................................................................................... 17

 6.3 Reade Advanced Products ............................................................................................ 18

 6.4 Sunrock ........................................................................................................................ 18

 6.5 Vulcan Materials Company .......................................................................................... 19

 6.6 Central Stone ................................................................................................................ 19

 6.7 Other Known Producers ............................................................................................... 19

7. CINDER CONE QUARRIES BY STATE ......................................................................... 21

 7.1 Arizona ......................................................................................................................... 25

 7.2 New Mexico .................................................................................................................. 30

 7.3 Colorado ...................................................................................................................... 49

8. SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND SERVICES .......................................................... 53

 8.1 Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 53

 8.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 53
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

9. NOTES ON HEALTH RISKS OF CRYSTALLINE SILICA ............................................ 55

 9.1 International Agency for Research on Cancer (2012) 5. Evaluation .............................. 58

 9.2 International Agency for Research on Cancer (1997) 5.5 Evaluation ............................ 58

 9.3 Overall Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 59

 9.4 Synonyms for Crystalline Silica (IARC 1997) ............................................................... 59

 9.5 Synonyms for Amorphous Silica (IARC 1997) ............................................................. 60

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 61

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 63
v

LIST OF FIGURES

 1. Generic options to transport simulant from source to NASA facility ........................ 3

 2. Loading of super sacks at the Miller Mining facility northeast of Flagstaff, AZ

 (image from Zybek Advanced Products; used with permission) ................................ 4

 3. Load of super sacks on a flatbed trailer (image from Zybek Advanced Products;

 used with permission) ................................................................................................ 5

 4. IBCs being moved by forklift. Photograph taken by author at the Stillwater 

 Mine, Nye, MT; used with permission of mining company ....................................... 6

 5. IBCs showing top of the plastic container removed and then loaded with rock. 

 This was done in support of the NASA/USGS simulant development effort. 

 The rocks were loaded by land, not by machine. Photograph taken by the author 

 at the Stillwater Mine, Nye, MT; used with permission of the mining company ........ 6

 6. Belly dump trailer unloading volcanic cinder for the MSFC Lunar Surface

 Testbed ...................................................................................................................... 7

 7. Belly dump trailer unloading volcanic ash for the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed ..... 8

 8. Volcanic bomb from McCoy, CO. The highly vesticular nature of the material

 is apparent. The original dark-gray material lightens as it weathers, which is easily

 seen along the left side of the rock; sample provided by Andres Aslan 

 (millimeter scale) ....................................................................................................... 12

 9. Probable caliche deposit (white) on a volcanic bomb from McCoy, CO;

 sample provided by Andres Aslan (millimeter scale) ................................................. 13

10. Selected sample of volcanic cinder and ash products; see text for discussion:

 (A) BTU coarse, (B) BTU fine, (C) Oldcastle, (D) McCoy, CO, (E) Miller 

 Mining coarse, (F) Miller Mining fine, (G) J.E. Wells, and (H) McCoy, CO.

 Photographs taken outdoors in shade with southern exposure against 18% gray 

 card (produced by Delta 1/CPM, Inc.) ...................................................................... 22

11. Selected samples after washing with water to remove dust-sized particles and then 

 air dried: (A) BTU coarse, (B) Miller Mining, (C) J.E. Wells, and (D) Oldcastle 

 (millimeter scale). Photographs taken outdoors in shade with southern exposure 

 against 18% gray card (produced by Delta 1/CPM, Inc.) ........................................... 23
vi

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

12. Index map for some producers in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,

 and Texas considered in this TM: (A) Bratton Enterprises, McCoy, CO, 

 (B) Miller Mining and Oldcastle, Flagstaff, AZ, (C) B.T.U. TMR Pit, 

 (D) Cinder Mountain, (E) Red Hill Mine, (F) La Cienega Mine and Cerrito

 Pelado Mine, (G) Acme Brick, (H) Black Bear Mountain Pit, (J) Knippa,

 TX (made in Google maps) ....................................................................................... 24

13. Location of Merriam Crater/Miller Mining, Oldcastle operation and Flagstaff,

 AZ (from Google Maps) ........................................................................................... 25

14. Details of Miller Mining quarry operation at Merriam Crater 

 (from Google Maps) .................................................................................................. 26

15. Miller Mining operation perspective looking northeast, no verticle exaggeration 

 (rendered by Google Earth) ....................................................................................... 26

16. Miller Mining product plotted in total alkali versus SiO2 space (produced

 by NAVDAT.org) ...................................................................................................... 28

17. Oldcastle, Sheeps Hill, Flagstaff, AZ, operation overview (from Google Maps) ........ 29

18. Image of B.T.U. TMR operation (from Google Maps) .............................................. 30

19. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the Twin Mountain cone (produced by 

 NAVDAT.org) ........................................................................................................... 32

20. Index of sample points probed and illustrative textures of B.T.U. cinder. Shows

 partially crystalline cinder as well as glassier crushed cinders (BSE image) ............... 34

21. Index of sample points probed and illustrative textures of crushed cinder

 fragments from the B.T.U. pit (BSE image) ............................................................... 34

22. Index of sample points probed and detail from figure 18 illustrative textures

 of B.T.U. cinder. Blowup of figure 26 showing phenocrysts (BSE image) .................. 35

23. Glassy cinder fragments (BSE image) ........................................................................ 35

24. Large vesiculated fragment (BSE image) ................................................................... 36

25. Denser, lower vesicularity fragment (BSE image) ...................................................... 36

26. Vesicular fragment with flow alignment of plagioclase (BSE image) ......................... 37
vii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

27. Moderately crystalline cinder fragment (BSE image) ................................................. 37

28. Low crystalline cinder fragment (BSE image) ............................................................ 38

29. Low crystalline, high vesicularity cinder (BSE image) ............................................... 38

30. Two large olivine in mostly aphyric glass (BSE image) .............................................. 39

31. Iron abundance based on the Kα line (compare fig. 20) ............................................. 39

32. Potassium abundance based on the Kα line (compare fig. 20) .................................... 40

33. Silicone abundance based on the Kα line (compare fig. 20) ....................................... 41

34. Black Bear Mountain Pit (from Google Maps) ......................................................... 42

35. Cerrito Pelado Mine (from Google Maps) ................................................................. 43

36. Cinder Mountain Pit (from Google Maps) ................................................................ 44

37. La Cienega Mine (from Google Maps) ...................................................................... 45

38. Red Hill Mine (from Google Maps) .......................................................................... 46

39. Acme Brick (from Google Maps) .............................................................................. 47

40. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the Acme Brick cinder pit (produced 

 by NAVDAT.org) ...................................................................................................... 48

41. Bratton Enterprise, McCoy, CO, cinder pit (from Google Maps) .............................. 50

42. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the McCoy, CO, cinder pit (produced 

 by NAVDAT.org) ...................................................................................................... 50
viii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Truck shipping estimate for a 200-ton load .................................................................. 9

2. Approximate mesh to metric conversion table. The two common mesh standards

 used in the United States are very similar .................................................................... 15

3. Gradations for the two products purchased for the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed ...... 27

4. Weight percent abundance of major elements and normative mineralogy

 for JSC-1A ................................................................................................................... 28

5. Weight percent oxides and normative mineralogy. Data from Zhu,

 sample 855-273, Twin Mountain, Lat. 36.8217o, Lon. –103.8808o ................................ 31

6. Analyses of B.T.U. cinder (by Nelia Dunbar) .............................................................. 33

7. Weight percent oxides and normative mineralogy for Acme Brick cinder cone

 (from NAVDAT.org) .................................................................................................... 48

8. Weight percent oxides and normative mineralogy (from NAVDAT.org) ...................... 51
ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BSE backscattered electron 

CaF2 calcium fluoride

CBC collapsible bulk container

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

Fe iron

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center

H2O water

HSC Hazard Communication Standard

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

IBC intermediate bulk container

JSC Johnson Space Center

K potassium

KSC Kennedy Space Center

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

NAVDAT North American Volcanic and Intrusive Rock Database

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
x

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS (Continued)

NS Norfolk Southern

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Association

OTM OSHA Technical Manual

SFVF San Francisco Volcanic Field

Si silicone

SiO2 silicone dioxide

TM Technical Memorandum

UP Union Pacific

US United States

USGS United States Geological Survey

XRD x-ray diffraction
1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

SOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION OF BULK, LOW-COST 

LUNAR SIMULANT MATERIALS

1. INTRODUCTION

 For any specific procurement of simulant, the avenue chosen will be driven by cost, specific 

performance parameters of interest, personal knowledge, and personal preference. For users needing large quantities of material to simulate the lunar surface, and able to relax functional requirements sufficiently, there are several very different avenues to obtain low-cost simulants. This is 

illustrated by the contrast between GRC-11 versus GSC-12 and BP-1.3,4 GRC-1 is a mechanical 

mixture of sand and clay; it is designed to emulate a limited range of mechanical properties without consideration of composition or other mechanical properties. In contrast, GSC-1 and BP-1 

are waste materials created in the process of crushing basaltic rock.

 This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes considerations and information gained in 

the spring of 2013, procuring material to build an outdoor 30 m × 30 m test area at Marshall Space 

Flight Center (MSFC) called the Lunar Surface Testbed. The testbed was created to test autonomous, hazard avoidance by a rocket-powered lander. For this work, the spectral properties of the 

simulant were paramount. It was also desired that the testbed ‘look lunar’ and be useful for other 

types of tests. The design required a minimum of 200 tons of simulant material.
2

2. ASSUMPTIONS

 Readers of this TM are assumed to be NASA employees or contractors. It is assumed that 

the low-cost simulant material will be brought onto a NASA Center. Unless otherwise noted in the 

TM, values such as costs are to be understood as being specific to the spring and summer of 2013. 

The units in this TM mix metric and English. As commerce in the United States is generally done 

in the latter, retaining English units for values such as weight and distance facilitates use of the 

contained data.

 It should be noted that bringing large quantities of simulant material onto a NASA facility 

will involve personnel in the base’s Facilities, Environmental, Health, Procurement, and Transportation offices. It is recommended these offices be involved in the planning phases of any such effort. 

Readers are also reminded that access onto NASA property by truckers or heavy equipment operators must also be addressed. A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) may also be needed for the 

specific material purchased or for a close equivalent. Not all materials have an MSDS. Regulations 

only require an MSDS for materials meeting certain characteristics, which many geologic materials 

do not satisfy. Thus, a generic MSDS for scoria may have to be substituted for an MSDS for a specific scoria. 

 Throughout this TM, specific company and contact information is provided. This is not 

to be construed as endorsement, but is provided to assist future workers. 
3

3. TRANSPORTATION

 Cost includes the original purchase price and the transportation of the material from the 

provider to the user. Very commonly, the cost of transportation is much greater than the purchase 

price. For example, the construction of the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed was initially built using 

200 tons of simulant material, which cost $1,400. The cost to transport it from Flagstaff, Arizona, 

to MSFC was approximately $40,000. Therefore, attention to shipping is very important.

 The NASA Center Transportation Officers are experts at shipping a vast range of products 

and materials to their facility. They can arrange the actual shipping. Procurement policy may favor 

a single contact, i.e., the rock producer provides transportation or the shipper purchases the rock. 

But most producers of rock materials generally do not arrange shipping and most shippers do not 

arrange the purchase of rock. 

 Transportation in multi-ton lots is most economically done by either truck or by rail. To 

obtain cost estimates of transportation, at a minimum, one has to know the origination and delivery points, the weight of the material, and its approximate bulk density. MSDS and particle size 

characteristics will probably also be required. For the Federal government, trucking contracts are 

organized by GSA. A pool of shippers exists who bid on individual jobs, which makes the price 

competitive. 

 The options of transporting material from the source to the NASA facility are shown 

in figure 1. 

Purchase From Cinder Pit

Move to Rail

Spur

Load Into

Trucks

Long-Haul

Truck

Load Into

Gondolas

Unload Into

Dump Trucks

Dump at

MSFC West

Test Area

Rail

Dump at

MSFC West

Test Area

Load Into

Gondolas

Figure 1. Generic options to transport simulant 

from source to NASA facility. 
4

3.1 Trucking

 As of the spring of 2013, long-haul trucks in the United States (US) can move between 18 

and 25 tons per load. There are three trailer configurations that are relevant for this purpose—flatbed, end dump, and belly dump. Belly dump trailers are also termed hopper or bottom dump trailers. Haulage by flatbed is easily obtained and generally the trucking cost is the cheapest option on 

a ton/mile basis. However, if the material must be containerized, that is an additional cost. 

 For containerization, there are two subelements—the cost of the containers and the cost of 

loading at the quarry. There are several possible containers for shipping. The one most common, 

and recognized by most quarry operations, is the use of super sacks. 

 For the movement of bulk, low-cost simulant, there are two relevant types of super sacks: 

(1) those requiring pallets to be moved by forklift and (2) those having lifts built into the sack 

(shown in figs. 2 and 3). In quarry operations, loading super sacks is considered a relatively slow 

process. This is because front-end loaders used in quarries typically have much greater capacity 

than the super sack, as seen in figure 2, and there is more labor involved in moving the material and 

the sacks around. Also, special frames are needed to hold the sack open while loading. Therefore, 

material to be shipped in super sacks will cost considerably more at the quarry mouth than material not in super sacks. 

Figure 2. Loading of super sacks at the Miller Mining facility northeast 

of Flagstaff, AZ (image from Zybek Advanced Products; used 

with permission).
5

Figure 3. Load of super sacks on a flatbed trailer (image from Zybek 

Advanced Products; used with permission). 

Although quarries are not familiar with this, the material can also be loaded into and moved 

in intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) (see figs. 4 and 5), collapsible bulk containers (CBCs), or 

plastic industrial totes. IBCs are normally used to move liquids; however, the top of the plastic container can be cut loose using a ‘sawzall’ type of tool. The opened IBCs are easily strong enough to 

hold bulk simulant material; sand and small gravel-sized material can be loaded by a scoop loader, 

and they can easily be moved about by a forklift. Both IBCs and CBCs can be bought used at substantial savings compared to new. Unless purchased new, it is important to know what they were 

previously used for or to have then washed clean. 
6

Figure 4. IBCs being moved by forklift. Photograph taken by author at the 

Stillwater Mine, Nye, MT; used with permission of mining company.

Figure 5. IBCs showing top of the plastic container removed and then loaded 

with rock. This was done in support of the NASA/USGS simulant 

development effort. The rocks were loaded by land, not by machine. 

Photograph taken by the author at the Stillwater Mine, Nye, MT; 

used with permission of the mining company. 
7

When choosing between a super sack, IBCs, CBCs, industrial totes, or other containers, 

the following should be considered: purchase and transportation cost to the quarry, loading at the 

quarry, loading onto the truck, unloading at the Center, and emptying procedure. The storage environment will also need to be considered unless the contents are used immediately.

The alternative to flatbed trailers is to use what are called ‘belly dump’ trailers (fig. 6) and 

‘end dump’ trailers (fig. 7) . The total weight capacity of each trailer and the particle size limits that 

can be handled vary significantly.

Figure 6. Belly dump trailer unloading volcanic cinder for the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed.
8

Figure 7. Belly dump trailer unloading volcanic ash for the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed.

Elements in the cost for transportation by truck include the following:

• How far is the material to be shipped.

• Are there any loads the driver can carry on the return trip.

• How soon does the material have to be delivered.

• If there are multiple loads, do they all have to be delivered in a short period of time.

• The cost of fuel.

There is a seasonal aspect to the cost also, especially for end dump operators. Many end 

dump units are used to supply rock to landscaping operations, which are busiest in the spring and 

summer.
9

 Estimates received for shipping 200 tons by truck using end dump trailers during the spring 

of 2013 are shown in table 1.

Table 1. Truck shipping estimate 

for a 200-ton load.

Distance $/Ton $/Mile/Ton

1,100 117 0.106

550 92 0.167

1,050 170 0.162

1,050 200 0.19

1,541 214.5 0.139

 On July 18, 2013, trucking quotes were requested for a single load of material originating in 

Flagstaff, AZ, and delivered to MSFC. The quote for an end dump truck was $5,437.50 and a belly 

dump truck was $4,937.50.

3.2 Railroads

 Shipping by rail is substantially cheaper per ton/mile than by truck if enough tonnage is 

moved far enough and sufficient time is available. Moving 200 tons to MSFC by rail from Flagstaff, AZ, is definitely more economical than by truck. By rail, low-cost simulant materials can use 

aggregate or mill gondolas, which are open top cars designed for this service. Each car can move 

approximately 100 tons of rock. Gondolas are loaded and unloaded from above. The unloading 

is done by positioning a backhoe on top of the car and scooping material into an adjacent dump 

truck. If really large quantities are moved on a continuing basis, bottom dump hoppers or even 

rotating dump cars can be used, but these require special structures at the unloading location.

 Rail transport over several hundred miles will be done by one or more class 1 railroads, such 

as Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Union Pacific (UP), or Norfolk Southern (NS). They 

will charge based on the type and number of cars and who supplies them, the distance, cost of fuel, 

the type of material, and the required schedule. The following gives an example quote:

• Leg 1: $11,210 from Flagstaff to Memphis

 – BNSF rule 11 rate to Memphis is $4,980/car + mileage-based surcharge of $0.41/mile (April) × 

 ~1,525 miles = $625/car ($4,980 + $625 = $5,605 × 2 = $11,210).

• Leg 2: $4,390 from Memphis to Huntsville

 – The NS rate on crushed stone 1,421,990 or volcanic scoria 1,491,410 in railroad supplied cars: 

 • Covered hopper/gondola: $2,195 per car × 2 cars = $4,390.

 • Open top, bottom dump: $1,996 per car × 2 cars = $3,992.

The cost per ton/mile is $0.051. 
10

 However, two additional cost elements must be included in this—loading and unloading. 

Loading and unloading each have two elements that will affect cost. First, use of sidings or spurs 

is required. Unless the source quarry and the receiving Center have rail facilities they control, there 

is likely to be a cost associated with use of someone else’s facilities. Second, the operators loading 

or unloading must be permitted to work on and around railcars. The loading can be done with 

front-end loaders, conveyors, or other techniques. The unloading of aggregate gondolas is done 

by placing a backhoe on top of the gondola. The backhoe then moves the material into adjacent dump trucks for transport to the final location. For the unloading at MSFC, estimates were 

obtained in 2013 of between $8,000 and $10,000 for a total of two railcars.

3.3 Comparison of Rail Versus Truck From Flagstaff to Marshall Space Flight Center

 It used to be very common for quarries and pits to have rail connection; that is much less 

common as of this writing. If it is available, it can be a major cost savings. Otherwise, the material 

must be trucked from the pit to a railhead. There it will be dumped on the ground and loaded into 

railcars. Finding a siding or spur where the material can be loaded is a substantial problem and 

there are no sources that provide specific possibilities in a given location. It has been necessary to 

study imagery of a railroad track in an area as seen by Google and then calling local individuals to 

get leads to the owners of the siding. Then, it is necessary to find a local contractor willing to do 

the loading of the rail cars. 

 Delivery by truck is likely to be quicker than by rail. There are fewer parties involved, 

and many quarries, especially the smaller ones, only have direct access via truck.
11

4. GEOLOGY

 For a user of simulants, the parameters most commonly of interest are particle size distribution and composition. Grinding rock to a specific size is extremely energy intensive and requires 

special skills and equipment. Rock that must be ground to meet a particle size distribution specification will no longer be a low-cost material. Therefore, a low-cost simulant must be selected 

from candidates produced for other reasons or are byproducts. The range of candidates is further 

constrained by a desire to replicate characteristics of the Moon related to the composition of the 

particles. 

 The lunar surface is approximately ‘basaltic’ in composition, meaning it is dominated by 

the minerals plagioclase, pyroxenes, and olivine in varying abundances. Due to various processes, 

including volcanism and hypervelocity impacts, a varying percentage of the minerals has been 

converted to a vesicular glass. The lunar regolith is generally a grey color, contains no oxidized or 

hydrated iron, and is dominated by very small particles. For detailed information on the regolith, 

see the Lunar Sourcebook.

5

 Assuming that composition is relevant, there are several terrestrial types of rock generally 

considered suitable for low-cost lunar simulants. All fall within a limited range of chemical composition when expressed as weight percent oxides. To a geologist, the obvious differences between 

the types are the size of the crystals formed by the minerals and the abundance of glass. Differing 

combinations of composition and crystal size have specific technical names.6 The nonlunar specialist is warned that the lunar geology community has never consistently adopted the International 

Union of Geological Sciences naming standards. Therefore, that literature must be read with some 

care with regard to rock names, especially when comparing to the technical descriptions of terrestrial rocks. 

 When the crystals in the rock are large enough to be readily apparent and plagioclase is the 

dominant, but not the only significant mineral, the rock will generally be a gabbro. If the crystals 

are just barely visible to the eye, it may be termed a diabase. Diabase is a term that is no longer 

used by geologists, but it is present in the older literature, it is used informally, and it is used by 

some quarry operations. Gabbros and diabases are classed as intrusive rocks, implying the liquid 

rock did not reach the surface of the Earth. If the crystals are microscopic, the rock is a basalt. 

Basalts may or may not contain glass. Basalts are classed as extrusive rocks, implying the liquid 

rock did reach the surface of the Earth. Commercially, gabbro, diabase, and basalt can also be 

called trap rock. This is especially common with the metabasalts, defined below. For more information on relevant rock naming conventions, see section 1 of Rickman et al.7

 If the basalt has abundant bubbles—termed vesicles—that are visible to the unaided eye, 

the rock is called scoria. The vesicles are caused by the gentle exsolution of compounds, such as 

water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the liquid rock before the glass could solidify. If the 
12

exsolution process is more rapid, the escaping gases can blow the magma out the throat of the 

volcano, much like a shaken container of cola expels the liquid. The liquid rock cools as it travels 

through the air, forming particles ranging in size from large blocks to micron-sized particles. The 

larger particles fall closer to the vent and form a cinder cone. The expelled particles are very high in 

glass and are highly vesicular. Those particles smaller than 2 mm are termed volcanic ash. Material 

between 2 and 64 mm are lapilli or cinders. Still larger particles are volcanic bombs (fig. 8). 

Figure 8. Volcanic bomb from McCoy, CO. The highly vesticular nature of the material 

is apparent. The original dark-gray material lightens as it weathers, which is 

easily seen along the left side of the rock; sample provided by Andres Aslan 

(millimeter scale).

If near surface water is involved in the eruption, the iron (Fe++) in the molten rock can 

become oxidized to Fe+++. As a result, the particles become distinctly red. The gases involved 

in the eruption can also deposit minerals such as gypsum. Such minerals are not present or are 

extremely rare on the Moon and they are also easily seen, even in small concentrations.

The age of a cinder cone is important. In arid climates like the American Southwest, 

a material called caliche forms as part of the weathering process (fig. 9). All other things equal, 

the older the material, the more caliche will have formed. Caliche is a white material and nonlunar 

in composition. 
13

Figure 9. Probable caliche deposit (white) on a volcanic bomb from McCoy, CO; sample 

provided by Andres Aslan (millimeter scale).

Adding the term ‘meta-’ as a prefix to the rock name means that, after its original formation, the rock has been metamorphosed. This means it has been subjected to enough heat and 

pressure to noticeably change the original rock. Glass, if originally present, will be converted to 

minerals, existing crystals may grow or disappear, and new minerals will appear. The new minerals 

of metamorphic origin, such as serpentine, commonly grow at the expense of any original pyroxenes and olivine. The metamorphic minerals commonly are green, thus the meta-basalts and 

meta-gabbros tend to have a green cast.
14

5. PRODUCERS

 In the United States there are producers for each of the above types of rocks. By far, most 

of the production is for use as aggregate and road metal. If the source material is a solid rock, the 

producing facility is termed a quarry. If the rock is being extracted for reasons other than for aggregate or road metal, the producing facility will usually be called a mine. The mine or quarry operator will blast the stone free from the Earth; it is then crushed. 

 Postcrushing processes differ in mines and quarries. In mines the rock will be further 

ground, normally to particle sizes substantially smaller than 1 mm. Then one or more valuable constituents will be extracted using chemical and mechanical processes. The remainder is waste and is 

returned to the mine for burial or sent to a landfill on the mine property. Quarries do not need or 

want particle sizes as small as a mine requires. 

 In a quarry, after crushing, the material is sent over large, vibrating screens which separate 

the particles by size into different products. The size distribution for a product is typically expressed 

in percent passing a series of screens, whose opening is expressed in units termed mesh (table 2). 

The size distribution for a product is referred to as its gradations (‘grads’ for short). The product 

size distributions available from each producer vary substantially. Products finer than 8 mesh, often 

called a manufactured sand, are finer than many operations will produce. However, the crushing 

process invariably produces a dust-sized material that usually must be captured to meet air pollution standards. Such dust, which is commonly a waste product, is very suitable for many uses of 

simulant, especially those dominated by mechanical properties.8

 Quarries working trap rock—basalt, metabasalt, and diabase—are often referred to as ‘hard 

rock’ quarries. The stone is very hard and resistant to comminution. 

 Both mines and quarries are large-scale operations. Quarries producing more than 1 million 

tons of product a year are common. Most purchasers of quarry products are interested in many 

thousands of tons at a time. Thus, the purchase of a hundred tons is a small order.

 Production techniques used when extracting material from a cinder cone are significantly 

different compared to either mining or quarrying. The source material does not require drilling, 

blasting, or crushing. The quarry facility is commonly called a pit or cinder pit. In these operations, 

there is no need to blast the rock. It is simply scooped up using a front-end loader and passed over 

vibrating screens, as is done with the crushed rock produced by a quarry. This makes the per ton 

cost for cinder significantly less than the cost for basalt or metabasalt. It also means that cinder 

operations do not typically have a product that is finer than 2 mm as a standard product.
15

Table 2. Approximate mesh to metric conversion 

table. The two common mesh standards 

used in the United States are very similar. 

Millimeter Tyler Mesh US Mesh

4.8 4 4

3.4 6 6

2.4 8 8

2 9 10

1.7 10 12

1.4 12 14

1.2 14 16

1 16 18

0.85 20 20

0.71 24 25

0.6 28 30

0.5 32 35

0.425 35 40

0.355 42 45

0.3 48 50

0.25 60 60

0.212 65 70

0.18 80 80

0.15 100 100

0.125 115 120

0.106 150 140

0.09 170 170

0.075 200 200

 As blasting and crushing operations are very energy intensive, the minimum cost for quarry 

or cinder pit products reflects the cost of energy and the wear and tear on equipment. In the spring 

of 2013, per ton costs for 200 tons of material produced from hard rock quarries was between $20 

and $40 per ton at the quarry mouth. Material from cinder pits ranged from $7 to $20 per ton. 

Special run material or processes requiring special handling, such as loading into super sacks, can 

increase the cost per ton substantially. If the product is a waste or byproduct, such as a dust, the 

cost may be much lower. Prices for quarry products are quoted based on the customer taking delivery in the quarry or cinder pit. 

 Once a candidate producer is identified, it is critical to obtain samples of the product. Producers are used to shipping samples as large as a 5-gallon bucket at request. If analyses are done on 

the material, it is a courtesy to share the results with the producer. Due to health risks, as explained 

in section 8, the abundance of certain silica phases may need to be checked. The most likely mineral to be present and requiring measurement is quartz. Amorphous silica species and cristobalite 

may also need to be checked. 
16

 Relevant and active quarries east of the Mississippi are exclusively working metabasalts or 

intrusive rocks. Therefore, they lack vesicular glass, the crystals are larger than is generally desired, 

and many contain metamorphic minerals. Basalts and volcanic ash/cinder are available in most 

of the Rocky Mountain states. Metabasalts are also produced in some western areas, especially in 

California. Section 6 segregates the quarries into basalt and metabasalt producers versus operations in volcanic cinder cones.
17

6. BASALT AND METABASALT PRODUCERS

 Due to the cost of shipping, for Glenn Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center 

(GSFC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and MSFC, basalt and metabasalt quarries are financially 

attractive sources of low-cost simulant. Along the Atlantic seaboard, the most southerly quarry 

producing rock with a potentially useful composition is in Butner, NC, operated by Sunrock. More 

quarries are found in most of the coastal states to the north of this. Other quarries are found 

around the western Great Lakes states. There is also a quarry in Missouri operated by Central 

Stone, near Knob Lick. 

 There are few producers west of the Mississippi and east of central Colorado. Vulcan 

Materials operates a major quarry in west-central Texas at Knippa, working a basalt. Starting at 

the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains and going west, there is a large number of basalt and 

metabasalt producers.

 Potential sources communicated within the search for material by MSFC for the Lunar 

Surface Testbed are given in sections 6.1 through 6.7.

6.1 Central Oregon Basalt Products, LLC

Scott Andrews

Managing Partner

1747 Mill St.

Madras, OR 97741

Phone: 541–460–3823

scotta@madras.net

 This material is a basalt. Samples were provided by the producer. It was tested for MSFC 

by DCM Science using a modified NIOSH 7500 method and found to have 0.22% quartz.

6.2 Napa Valley Mining Co., LLC

Lat. 45.379709°, Lon. –92.631508°

Karry C. Friendly, C.E.O. 

 Phone: 425–239–2900

Mark Lipsky

 903–316–8519

William Leon Telander

 7527 Cashew Drive

 Chicago, IL 60462

 Phone: 708–444–1066
18

 This material is a metabasalt; the quarry is the Dresser, WI, quarry. Samples were provided 

by Napa Valley Mining. This product is believed to be the waste fines removed from the aggregrate 

produced by Dresser. The MSDS for the Dresser quarry trap rock states it has a quartz content 

of 2.27%.

6.3 Reade Advanced Products

Bethany L. Satterfield 

V.P./Regional Manager 

P.O. Drawer #12820 

Reno, NV 89510 

Phone: 775–352–1000 

bsatterfield@reade.com

 They have two quarries, both producing metabasalt. Samples were provided by the 

producer.

6.4 Sunrock

Lat. 36.115°, Lon. –78.771°

Kenton Richardson 

Market Manager Southern Region and Railroad 

200 Horizon Drive, Suite 100 

Raleigh, NC 27615 

krichardson@thesunrockgroup.com 

Phone: 919–747–6366 

Fax: 919–747–6367

Alternate:

John Tankard

Vice President Plant & Equipment Services

Carolina Sunrock Corporate Headquarters

200 Horizon Drive, Suite 100

Raleigh, NC 27615

Phone: 919–747–6340

 Their quarry is in Butner, NC, and produces metabasalt. Samples were provided by the producer. It was tested for MSFC by DCM Science using a modified NIOSH 7500 method and found 

to have 0.26% quartz. 
19

6.5 Vulcan Materials Company

Lat. 29.285°, Lon. –99.659°

Jeff Johnson 

Vulcan Materials—Corporate Office 

1200 Urban Center Drive

Birmingham, AL 35242

Phone: 205–298–3000

johnsonj@vmcmail.com

 Their quarry is in Knippa, TX. Samples were provided by the producer. The locality is geologically well reported on. An old but useful reference is Lonsdale,9 which can be downloaded from 

<http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/bulletins/doc/Bull.htm/B6212.asp>.

6.6 Central Stone

Lat. 37.681°, Lon. –90.387°

Knob Lick, MO

Contact Randy

Phone: 314–378–4250

 No samples were obtained.

6.7 Other Known Producers

 The following are producers of basalt known to have at least one product smaller than 

1⁄4 inch. These were not contacted during the coarse of this work. The list was provided by 

Dr. Greta Orris of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It is not an exhaustive list.

• Washington State

Morrison Gravel

Port Orchard, WA

Phone: 360–876–4701

<http://www.morrisongravel.com/>

Randles Sand and Gravel

Puyallup, WA

Phone: 253–531–6800

<http://randlessandandgravel.net/RSG/>

EMU Topsoil

Poulsbo, WA

Phone: 360–779–5614

<http://www.emutopsoil.net/rock.htm>
20

• Oregon 

Mt. Hood Rock 

 Sandy, OR

Phone: 503–668–5237

<http://jimturin.com/mthoodrocks/>

Oldcastle Materials

Several operating companies in the western United States

<http://www.oldcastlematerials.com/>

• California 

Eagle Rock

 Contact Sherry

 Weaverville, CA

 Phone: 530–623–4444

 Lyngso

 Redwood City, CA

 Phone: 650–361–1933

 <http://www.lyngsogarden.com/>
21

7. CINDER CONE QUARRIES BY STATE

 There are cinder cones in most of the states in the Rocky Mountain region. For creation 

of the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed, only sources in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado were 

considered due to shipping costs. Finding candidate producers is not simple. Many cinder pits are 

small-scale operations compared to quarries in the eastern part of the United States; they do not 

advertise and they typically do not have any ‘Web presence.’ Further, the operations are frequently 

intermittent and seasonal.

 The best way to find these producers is to contact specialists interested in volcanology, 

geologic mapping, or production of industrial minerals, and experienced in a specific locality of 

interest. Leads to such individuals can be obtained through the State Geological Survey in the 

individual state. All states have geologic surveys and they are charged with knowing about the geology of the state and assisting production of mineral wealth, <http://www.stategeologists.org/index.

php>. When contacted, they will be able to provide information based on their own knowledge and 

recommend useful academic contacts. Each state also maintains records of current, licensed producers of industrial mineral products in the state. Sometimes the authority to do this is in the State 

Geological Survey. However, as this is normally part of a regulatory process, the records may be 

elsewhere. In New Mexico, it is in the Mining and Minerals Division, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.

 There is considerable variation in the color and standard size distributions available from 

each producer. Figures 10 and 11 show selected samples photographed against a standard background. Each of the samples is from a producer discussed below. The photos also show there is 

considerable variation within some samples. This is especially apparent in the materials after washing to remove dust and other fines.
22

Figure 10. Selected sample of volcanic cinder and ash products; see text for discussion: 

(A) BTU coarse, (B) BTU fine, (C) Oldcastle, (D) McCoy, CO, (E) Miller 

Mining coarse, (F) Miller Mining fine, (G) J.E. Wells, and (H) McCoy, CO.

Photographs taken outdoors in shade with southern exposure against 18% 

gray card (produced by Delta 1/CPM, Inc.)
23

Figure 11. Selected samples after washing with water to remove dust-sized particles 

and then air dried: (A) BTU coarse, (B) Miller Mining, (C) J.E. Wells, and 

(D) Oldcastle (millimeter scale). Photographs taken outdoors in shade with 

southern exposure against 18% gray card (produced by Delta 1/CPM, Inc.)
24

Figure 12 shows an index map for some producers in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and 

Texas. Each of the potential sources for a volcanic cinder or ash product considered for the MSFC 

Lunar Surface Testbed is discussed below. All available and relevant information is retained in this 

TM.

Figure 12. Index map for some producers in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, 

and Texas considered in this TM: (A) Bratton Enterprises, McCoy, CO, 

(B) Miller Mining and Oldcastle, Flagstaff, AZ, (C) B.T.U. TMR Pit, 

(D) Cinder Mountain, (E) Red Hill Mine, (F) La Cienega Mine and 

Cerrito Pelado Mine, (G) Acme Brick, (H) Black Bear Mountain Pit, 

(J) Knippa,TX (made in Google maps). 
25

7.1 Arizona

7.1.1 Miller Mining, Inc.

Lat. 35.3238°, Lon. –111.2842°

Diana Baires, Office Manager 

Miller Mining, Inc. 

P.O. Box 31289 

Flagstaff, AZ 86003 

Phone: 928–526–5700

The pit is near Merriam Crater, northeast of Flagstaff, AZ. It is owned by Robert Miller, 

7011 North US Highway 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86004-1111, Phone: 928–526–5757. Miller Mining 

is associated with Flagstaff Landscape Products, 6500 Old Highway 66 E, Flagstaff, AZ. Figures 13–15 show the location of the Crater/Miller Mining, details of the quarry operation, and 

mining operation perspective, respectively.

Figure 13. Location of Merriam Crater/Miller Mining, Oldcastle operation 

and Flagstaff, AZ (from Google Maps).
26

Figure 14. Details of Miller Mining quarry operation at Merriam Crater 

(from Google Maps).

Quarry

Operations

Figure 15. Miller Mining operation perspective looking northeast, no 

verticle exaggeration (rendered by Google Earth).
27

 This operation has no rail access in the pit. Samples were provided by the producer. The 

quoted price for the black cinder sand is $7/ton and the cinder fines is $60/ton. Table 3 shows the 

gradations for the two products.

Table 3. Gradations for the two products purchased 

for the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed.

Inches and 

Mesh Millimeters

Percent Passing

Black Cinder 

Sand

Cinder Fines 

‘Biosphere’

3/8 in 9.5 100 –

1/4 in 6.3 99 –

4 4.75 92 –

8 2.36 57 100

10 2 48 99

16 1.18 32 87

30 0.6 22 71

40 0.425 18 65

50 0.3 15 56

100 0.15 9 35

200 0.075 5.5 19.6

 This is the source of feedstock for the JSC-1 family of simulants. Therefore, compositional 

information about JSC-1 or JSC-1A applies to this material. 

 Analysis of the JSC-1AF lunar simulant material for quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite was 

done by the RJ Lee Group, Inc., 350 Hochberg Road, Monroeville, PA 15146. The technique used 

was described in their report: “A portion of the sample was ground to a fine powder, mixed with 

calcium fluoride (CaF2 ) as an internal standard, ground further, and back-loaded into a standard XRD holder. The sample was then scanned using standard run parameters on a PANalytical 

X’Pert Pro XRD unit, equipped with copper radiation. The weight percentage of silica was calculated through the use of the internal standard and calibration coefficients derived from standards 

NIST 1878a quartz, NIST 1879a cristobalite, and NIOSH/IITRI TY27 tridymite mixed with 

CaF2.” Their certified results say there is <0.2% quartz, 0.2% cristobalite, and below detection limit 

(0.1%) tridymite in JSC-1AF. The quartz concentration was measured at 0.008%.

 A chemical analysis of the JSC-1A material done by the USGS is shown in table 4. 

Figure 16 shows total alkali versus SiO2 space.
28

Table 4. Weight percent abundance of major elements 

and normative mineralogy for JSC-1A.

Oxide Wt. %

Normative 

Mineral Wt. %

SiO2 47.1 Quartz –

TiO2 1.87 Orthoclase 5.14

Al2O3 17.1 Plagioclase 56.35

Fe2O3 3.41 An 50.8

FeO 7.57 Diopside 13.75

MnO 0.18 Olivine 13.79

MgO 6.9 Magnetite 4.97

CaO 10.3 Ilmenite 3.57

Na2O 3.3 Apatite 1.76

K2O 0.86 – –

P2O5 0.76 – –

Total 99.35 Total 100

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

36 40 44 48 52 56 60

SiO2 (wt. %)

Na2O + K20 (wt. %)

64 68 72 76 80 84

Phonolite

Trachyte

Trachydacite

Trachybasalt

Phonotephrite Trachyandesite

Foidite

Basalt Basaltic

Andesite

Picrobasalt

Tephrite

Basaltic

Trachyandesite

Basanite

Tephriphonolite

Andesite Dacite

Rhyolite

Figure 16. Miller Mining product plotted in total alkali versus SiO2 space 

(produced by NAVDAT.org). 
29

7.1.2 Oldcastle

Lat. 35.222°, Lon. –111.409°

East of Flagstaff, AZ, at Sheeps Hill, just north of the Winona exit of I-40.

John Heffernan

Phone: 602–352–3838

Cell: 602–463–5993 

John.Heffernan@oldcastle.com

Terry Mitchell

Pit Manager

Phone: 928–607–2387 

Terry.mitchell2@oldcastle.com

 This operation has rail access in the pit. A sample was provided by the producer. It was 

concluded this material has too much red coloration for the desired application. Figure 17 gives 

the operation overview for the Oldcastle pit.

Figure 17. Oldcastle, Sheeps Hill, Flagstaff, AZ, operation overview (from Google Maps).
30

 7.2 New Mexico

The following operations were taken from a list provided by the state of New Mexico. Each 

instance includes the latitude and longitude of the operation and what contact information is available. Also included are reference image captured from Google Maps. Any analytical information 

and descriptive information is then included.

7.2.1 B.T.U. TMR Pit

Lat. 36.8182°, Lon. –103.8855°

Buddy Sonchar

B.T.U. Block & Concrete, Inc.

115 Cimarron Ave.

P.O. Box 578

Raton, NM 87740

Phone: 575–445–2373 

buddysonch@hotmail.com

This material was deemed satisfactory for the MSFC Lunar Surface Testbed. 

This cone is part of the Raton-Clayton volcanic field (fig. 18). Its measured age is 5,200 

years old. The cinder cone is northeast of the Capulin Volcano National Monument, on the road 

between Folsom and Des Moines. There are both red and black cinders in the cone. 

Figure 18. Image of B.T.U. TMR operation (from Google Maps.
31

 The rail access visible in Google images is no longer available. Samples were provided by 

the producer. The sample obtained has no visibly obvious red coloration. The cinder is extremely 

vesicular, so much so that many of the larger particles float in water.

 The literature clearly states this cone has an unusually high quartz content, possibly due 

to zenolithic material. These statements need to be checked by careful analysis for quartz and 

cristobalite, which was not done for this TM. The weight percent oxides and normative mineralogy 

is shown in table 5. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the Twin Mountain cone is shown in figure 19.

Table 5. Weight percent oxides and normative mineralogy. 

Data from Zhu,10 sample 855-273, Twin Mountain, 

Lat. 36.8217o, Lon. –103.8808o. 

Oxide Wt. %

Normative 

Mineral Wt. %

SiO2 51.43 Quartz –

TiO2 1.5 Orthoclase 7.58

Al2O3 16.44 Plagioclase 56.15

Fe2O3 2.38 An 41.6

FeO 7.92 Diopside 11.71

MnO 0.18 Hypersthene 8.76

MgO 6.38 Olivine 8.64

CaO 8.2 Magnetite 3.44

Na2O 3.78 Ilmenite 2.86

K2O 1.28 Apatite 0.91

P2O5 0.38 – –

BaO 0.07 – –

SrO 0.06 – –

Total 100 Total 99.96
32

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

36 40 44 48 52 56 60

SiO2 (wt. %)

Na2O + K20 (wt. %)

64 68 72 76 80 84

Phonolite

Trachyte

Trachydacite

Trachybasalt

Phonotephrite Trachyandesite

Foidite

Basalt Basaltic

Andesite

Picrobasalt

Tephrite

Basaltic

Trachyandesite

Basanite

Tephriphonolite

Andesite Dacite

Rhyolite

Figure 19. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the Twin Mountain cone (produced 

by NAVDAT.org). 

 The NAVDAT citation for this locality is <http://www.navdat.org/NavdatPortal/GetSample.

cfm?sample_id=855-273&georef=1996-063618>. The NAVDAT data are from Zhu and contain 

minor transcription errors compared to publish dissertation.10

 A sample of the material was analyzed by Dr. Nelia W. Dumbar of the New Mexico Geological Survey. The following is quoted from her report of June 06, 2013. 

“This basaltic sample consists of cinders several mm in diameter, along with a crushed 

split of cinders. The two samples were prepped together. The material in the sample 

consists of glassy to partially crystalline vesiculated basalt. The range of crystallinity and vesicularity varies from one cinder to the next. In the backscattered electron 

images (BSE), the brightness of the imaged area depends on the mean atomic number 

of the imaged material. Much of the imaged material is basaltic glass, which is bright. 

The black matrix is epoxy. The lathe-like darker grey minerals are plagioclase, which is 

quite abundant and shows flow alignment in some cinder fragments. Two generations of 

olivine are also present, an early, large, magnesian olivine (mean atomic number similar 

to the glass) and a later stage, more Fe rich olivine that are small and bright.”

“Chemical maps for Si, Fe, and K were carried out on one part of the sample (2.5x2.5 

mm area). A very small number of Si-rich areas, probably some form of quartz, were 

recognized (see bright areas on Si map). These were imaged with BSE and found to be 

small (~5 micron) fragments lodged in vesicles.” 
33

 Microprobe analyses of the material done by Dr. Dunbar are given in table 6. Figures 20–33 

are from her report.

Table 6. Analyses of B.T.U. cinder (by Nelia Dunbar). 

Sample 

Number Species SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 BaO SrO Cr2O3 SO2 NiO F Cl Total

1 Plag 50.88 – 29.29 0.67 – – 13.40 3.56 0.16 – – 0.11 – – – – – 98.06 

2 Plag 52.69 – 28.5 0.92 – – 11.83 4.36 0.26 – 0.02 0.13 – – – – – 98.69 

3 Olivine 38.89 0.03 – 21.2 0.23 40.53 0.22 – – – – – 0.03 – 0.1 – – 101.22 

4 Olivine 39.02 0.05 – 20.76 0.27 41.09 0.3 – – – – – 0.06 – 0.09 – – 101.63 

5 Plag 52.71 – 28.34 0.74 – – 12.04 4.31 0.23 – 0.04 0.14 – – – – – 98.55 

6 Plag 51.33 – 29.58 0.7 – – 13.25 3.7 0.16 – – 0.14 – – – – – 98.85 

7 Glass 51.56 1.55 16.29 10.41 0.26 5.07 8.6 3.8 1.28 0.39 – – – 0.03 – – 0.03 99.27 

8 Glass 51.85 1.68 16.01 10.48 0.19 4.86 8.45 3.69 1.3 0.42 – – – 0.04 – 0.26 0.04 99.26 

9 Glass 51.54 1.57 16.58 10.27 0.21 5.18 8.65 3.86 1.37 0.44 – – – 0.04 – 0.13 0.03 99.87 

10 Glass 52.15 1.49 16.8 9.98 0.18 4.95 8.52 3.68 1.31 0.46 – – – 0.02 – 0.19 0.04 99.77 

11 Glass 52.34 1.57 16.52 10.13 0.19 4.93 8.3 4.02 1.45 0.46 – – – – – – 0.03 99.94 

12 Glass 52.22 1.63 16.62 10.31 0.19 5.09 8.54 3.05 1.37 0.44 – – – 0.02 – 0.04 0.03 99.57 

13 Glass 51.48 1.52 16.53 10.36 0.22 5.04 8.73 3.5 1.28 0.47 – – – 0.02 – 0.18 0.02 99.37 

14 Glass 52.09 1.57 16.70 9.99 0.2 5.10 8.68 3.28 1.32 0.39 – – – 0.01 – – 0.04 99.35 

15 Glass 51.6 1.63 16.26 11.14 0.16 4.84 8.51 3.41 1.3 0.52 – – – 0.05 – 0.09 0.02 99.54 

16 Glass 53.27 1.59 16.4 10.15 0.2 4.93 8.11 2.71 1.64 0.46 – – – – – – 0.05 99.49 

17 Olivine 38.37 0.04 – 23.26 0.32 38.84 0.26 – – – – – 0.01 – 0.08 – – 101.19 

18 Olivine 38.76 0.01 – 21.38 0.3 40.69 0.28 – – – – – 0.02 – 0.1 – – 101.54 

19 Olivine 37.72 0.1 – 26.14 0.38 35.53 0.43 – – – – – 0.02 – 0.06 – – 100.38 

20 Olivine 37.73 0.07 – 26.16 0.33 36.36 0.44 – – – – – 0.06 – 0.07 – – 101.23 

21 Plag 53.97 – 27.45 0.99 – – 11.26 4.79 0.28 – – 0.18 – – – – – 98.92 

22 Plag 52.6 – 28.25 1.19 – – 11.99 4.19 0.23 – 0.04 0.19 – – – – – 98.66 

23 Plag 53.31 – 24.56 3.86 – – 10.36 4.46 0.64 – – 0.12 – – – – – 97.32 

24 Glass 52.21 2.06 14.53 11.67 0.12 4.4 8.14 4.05 1.75 0.51 – – – 0.03 – 0.17 0.04 99.69 

25 Glass 52.23 1.9 14.77 11.56 0.17 4.24 8.31 3.99 1.62 0.55 – – – 0.03 – 0.08 0.05 99.51 
34

Figure 20. Index of sample points probed and illustrative textures of B.T.U. 

cinder. Shows partially crystalline cinder as well as glassier crushed 

cinders (BSE image).

Figure 21. Index of sample points probed and illustrative textures of crushed 

cinder fragments from the B.T.U. pit (BSE image).
35

Figure 22. Index of sample points probed and detail from figure 18 illustrative 

textures of B.T.U. cinder. Blowup of figure 26 showing phenocrysts 

(BSE image).

Figure 23. Glassy cinder fragments (BSE image).
36

Figure 24. Large vesiculated fragment (BSE image).

Figure 25. Denser, lower vesicularity fragment (BSE image).
37

Figure 26. Vesicular fragment with flow alignment of plagioclase (BSE image).

Figure 27. Moderately crystalline cinder fragment (BSE image).
38

Figure 28. Low crystalline cinder fragment (BSE image).

Figure 29. Low crystalline, high vesicularity cinder (BSE image).
39

Figure 30. Two large olivine in mostly aphyric glass (BSE image).

Figure 31. Iron abundance based on the Kα line (compare fig. 20). 
40

Figure 32. Potassium abundance based on the Kα line (compare fig. 20).
41

Figure 33. Silicone abundance based on the Kα line (compare fig. 20).
42

7.2.2 Black Bear Mountain Pit

Lat. 32.07°, Lon. –106.79°

Del Norte Masonry Products, Inc. 

4560 Ripley Dr. 

El Paso, TX 79922 

Phone: 915–584–4453

There is no rail access in the pit. 

According to Kay Backer, the land is owned by the BLM. Under the terms of their agreement with Del Norte, the company cannot sell the cinder. They can only use it in their own 

product. A sample of this material was not obtained. 

The cone pictured in figure 34 is part of the Potrillo volcanic field.

Figure 34. Black Bear Mountain Pit (from Google Maps).
43

7.2.3 Cerrito Pelado Mine

Lat. 35.65°, Lon. –106.15°

Pavestone, LLC

North American Marble Division

229 Industrial Park Rd.

Cartersville, GA 30121

Phone: 770–607–3345 

A sample of this material was not obtained. This material is red and therefore not suitable 

for a general-purpose lunar simulant (fig. 35).

Figure 35. Cerrito Pelado Mine (from Google Maps).
44

7.2.4 Cinder Mountain Pit

Lat. 36.50°, Lon. –103.55°

Volcanic Stone Company 

1553 FM 2203 

Dumas, TX 79029 

Phone: 806–935–6966

There is no rail access in the pit. 

Part of the Raton-Clayton volcanic field is shown in figure 36. This site does not have an 

entry in NAVDAT. Samples of this material were not obtained. It would be advisable for samples 

to be obtained and analyzed in the future as this is the eastern-most cinder pit in the western 

United States and it may have a black/grey cinder. 

Figure 36. Cinder Mountain Pit (from Google Maps).
45

7.2.5 La Cienega Mine

Lat. 35.62°, Lon. –106.14°

Crego Block

6140 2nd Street NW

Albuquerque, NM 87107

Phone: 505–850–3982 

A sample of this material was not obtained. This material is red and therefore not suitable 

for a general-purpose lunar simulant. See figure 37.

Figure 37. La Cienega Mine (from Google Maps).
46

7.2.6 Red Hill Mine

Lat. 36.77°, Lon. –106.01°

Colorado Lava, Inc.

P.O. Box 151

Milan, IL 61264

Phone: 800–528–2765

A sample of this material was not obtained. This material is red and therefore not suitable 

for a general-purpose lunar simulant. See figure 38.

Figure 38. Red Hill Mine (from Google Maps).
47

7.2.7 Acme Brick

Lat. 32.2211°, Lon. –107.2305°

Part of the Potrillo Volcanic Field

Acme Brick (used to be FeatherLite)

El Paso, TX 

Contacts: 

Don Welch or Steve Bush

Phone: 915–859–9171

Ysai, Production Manger

Phone: 915–471–1799

A sample of this material was requested but not obtained.

The NAVDAT entry for this location is <http://www.navdat.org/NavdatPortal/GetSample.

cfm?sample_id=882&georef=2006-083239>. The age given for the cone is 40,000 years. Figure 39 

shows the Acme Brick volcanic field. Table 7 shows the normative mineralogy weight percent for 

the cinder cone. Total alkali versus SiO2 is shown in figure 40.

Figure 39. Acme Brick (from Google Maps).
48

Table 7. Weight percent oxides and normative mineralogy 

for Acme Brick cinder cone (from NAVDAT.org).

Oxide Wt. %

Normative 

Mineral Wt. %

SiO2 45.06 Quartz –

TiO2 2.81 Orthoclase 11.41

Al2O3 15.75 Plagioclase 28.13

Fe2O3 12.16 An 61.2

MnO 0.19 Diopside 20.06

MgO 8.6 Hypersthene –

CaO 9.64 Olivine 15.48

Na2O 4.37 Magnetite 3.51

K2O 1.94 Ilmenite 5.32

P2O5 0.8 Apatite 1.85

Total 101.32 Total 99.99

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

36 40 44 48 52 56 60

SiO2 (wt. %)

Na2O + K20 (wt. %)

64 68 72 76 80 84

Phonolite

Trachyte

Trachydacite

Trachybasalt

Phonotephrite Trachyandesite

Foidite

Basalt

Basaltic

Andesite

Picrobasalt

Tephrite

Basaltic

Trachyandesite

Basanite

Tephriphonolite

Andesite Dacite

Rhyolite

Figure 40. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the Acme Brick cinder pit (produced 

by NAVDAT.org).
49

7.2.8 J.E. Wells 

Las Cruces, NM 

Phone: 575–496–4503

 Mr. Wells buys and sells volcanic cinder products nationwide. A sample of material was 

received and judged to have more red and white flecks than are desirable. His operation is at the 

intersection of W. Amadore and Compress Rd. in Las Cruces. He was unwilling to specify the 

exact location of his source.

7.3 Colorado

7.3.1 McCoy, Colorado

Lat. 39.9720°, Lon. –106.7032°

Jim Bratton, owner, resident of Yampa, CO

Bratton Enterprises

3333 Conger Mesa Rd.

McCoy, CO 80463

Phone: 970–653–4345

Contact: Travis

 They do have rail access through UP. The finest sized product is 3/8 inch or less, and is 

$8.50/ton. They have both black and red products. Samples were obtained from the producer. 

The McCoy cinder pit is shown in figure 41. Figure 42 gives total alkali versus SiO2 for the McCoy 

cinder pit.
50

Figure 41. Bratton Enterprise, McCoy, CO, cinder pit (from Google Maps).

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

36 40 44 48 52 56 60

SiO2 (wt. %)

Na2O + K20 (wt. %)

64 68 72 76 80 84

Phonolite

Trachyte

Trachydacite

Trachybasalt

Phonotephrite Trachyandesite

Foidite

Basalt Basaltic

Andesite

Picrobasalt

Tephrite

Basaltic

Trachyandesite

Basanite

Tephriphonolite

Andesite Dacite

Rhyolite

Figure 42. Total alkali versus SiO2 for the McCoy, CO, cinder pit (produced 

by NAVDAT.org).
51

 The reference in NAVDAT for this cone is <http://www.navdat.org/NavdatPortal/GetSample.cfm?sample_id=US111&georef=1989-064162>. The age given there for the cone is 640,000 

years, which is from Larson et al.11 Table 8 shows weight oxides and normative mineralogy.

Table 8. Weight percent oxides and normative 

mineralogy (from NAVDAT.org).

Oxide Wt. %

Normative 

Mineral Wt. %

SiO2 47.78 Quartz –

TiO2 1.86 Orthoclase 15.07

Al2O3 16.03 Plagioclase 31.95

Fe2O3 10.91 An 47.1

FeO – Diopside 16.98

MnO 0.166 Olivine 13.05

MgO 6.47 Magnetite 3.19

CaO 9.13 Ilmenite 3.57

Na2O 4.09 Apatite 2.41

K2O 2.53 – –

P2O5 1.03 – –

Total 100 Total 100
52
53

8. SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND SERVICES

8.1 Analyses

 Materials considered for purchase may need to be characterized for various parameters. One 

of the parameters of major interest is the content of respirable hazardous silicone dioxide (SiO2) 

mineral phases. As noted in a subsequent section, this analysis presents specialized problems when 

dealing with basaltic geologic materials. It is strongly recommended that any analysis for quartz or 

cristobalite be done by a certified laboratory knowledgeable about and able to deal with these problems. The contact information for one such lab is:

DCM Science Lab

Ron Schott, Lab Director

12421 W. 49th Ave., Unit #6

Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

Phone: 800–852–7340

 The method they use is a modification of the NIOSH 7500 technique. The sample is attacked 

by phosphoric acid according to a specific protocol. This removes much of the ‘matrix’ material, concentrating the quartz. Their fees for this analysis are as follows:

• Bulk silica with phosphoric treatment (quartz) 

 $260 per sample

 $40 each additional polymorph, per sample, if necessary

• Respirable fraction with phosphoric treatment (quartz) 

 $315 per sample

 $40 each additional polymorph, per sample, if necessary.

8.2 Geology

 Cinder cones are normally part of large features called volcanic fields. For example, the San 

Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF), of which Merriam Crater is a part, covers 4,700 km2 and contains 

600 volcanoes. The age of the volcanoes in the SFVF ranges from almost 6 million years old to less 

than 1,000 years old. While volcanoes in a specific volcanic field usually have many similarities, each 

cone in a volcanic field is compositionally distinct. Therefore, it is important to get specific information about specific deposits. 

 Finding any technical information about specific cones is generally difficult. Cinder pits are 

small-scale operations compared to many hard rock quarries; and, there tends to be little technical 

literature specific to individual producers. If there is published information about a local, it is likely, 

but not always, to be found in the Western North American Volcanic and Intrusive Rock Database, 

NAVDAT <http://www.navdat.org/>.
54

 To learn about the geology of a deposit, as discrete from locating producers, directly contacting all the universities in the state that have departments of geology or earth sciences is useful. 

These are readily found by doing an Internet search. Not all departments will have anyone with 

an interest relevant to the search. However, they frequently will know who probably does and can 

direct the effort appropriately.

 The USGS can also be a very useful source of information. Their relevant interests arise 

from several mandates. First, they have active geologic mapping programs, and the individuals 

engaged in this must become highly knowledgeable about the regions in which they work. Second, like the state surveys, they are charged with assisting in the economic production of geologic 

resources. Finally, they have active research programs in which volcanology is a significant element. 

As the USGS is a large organization, it can be difficult to find the correct person to start with. 

Unless one has personal contacts inside the Survey, it is probably prudent to begin with the second 

point, industrial mineral production. 
55

9. NOTES ON THE HEALTH RISKS OF CRYSTALLINE SILICA

 Simulant materials may represent a health risk if the particles are small enough or it contains any of several ‘silica’ phases. There are two ways to mitigate the potential risk. The first is to 

use material with particles large enough not be hazardous. The second way is to select material that 

does not contain hazardous phases. As the abundance of hazardous phases cannot be predicted 

with sufficient certainty, as has been demonstrated with experience with the BP-1 simulant, it is 

important to actually measure the abundances using a certified lab.

 Such analyses, as done on simulant materials, is complicated by the composition of basaltic rocks. The most common analytical techniques for these measurements use x-ray diffraction 

(XRD). Unfortunately, the most abundant mineral species in basalts is plagioclase, has diffraction 

lines that overlap the diffraction lines for quartz and cristobalite. This interference makes accurate 

measurement of these two minerals much more difficult, especially in low concentrations. This 

problem can be handled by various methods. It is important that, however the analysis is done, 

this interference is properly allowed for. 

 The following is a detailed statement about the health risk associated with particulates 

containing ‘silica’ phases:

 SiO2 is widely found in both nature and manufactured products. It is commonly referred 

to as ‘silica,’ which unfortunately is a term also used to describe other things. For a good discussion 

of this point, see Branch of Industrial Minerals Staff, 1992, Crystalline Silica Primer.

12 Naturally 

occurring crystalline materials are termed ‘minerals’ and each mineral is given a name. A mineral 

has a specific range of elemental composition and the atoms are in specific spatial patterns. The 

minerals of interest for this discussion are the crystalline SiO2 phases named quartz, cristobalite, 

and tridymite. For this discussion, the microcrystalline, also known as cryptocrystalline, forms 

of quartz, such as chalcedony and chert, are considered the same as quartz. There are other polymorphs of crystalline SiO2, but they are not likely to occur in materials of interest for the MSFC 

Test Bed Facility. A list of synonyms for crystalline and amorphous quartz are included in sections 9.4 and 9.5.

 Specific health risks are known to exist for SiO2 that is either crystalline or amorphous, 

i.e., lacking a regular, repeating pattern of atoms. One risk is related to cancer; the other is related 

to a disease termed ‘silicosis.’ According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC) (1997), amorphous SiO2 is not considered a cancer risk, but crystalline silica is.13,14 The 

specific language used in the 1997 and 2012 monographs is included at the end of this section. The 

Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires labeling of materials containing 0.1% or more 

of a known or potential carcinogen (29 CFR 1910.1200 A.6.3.1).
56

 The risk of silicosis is often considered the well-demonstrated hazard and is regulated 

explicitly. Indeed, there remains substantial doubt as to whether or not there is a cancer risk in the 

absence of silicosis.15 There is also much literature on the high variability of biological response 

to crystalline silica attributed to such things as the age of crushing.4,13 For a discussion of inputs 

received by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) during the regulatory 

process, please see Intro to 29 CFR Part 1910, Air Contaminants, Section 6 - VI. Health Effects 

Discussion and Determination of Final PEL <(http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_

document?p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=770)>.

 Silicosis has been recognized as a specific condition for over a century. The cause has been 

known for almost 100 years.16

“Silicosis is a fibrotic lung disease that is caused by overexposure to dusts composed 

of or containing free crystalline silica. It is irreversible, progressive, incurable, at later 

stages, disabling, and eventually fatal. The silicosis risk depends on the amount of free 

crystalline silica inhaled and actually deposited in the alveolar region (hence on the air 

concentration of respirable dust and its content of free crystalline silica, as well as on 

the exposure time and breathing pattern). ... Silicosis, like most pneumoconioses, is a 

chronic disease, taking many years to appear.” page 2, WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14.

 Regulations concerning exposure to either amorphous or crystalline silica are therefore 

especially attentive to material that can get into the alveoli of the human lung. Particles that can 

consistently do this are commonly termed ‘respirable dust.’ CFR 1910.94(a)(1)(x) states it thus, 

“Airborne dust in sizes capable of passing through the upper respiratory system to reach the lower 

lung passages.” Particles unlikely to reach the alveoli are also of concern, and are referred to based 

on where they typically can reach when inhaled.

“The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the European Standards 

Organization (CEN) have reached agreement on definitions of the inhalable, thoracic 

and respirable fractions. ...

Inhalable particulate fraction is that fraction of a dust cloud that can be breathed into 

the nose or mouth. ... 

Thoracic particulate fraction is that fraction that can penetrate the head airways and 

enter the airways of the lung. ... 

Respirable particulate fraction is that fraction of inhaled airborne particles that can 

penetrate beyond the terminal bronchioles into the gas-exchange region of the lungs.” 

page 8, WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14.

Where a particle can reach is related to the aerodynamic particle size. Aerodynamic size is defined 

as “the diameter of a hypothetical sphere of density 1 g/cm3 having the same terminal settling 

velocity in calm air as the particle in question, regardless of its geometric size, shape, and true 

density,” page 1, WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14. 
57

“The largest inhaled particles, with aerodynamic diameter greater than about 30 μm, 

are deposited in the airways of the head . . . Of the particles which fail to deposit in the 

head, the larger ones will deposit in the tracheobronchial airway region and may later 

be eliminated by mucociliary clearance (see below) or - if soluble - may enter the body 

by dissolution. The smaller particles may penetrate to the alveolar region, the region 

where inhaled gases can be absorbed by the blood. In aerodynamic diameter terms, 

only about 1% of 10-μm particles gets as far as the alveolar region, so 10 μm is usually considered the practical upper size limit for penetration to this region. Maximum 

deposition in the alveolar region occurs for particles of approximately 2 μm aerodynamic diameter. Most particles larger than this have deposited further up the lung. For 

smaller particles, most deposition mechanisms become less efficient, so deposition is 

less for particles smaller than 2 μm until it is only about 10-15% at about 0.5 μm. 

pages 4–5, WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14.

 It is technically possible to measure the abundance and composition of particles in these 

size ranges but the accuracies are not high, especially as concentrations of crystalline silica phases 

drop below 1% to 3% (NIOSH, p 264).18 The details of sampling protocols and the instrumentation become very important; e.g., see Page and Volkwein19 for a discussion of a technique used in 

coal mines. A discussion of some technologies used for this purpose may be found in Chapter 8: 

Sampling Dust in the Work Environment, in Dust Control Handbook for Minerals Processing, 

February, 1987, Report from Contract No. J0235005 by Martin Marietta Laboratories, 1450 South 

Rolling Road, Baltimore, MD 21227–3898 <http://www.osha.gov/dsg/topics/silicacrystalline/dust/

chapter_8.html>.20

 The IARC 199713 monograph states on page 3, “The evaluations for both crystalline and 

amorphous silica pertain to inhalation resulting from workplace exposures. Lung cancer was the 

primary focus.” As noted on page 2 of WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14, “In aerosol science, it is generally 

accepted that particles with aerodynamic diameter >50 μm do not usually remain airborne very 

long: they have a terminal velocity >7cm/sec. Such large particles neither stay in the air nor pass 

through the head very easily. Further, in the Preambles to Final Rules for 29 CFR Part 1910, Air 

Contaminants the “Primary Basis for Limits” is stated to be “respiratory effects.” (Section 2 - II. 

Index to Preamble Discussion of Individual Substances <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=766>. And CFR 1910.1200.A.0.2.5, “The 

effect of a chemical on biological systems is influenced by the physico-chemical properties of the 

substance and/or ingredients of the mixture and the way in which ingredient substances are biologically available. A chemical need not be classified when it can be shown by conclusive experimental 

data from scientifically validated test methods that the chemical is not biologically available.” Thus, 

as a practical matter, if material less than 100 μm can be avoided, it seems there is relatively little 

hazard to respiratory health.

 In the United States the specific regulations pertaining to both crystalline and amorphous 

silica are given in CFR 1910.1000 TABLE Z-3 Mineral Dusts <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/

owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9994>. These values are for general 

industries. Specific and more stringent values can apply in specific cases not of relevance here. 

According to 1910.1000(c), “An employee’s exposure to any substance listed in Table Z-3, in any 
58

8-hour work shift of a 40-hour work week, shall not exceed the 8-hour time weighted average limit 

given for that substance in the table.” The table provides two ways of quantifying the limit: (1) Millions of particles per cubic foot of air and (2) mg/m3. There are values for both respirable and total 

dust. For example, the permissible exposure limit for respirable quartz is stated as ((10 mg/m3)/

(%SiO2 +2)). For total dust, the formula is ((20 mg/m3)/(%SiO2 +2)). The values for cristobalite are 

one-half those for quartz.

 Equipment and standards for making measurements of airborne dust are described in 

OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section II: Chapter 1 PERSONAL SAMPLING FOR AIR 

CONTAMINANTS, VI. Respirable Dust and VII Crystalline Silica <http://www.osha.gov/dts/

osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_1.html>. There is also a NIOSH standard procedure manual, NIOSH 

Manual of Analytical Methods [NMAM], Fourth Edition, March 15, 2003 <http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/2003-154/)>. This deals with airborne dust only. It is important to note that analysis 

of bulk samples is different.

9.1 International Agency for Research on Cancer (2012) 5. Evaluation 

• There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of crystalline silica in the form 

of quartz or cristobalite. Crystalline silica in the form of quartz or cristobalite dust causes cancer 

of the lung. 

• There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of quartz dust. 

• There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of tridymite dust 

and cristobalite dust. 

• Crystalline silica in the form of quartz or cristobalite dust is carcinogenic to humans (group 1). 

9.2 International Agency for Research on Cancer (1997) 5.5 Evaluation

• There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of inhaled crystalline silica 

in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources.

• There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of amorphous silica.

• There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of quartz 

and cristobalite.

• There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of tridymite.

• There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of uncalcined 

diatomaceous earth.

• There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of synthetic 

amorphous silica.
59

9.3 Overall Evaluation

 In making the overall evaluation, the Working Group noted that carcinogenicity in humans 

was not detected in all industrial circumstances studied. Carcinogenicity may be dependent on 

inherent characteristics of the crystalline silica or on external factors affecting its biological activity 

or distribution of its polymorphs.

 Crystalline silica inhaled in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources 

is carcinogenic to humans (group 1).

 Amorphous silica is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (group 3).

9.4 Synonyms for Crystalline Silica (IARC 1997)

 Following are synonyms for crystalline silica:

Agate DQ 12 Porosil Silica W

Chalcedony Flint α-Quartz Snowit

Chert Jasper α,β Quartz Stishovite

Clathrasil Keatite Quartzite Sykron F300

Coesite Min-U-Sil Sandstone Sykron F600

α,β Cristobalite Moganite Sil-Co-Sil α, β1, β 2 Tridymite

CSQZ Novaculite Silica sand Zeosil
60

9.5 Synonyms for Amorphous Silica (IARC 1997)

 Following are synonyms for amorphous silica:

Aerosil 

Art Sorb

Baykisol

Bindzil

Biogenic silica

Britesorb

Cab-O-Sil

Celatom

Celite

Clarcel

Colloidal silica

Decalite

Diamantgel

Diatomaceous earth 

 (flux-calcined)

Diatomaceous earth 

 (uncalcined)

Diatomite

Fina/Optima

FK

Fused silica

Gasil

HDK

Hi-Sil

Hispacil

KC-Trockenperlen

Ketjensil

Kieselguhr

Lucilite

Ludox

Nalcoag

Neosyl

Nipsil

Nyacol

Opal

Precipitated silica

Quartz glass

Reolosil

Seahostar

Sident

Silcron

Silica fibres 

 (biogenic)

Silica-Perlen

Silica-Pulver

Sipernat

Skamol

Snowtex

Spherosil

Suprasil

Sylobloc

Syloid

Sylopute

Syton

TAFQ

Tixosil

Tripolite

Trisyl

Ultrasil 
61

APPENDIX

 The following individuals were notably helpful in the work reported here:

Geological Survey and Regulatory Contacts:

Richard M. Chamberlin, Ph.D.

Emeritus Senior Field Geologist

New Mexico Bureau of Geology 

New Mexico Tech

801 Leroy Place

Socorro, NM 87801

Office: 575–835–5310

Fax: 575–835–6333

richard@nmbg.nmt.edu

<http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/chamberlin/home.html>

Michael Conway

Chief, Geologic Extension Service

Arizona Geological Survey

416 W. Congress, Ste. 100

Tucson, AZ 85701

Office: 520–209–4146

Cell: 520–971–3688

Nelia Dunbar

NM Bur of Geology and Mineral Resources

801 Leroy Place

Socorro, NM 87801-4796

John J. Pfeil, Geologist

Mining and Minerals Division

1220 South St. Francis Drive

Santa Fe, NM 87505

Phone: 505–476–3407

Fax: 505–476–3402 

john.pfeil@state.nm.us

David Noe

Colorado Geological Survey

Phone: 303–866–2611 x8322

dnoe@mines.edu
62

Richard B. Moore, Edward W. Wolfe, George E. Ulrich, Volcanic Rocks of the Eastern and 

Northern Parts of the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona, Journal of Research of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 549–560, 1976.

Greta J. Orris

U.S. Geological Survey

520 N. Park Ave., Ste. 355

Tucson, AZ 85719

Phone: 520–670–5583

greta@usgs.gov

<http://minerals.usgs.gov/west/tucson/greta.htm>

Dr. Orris is a specialist in industrial minerals, including basalt quarries.

Academic Contacts

Michael Ort

Dept. of GeoSciences 

Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff

928–523–9363

Michael.Ort@nau.edu

<http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/Faculty/Ort/>

Dr. Ort is knowledgeable about the volcanics of northern Arizona and some of the surrounding 

areas.

Chris Condit

U of Mass at Amherst 

Dept.: 413–545–2286

Direct: 413–545–0272

Cell: 413–687–1321

ccondit@geo.umass.edu

<http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/condit/>

<http://www.geo.umass.edu/people/christopher-d-condit>

Chris Condit is an expert in the geology of the Springerville Volcanic Field.

Andres Aslan

Dept. Chair, Geology

Colorado Mesa University

Grand Junction, CO

Phone: 970–248–1614

aaslan@coloradomesa.edu

Dr. Aslan kindly collected and sent several volcanic bombs and cinder from this deposit. 

Photographs of two bombs are used in this Technical Memorandum.
63

REFERENCES

 1. Oravec, H.A.: “Understanding Mechanical Behavior of Lunar Soils for the Study of Vehicle 

Mobility,” Interaction Studies, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 2009. 

 2. Taylor, P.T.; Lowman, Jr., P.D.; and Chen, P.C.: “GSC-1: A Lunar Simulant from a Jurassic 

Sill in Leesburg, Virginia,” GSA Northeastern Section (45th Annual) and Southeastern Section 

(59th Annual) Joint Meeting, March 13–16, 2010: Baltimore, MD: Geological Society of 

America, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 53, 2010. 

 3. Rahmatian, L.A.; and Metzger, P.T.: “Soil Test Apparatus for Lunar Surfaces,” Earth and 

Space 2010, pp. 239–253, doi: 10.1061/41096(366)25, 2010. 

 4. Schoonen, M.A.A.; Cohn, C.A.; Roemer, E.; et al.: “Mineral-Induced Formation of Reactive 

Oxygen Species,” in Medical Mineralogy and Geochemistry: Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Mineralogical Society of America, N. Sahai and M.A.A. Schoonen (eds.), Vol. 64, 

pp. 179–222, 2006. 

 5. Heiken, G.H.; Vaniman, D.T.; and French, B.M.: Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the 

Moon, Cambridge University Press, 1991. 

 6. Le Maitre, R.W.: Igneous Rocks: a Classification and Glossary of Terms, Recommendations of 

the International Union of Geological Sciences, Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous 

Rocks, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2002. 

 7. Rickman, D.L.; Stoeser, D.B.; Benzel, W.M.; et al.: “Notes on Lithology, Mineralogy, 

and Production for Lunar Simulants,” NASA/TM—2011–216454, p. 64, January 2011.

 8. Stoeser, D.B.; Rickman, D.L;. and Wilson, S.A.: “Preliminary Geological Findings on the BP-1 

Simulant,” NASA/TM—2010–21644, p. 24, September 2010. 

 9. Lonsdale, J.T.: Igneous Rocks of the Balcones Fault Region of Texas, University of Texas 

Bulletin 2744, 174 pp., 1927. 

10. Zhu, J.: “Petrogenesis of Late Cenozoic Volcanic Rocks from the Raton-Clayton Volcanic 

Field: Northeastern New Mexico and Southeastern Colorado,” Rice University, Houston, TX, 

229 pp., June 1995.

11. Larson, E.E.; Ozima, M.; and Bradley, W.C.: “Late Cenozoic basic volcanism in northwestern 

Colorado and the origin of the Colorado River system,” B.F. Curtis (ed.), Cenozoic history of 

the Southern Rocky Mountains; Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp. 155–178, 

1975.
64

12. Branch of Industrial Minerals Staff, Crystalline Silica Primer. U.S. Bureau of Mines Special 

Publication, 25 pp. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silica/780292.pdf>, 

1992. 

13. Silica: Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 68, World Health Organization, International Agency for 

Research on Cancer, 1997.

14. Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic 

Risks to Humans, Vol. 100C, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, 2012.

15. Pelucchi, C.; Pira E.; Piolatto G.; et al.: “Occupational Silica Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk: 

a Review of Epidemiological Studies 1996-2005.” Annals of Oncology: Official Journal of the 

European Society for Medical Oncology/ESMO 17 (7), pp. 1039–1050, doi:10.1093/annonc/

mdj125, July 2006.

16. Russell, A.E.; Britten, R.H.; Thompson, L.R.; and Bloomfield, J.J.: “The health of workers in 

the the dusty trades, II, Exposure to siliceous dust (granite industry),” Public Health Bulletin 

No. 187. US Public Health Service, Washington, DC, 1929. 

17. World Health Organization, Hazard Prevention and Control in the Work Environment: Airborne 

Dust, WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14, Geneva, Switzerland, 246 pp., <http://www.who.int/entity/occupational_health/publications/en/oehairbornedust.pdf>, 1999.

18. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods [NMAM], 4th ed., <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

docs/2003-154/>, March 15, 2003,

19. Page, S.J.; and Volkwein, J.C.: “A Revised Conversion Factor Relating Respirable Dust Concentrations Measured by 10 Mm Dorr-Oliver Nylon Cyclones Operated at 1.7 and 2.0 L Min(-

1),” Journal of Environmental Monitoring, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 684–689, doi:10.1039/b817922k, 

March 2009.

20. Key-Schwartz, R.J.; Baron, P.A.; Bartley, D.L.; et al.: “Determination of Airborne Crystalline 

Silica,” NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, pp. 260–280, <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/pdfs/chapter-r.pdf>, 2003. 

21. Carrier III, W.D.: The four things you need to know about the Geotechnical Properties of Lunar 

Soil, Lunar Geotechnical Institute, Lakeland, FL, <http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/surface/carrier_lunar_soils.pdf>, September 2005. 

22. Miggins, D.P.; Blome, C.D.; and Smith, D.V.: “Preliminary40 Ar/39 Ar geochronology of igneous intrusions from Uvalde County, Texas: Defining a more precise eruption history for the 

southern Balcones Volcanic Province,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1031, 

33 pp., 2004.
65

 23. Tran, C.L.; Miller, B.G.; and Soutar, C.A.: Risk Estimates for Silicosis: Comparison of Animal 

and Human Studies, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Research Report TM/05/02, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005. 
66

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

D.L. Rickman

Sources and Transportation of Bulk, Low-Cost 

Lunar Simulant Materials

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, AL 35812

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546–0001

Unclassified-Unlimited

Subject Category 91

Availability: NASA STI Information Desk (757–864–9658)

Prepared by the Science and Research Office, Science & Technology Office

M–1373

Technical Memorandum

NASA/TM—2013– 217497

lunar simulant, cost, transportation, sources

01–12–2013

UU 80

NASA

UUU

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has built the Lunar Surface Testbed using 200 tons of volcanic cinder and ash from the same source used for the simulant series JSC-1. This Technical Memorandum examines the alternatives examined for transportation and source. The cost of low-cost lunar simulant is driven 

by the cost of transportation, which is controlled by distance and, to a lesser extent, quantity. Metabasalts 

in the eastern United States were evaluated due to their proximity to MSFC. Volcanic cinder deposits in 

New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona were recognized as preferred sources. In addition to having fewer 

green, secondary minerals, they contain vesicular glass, both of which are desirable. Transportation costs 

were more than 90% of the total procurement costs for the simulant material.

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

STI Help Desk at: 757–864–9658

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

IS20

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama 35812