NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulant NU-LHT-2M
Highlands simulant made of crystalline Stillwater anorthosite and norite (65%), pseudo-agglutinate (30%) and good glass (5%) by design, with minor synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite (troilite substitute)
NU-LHT-2M is a lunar highlands regolith simulant made by NASA and the USGS from Stillwater anorthosite and norite, with synthetic pseudo-agglutinate and good glass.
Evidence level
2 of 5
Lab-measured
- 0Predicted only. No one has made it, or no measurement exists.
- 1Calculated. Only calculated or predicted values from sources.
- 2Lab-measured. Measured properties with their conditions stated.
- 3Space-relevant tests. Measured in conditions relevant to space, such as vacuum or atomic oxygen.
- 4Ground-qualified. Qualified for an application on the ground.
- 5Flown or field-proven. Flight or field results exist.
Density
1.37 to 2.06 g/cm³
Particle size
125.7 µm
Particle shape
0.63 -
Composition
47 wt%
Recipe, share of the weight
- not statedStillwater anorthosite and norite (crystalline)
- not statedPseudo-agglutinate
- not statedGood glass
- not statedMinor synthetic minerals
Best for
Ground tests of excavation, drilling and abrasion, and oxygen-extraction feedstock for highlands composition (2010 NASA guide)
Weakest at
Cohesion and friction angle are not reported for NU-LHT-2M (n/a in the 2024 guide), and supply is nearly exhausted
Risk at a glance
- People None found. Dust is the concern: silica is present at low levels
- If it fails Moderate. Airborne particles and soil movement during vacuum pump-down
- Corrosion Moderate. Simulant takes up water from moist air and can weather over time, so the 2024 guide says to store it away from moist air.
Quick facts: NU-LHT-2M
| Property | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Density | 1.37 to 2.06 g/cm³ | 4 sourced values across conditions |
What is the density of NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulant?
NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulant has a density of 1.37 to 2.06 g/cm³. The range covers 4 sourced values across the tempers, forms and test conditions the sources report; room-temperature values are used where a source states a temperature.
What is NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulant used for?
Uses recorded in the sources include Excavation and flow testing; Drilling and abrasion or wear testing; Oxygen production feedstock for in-situ resource utilization tests.
Why it exists
NU-LHT-2M is a NASA and USGS lunar highlands simulant. It was built to match the average composition, particle size and particle shape of Apollo 16 sample 64001/64002, and it was the prototype version of the NU-LHT series. The 2024 guide says only very small amounts remain for NASA testing.
Where it's used
Excavation and drilling
The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M recommended for excavation and flow, and recommended for drilling and abrasion testing, because its mineral and glass percentages should give realistic abrasiveness.
Oxygen production (in-situ resource utilization)
The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M most recommended for highlands oxygen production, because its FeO is slightly low against the lunar reference (about 4 against 5 wt.%), but it warns that its phosphates and sulfides may be hazardous to ISRU processes.
Human health studies
The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M the most suitable composition for human health studies, with a reasonable particle size distribution that is too coarse in the fine fraction.
Recipe
Highlands simulant made of crystalline Stillwater anorthosite and norite (65%), pseudo-agglutinate (30%) and good glass (5%) by design, with minor synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite (troilite substitute)
NU-LHT-2M is a physical mixture, not one compound. Its crystalline part is Stillwater anorthosite and norite with minor synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite. Its pseudo-agglutinate is made from Stillwater mill sand in a plasma arc, and its good glass is a synthetic glass with a highlands-like composition.
| Ingredient | Share of the weight | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Stillwater anorthosite and norite (crystalline) | not stated | The dominant rocks in the mix. Plagioclase, pyroxene and olivine make up the crystalline part, as the 2010 and 2024 modal tables show. |
| Pseudo-agglutinate | not stated | Glass-bonded fragments made from Stillwater mill sand in a plasma arc. The 2010 guide counts them as agglutinates. |
| Good glass | not stated | Glass with no mineral inclusions, per the 2024 guide. |
| Minor synthetic minerals | not stated | Synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite (troilite substitute), included in -2M and not in -1M. |
Weight shares are as printed in the sources.
What it can do
Density
1.37 to 2.06 g/cm³
measured
Bulk density ranges from 1.37 to 2.06 g/cm3 for NU-LHT-2M, as printed in the 2024 guide Table 16. The two Apollo 16 regolith rows in Table 15 are listed as separate properties of this profile.
Particle size
125.7 µm
measured
The median particle size (Q50) is 125.7 µm, with Q25 at 55.9 µm and Q75 at 244.5 µm, as printed in Table 10 (Clark 2021).
Particle shape
0.63 -
measured
The bulk aspect ratio is 0.63 and the root form factor 0.91 (Table 13, SDL 2022). The 2010 guide's QEMSCAN count gives 52.8 wt.% rounded particles (Table 6).
Composition
47 wt%
measured
Bulk SiO2 is 47 wt.% and bulk Al2O3 is 24.5 wt.% (Table 7, Wilson USGS 2020). The composition figure of merit against the Apollo 64001/64002 reference is 0.55 (Table 3, 2010 guide).
How it compares
NU-LHT-2M sits at the highlands end of the NU-LHT family. On the 2010 composition figure of merit it scores 0.55 against lunar reference 64001/64002. The same table ranks it above every other simulant listed except NU-LHT-1M, which scores higher (Table 3). Its median particle size is 125.7 µm (Table 10). The two Apollo 16 density rows in Table 15 disagree, and the NU-LHT-2M density range is printed alongside them (Table 16). The reference FeO is also not settled: the 2024 guide gives 6.6 wt.% for the Apollo highlands average (Table 6), while the 2010 guide cites about 5 wt.% for its lunar reference. Cohesion is not reported for this simulant. The NASA JSC ARES page gives a triaxial friction angle of 36 to 40.7 degrees (Zeng et al. 2010), where the 2024 guide prints n/a (Table 19).
The same measurements for each material, so you can compare them. Each row names the key condition under the value; the full conditions and methods are in the numbered notes under Technical details.
| Measurement | NU-LHT-2M |
|---|---|
| Physical and electrical | |
| Bulk density range, NU-LHT-2M (minimum to maximum) | 1.37 to 2.06 g/cm³1 |
| Bulk density range, Apollo 16 regolith (first of two rows in the table) | 1.4 to 1.8 g/cm³2 |
| Bulk density range, Apollo 16 regolith (second row in the table, disagrees with the first) | 1.47 to 1.75 g/cm³3 |
| Bulk density range, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | 1.648 to 1.869 g/cm³29 |
| Other measurements | |
| Particle size, 25th percentile (Q25), NU-LHT-2M | 55.9 µm4 |
| Particle size, median (Q50), NU-LHT-2M | 125.7 µm5 |
| Particle size, 75th percentile (Q75), NU-LHT-2M | 244.5 µm6 |
| Aspect ratio of bulk particle geometry, NU-LHT-2M | 0.63 -7 |
| Root form factor (square root of FF), NU-LHT-2M | 0.91 -8 |
| Total crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (DCM Science Laboratories, 2023) | 0.67 wt%9 |
| Total crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (Herndon Solutions Group, 2021) | 0.82 wt%10 |
| Respirable crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (DCM Science Laboratories, 2023)Analysis printed in Table 25 | 0.07 wt% |
| Percent passing below 10 µm (respirable fraction), NU-LHT-2MValue printed in Table 25 | 10.1 wt% |
| Bulk SiO2, NU-LHT-2M | 47 wt%11 |
| Bulk TiO2, NU-LHT-2M | 0.4 wt%12 |
| Bulk Al2O3, NU-LHT-2M | 24.5 wt%13 |
| Bulk FeO, NU-LHT-2M | 3.7 wt%14 |
| Bulk MgO, NU-LHT-2M | 8.4 wt%15 |
| Bulk CaO, NU-LHT-2M | 13.6 wt%16 |
| Bulk Na2O, NU-LHT-2M | 1.5 wt%17 |
| Bulk K2O, NU-LHT-2M | 0.1 wt%18 |
| Plagioclase, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | 54.9 modal %19 |
| Glass, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | 7.2 modal %20 |
| Agglutinates, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M (2010 guide) | 23.5 modal %21 |
| Agglutinates, NU-LHT-2M (2024 guide, wt.%) | 29.02 wt%22 |
| Olivine, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | 9.5 modal %23 |
| Clinopyroxene, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | 4 modal %24 |
| Plagioclase anorthite content, NU-LHT-2MValue printed in Table 2, Plag. An% row | 80 An%25 |
| Rounded particles, QEMSCAN shape class share, NU-LHT-2M | 52.8 wt%26 |
| Figure of Merit, composition, NU-LHT-2M against lunar reference 64001/64002 | 0.55 -27 |
| Specific gravity, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | 2.749 g/cm³28 |
| Void ratio range, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | 0.332 to 1.004 -30 |
| Triaxial friction angle, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | 36 to 40.7 °31 |
Why choose it, and why not
Good for
- Highlands-like composition: bulk SiO2 of 47 wt.% and Al2O3 of 24.5 wt.% (Table 7, Wilson USGS 2020).
- Oxygen-production and excavation studies, which the 2010 guide rates recommended for this composition (Tables 7 and 8).
Watch out for
- Cohesion is not reported for NU-LHT-2M, and the 2024 guide prints n/a for its friction angle (Table 19). The ARES page gives 36 to 40.7 degrees, a value the 2024 guide does not reconcile.
- Supply is nearly exhausted: the 2024 guide says the producers no longer manufacture this simulant.
- Phosphates and sulfides may be hazardous to ISRU processes (Table 8, 2010 guide).
NU-LHT-2M is a well-documented highlands simulant in these three NASA guides, with composition, particle size, shape and density data. Its supply is nearly exhausted and its cohesion is not reported, so new test programmes should check availability first.
Technical details
For scientists and researchers. Everything above comes from the record below: every number with its method, its conditions and its source.
Notes
The method, full conditions and any caveat for the numbered rows above.
| # | Measurement | Method | Conditions | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bulk density range, NU-LHT-2M (minimum to maximum) | Averaged rho(min) and rho(max) values printed in the table, citing Zeng et al. 2010 | material NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulantbasis rho(min) and rho(max) as printed; the table does not state compaction or moisture | — |
| 2 | Bulk density range, Apollo 16 regolith (first of two rows in the table) | Printed range for Apollo 16, cited to Mitchell et al. 1972b and Carrier 1974 | material Apollo 16 lunar regolith (reference, not a simulant)basis rho(min) and rho(max) as printed | — |
| 3 | Bulk density range, Apollo 16 regolith (second row in the table, disagrees with the first) | Printed range for Apollo 16, cited to Carrier 1974 | material Apollo 16 lunar regolith (reference, not a simulant)basis rho(min) and rho(max) as printed | The two Apollo 16 rows in the table give different ranges; both are kept. |
| 4 | Particle size, 25th percentile (Q25), NU-LHT-2M | Average Q25 printed in the table; the text below the table credits Clark 2021 (JSC-ARES) with laser diffraction (ISO 13320-1) | quartile Q25basis average QN of the simulant PSD as printedmaterial NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 5 | Particle size, median (Q50), NU-LHT-2M | Average Q50 printed in the table; the text below the table credits Clark 2021 (JSC-ARES) with laser diffraction (ISO 13320-1) | quartile Q50basis average QN of the simulant PSD as printedmaterial NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 6 | Particle size, 75th percentile (Q75), NU-LHT-2M | Average Q75 printed in the table; the text below the table credits Clark 2021 (JSC-ARES) with laser diffraction (ISO 13320-1) | quartile Q75basis average QN of the simulant PSD as printedmaterial NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 7 | Aspect ratio of bulk particle geometry, NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in the table, citing SDL 2022 (JSC-ARES) | material NU-LHT-2Mbasis bulk particle geometry value as printed (dimensionless) | — |
| 8 | Root form factor (square root of FF), NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in the table, citing SDL 2022 (JSC-ARES) | material NU-LHT-2Mbasis bulk particle geometry value as printed (dimensionless) | — |
| 9 | Total crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (DCM Science Laboratories, 2023) | Analysis printed in Table 25; footnote defines the total | basis total crystalline silica as defined in the table footnote: quartz plus cristobalite plus tridymiteanalysis lab DCM Science Laboratories (footnote symbol section mark) | — |
| 10 | Total crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (Herndon Solutions Group, 2021) | Analysis printed in Table 25; no respirable value given for this analysis | basis total crystalline silica as defined in the table footnoteanalysis lab Herndon Solutions Group (footnote double dagger) | Disagrees with the 0.67 wt% DCM value above; both are kept. |
| 11 | Bulk SiO2, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 12 | Bulk TiO2, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 13 | Bulk Al2O3, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 14 | Bulk FeO, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | The 2010 guide describes NU-LHT-2M as slightly low in FeO against a lunar reference of about 5 wt.% (Table 8 text); the 2024 Apollo highlands average is 6.6 wt.% (Table 6). Both references are recorded in the story. |
| 15 | Bulk MgO, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 16 | Bulk CaO, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 17 | Bulk Na2O, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 18 | Bulk K2O, NU-LHT-2M | Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020 | basis bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 19 | Plagioclase, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data) | basis particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 20 | Glass, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data) | basis particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 21 | Agglutinates, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M (2010 guide) | Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data) | basis particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)material NU-LHT-2M | The 2024 guide gives 29.02 wt.% agglutinate for the same simulant (below); the two values differ and are not reconciled in either source. |
| 22 | Agglutinates, NU-LHT-2M (2024 guide, wt.%) | Value printed in Table 5, modal mineralogy by FoM mineral group | basis modal mineralogy by mineral group as printed, wt.%material NU-LHT-2M | The 2010 guide gives 23.5 modal % for the same simulant; the two values differ and are both kept. |
| 23 | Olivine, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data) | basis particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 24 | Clinopyroxene, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data) | basis particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)material NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 25 | Plagioclase anorthite content, NU-LHT-2M | — | basis molar percent anorthite end-member of plagioclase, as printed in the row labelled Plag. An%material NU-LHT-2Mreference Apollo 64001/64002 reference is 95 An% in the same table | — |
| 26 | Rounded particles, QEMSCAN shape class share, NU-LHT-2M | Value printed in Table 6, shape parameters derived by QEMSCAN | basis QEMSCAN shape classes by weight percent of geologic classification binsmaterial NU-LHT-2M | — |
| 27 | Figure of Merit, composition, NU-LHT-2M against lunar reference 64001/64002 | Score printed in Table 3, FoM composition analysis | basis FoM Revision 1 composition algorithm against reference 64001/64002, score as printed | — |
| 28 | Specific gravity, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | Value printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table for NU-LHT-2M, citing Zeng et al. (2010), Journal of Aerospace Engineering 23(4), 213-218 | material NU-LHT-2Mbasis specific gravity as printed in the ARES table, with its reference [2] (Zeng et al. 2010) | — |
| 29 | Bulk density range, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | Range printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table, citing Zeng et al. (2010) | material NU-LHT-2Mbasis bulk density range as printed in the ARES table, with its reference [2] (Zeng et al. 2010) | The 2024 guide Table 16 gives a different range for the same simulant (1.37 to 2.06 g/cm3, above); both are kept. |
| 30 | Void ratio range, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | Range printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table, citing Zeng et al. (2010) | material NU-LHT-2Mbasis dimensionless void ratio range as printed in the ARES table, with its reference [2] | — |
| 31 | Triaxial friction angle, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table) | Range printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table, citing Zeng et al. (2010) | material NU-LHT-2Mbasis triaxial shear strength, friction angle as printed in the ARES table; the same table gives no cohesion value for this simulant | The 2024 guide Table 19 prints n/a for NU-LHT-2M cohesion and friction angle; the ARES page gives a value and the 2024 guide does not, so both are kept. |
Corrosion and compatibility
What happens when it meets other materials and environments.
| Environment | Concern | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Moist air during storage and transport | moderate | Simulant takes up water from moist air and can weather over time, so the 2024 guide says to store it away from moist air.1 |
| Size segregation during storage and transport (physical change) | moderate | Stored simulant segregates by size, so the particle size distribution changes unless the container is mixed before sampling.2 |
| High-temperature processing in ambient air (oxidation) | moderate | Processing simulant at high temperature in ambient air can form oxidation products that would not form under lunar conditions.3 |
| # | Environment | Details | Test conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Moist air during storage and transport | The 2024 guide says simulant materials must be stored to minimise or eliminate contact with moist air, to avoid water intake and possible weathering over time. It also says all simulants show some hygroscopicity and that available simulants are often contaminated with adsorbed water and humid air from transportation and previous testing. This is a general statement for simulants; no NU-LHT-2M-specific water-uptake value was found in the sections read. | basis general statement for lunar regolith simulants; the rating is the assistant's judgment, as the guide gives noneexposure storage and transport; no humidity level or time given |
| 2 | Size segregation during storage and transport (physical change) | The 2024 guide says the particle size distribution does not stay the same during transport and storage, because larger, more buoyant particles migrate upward when vibrated. It recommends homogenising stored simulant by rolling and overturning the containers before sampling, and measuring the size distribution of used simulant before reuse. | basis general statement for stored lunar regolith simulants; the rating is the assistant's judgment, as the guide gives noneprocess transport and storage in containers with vibration |
| 3 | High-temperature processing in ambient air (oxidation) | The 2024 guide says high-temperature processing of regolith in ambient conditions increases the potential of forming oxidation products that would not be formed under lunar conditions. It says oxidation can involve minor components that change yields or form unwanted by-products, and it advises an inert atmosphere for ambient-pressure processing tests. | basis general statement for lunar regolith simulants; the guide gives no temperature for this statement; the rating is the assistant's judgmentatmosphere ambient air |
Risks and side effects
Hazards to people, what happens when a cell overheats, and how the material is handled and stored.
For people
The 2024 guide says the primary exposure concerns for simulant users are crystalline silica and total dust.
- Silica content
- Table 25 gives 0.67 wt.% total crystalline silica (DCM 2023) and 0.82 wt.% (Herndon 2021) for NU-LHT-2M. The respirable crystalline silica is 0.07 wt.% (DCM 2023).
- Illness
- The guide says chronic inhalation of respirable particles below 10 microns can lead to pneumoconiosis, including silicosis, after years of exposure.
- Dust in work
- Crystalline silica can become airborne when workers chip, cut, drill or grind objects that contain silica.
In ISRU processing
The 2010 guide names the phosphates and sulfides as a possible hazard for ISRU processes.
- Minerals
- Table 8 says the phosphates and sulfides in NU-LHT-2M are realistic but possibly hazardous to ISRU processes. The table does not say how.
- Oxygen production
- Table 8 rates NU-LHT-2M most recommended for highlands oxygen production, with slightly low FeO (about 4 against 5 wt.%). It also says the high iron in its silicates will slow reduction.
Handling and storage
- Eye protection
- The 2024 guide says glasses or goggles are needed depending on the simulant's physical characteristics.
- Airborne dust
- Silica-bearing material becomes airborne when it is chipped, cut, drilled or ground.
Test details
The original wording and numbers from the sources, for readers who want them.
Failure risks
| Failure | Trigger and consequence |
|---|---|
| Airborne particles and soil movement during vacuum pump-downmoderate severity | Pumping down a simulant bed in a vacuum chamber, where adsorbed water comes off the particlesThe 2024 guide says simulant off-gasses violently during pump-down, that particulate matter poses a risk to chamber hardware (pumps and instruments), and that soil movement can make spouts of airborne particles that disturb the bed. Regulating the pump rate to keep pressure decay slow reduces the disturbance. |
| Moisture carried into a test from storage or earlier usemoderate severity | Simulant used without drying after transport or earlier testingSimulants are often contaminated with adsorbed water and humid air, which changes the starting state of a test. The guide recommends thorough drying before emplacement in the test environment; chamber evacuation removes some moisture, but ambient desiccation is limited. |
Side effects on surrounding parts
| Affects | Effect |
|---|---|
| ISRU oxygen-extraction processes that heat or reduce the feedstock | The 2010 guide says the phosphates and sulfides in NU-LHT-2M are realistic but possibly hazardous to ISRU processes; the table does not say how. |
Handling and storage
- The 2024 guide says eye protection, glasses or goggles, is needed depending on the simulant's physical characteristics.
- Crystalline silica can become airborne when workers chip, cut, drill or grind objects that contain silica.
- OSHA's respirable crystalline silica standard sets the permissible exposure limit at no exposure 'in excess of 50 μg/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA' (29 CFR 1910.1053(c)), with an action level of 25 μg/m3 calculated as an 8-hour TWA (29 CFR 1910.1053(b)).
Mitigations
- The 2024 guide says simulant used in ambient-condition mechanical testing should be stored dry in a location with active humidity control; if that is not possible, it should be desiccated first using the Section 6.3.1 methods.
Supply and geography
How common the raw materials are and where they come from.
NU-LHT-2M simulant (USGS and NASA)
not stated in the three sources
- Recycling
- not stated in the three sources
Feldspar, the mineral class of the anorthosite feedstock (USGS feldspar chapter; not NU-LHT-2M itself)
not stated in the USGS feldspar chapter
- Top producers (2025)
- India 19.4%, Turkey 17.1%, Iran 12.6%, China 11.9%, Italy 7.1%
- Recycling
- USGS feldspar chapter: feldspar and nepheline syenite are not recycled by producers; glass container producers use cullet, which reduces feldspar consumption.
- Substitutes
- USGS: feldspar can be replaced in some end uses by clays, electric furnace slag, feldspar-silica mixtures, pyrophyllite, spodumene, or talc.
Documents
Datasheets, safety data sheets, papers and standards you can open.
Full record
The complete spore, as stored. Free to reuse under CC-BY-4.0. Images keep the licence shown with each one.
Show the full YAML
spore: profile
id: nu-lht-2m
spore_version: 0.2
family: regolith
name: NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulant
abbreviation: NU-LHT-2M
role: Ground test stand-in for lunar highlands regolith (Apollo 16 type)
category: regolith
type: lunar-simulants
summary: |
NU-LHT-2M is a lunar highlands regolith simulant made by NASA and the USGS from Stillwater anorthosite and norite, with synthetic pseudo-agglutinate and good glass. It was designed to match the average composition, particle size and particle shape of Apollo 16 sample 64001/64002. NASA's 2024 user guide lists it as the prototype version of the NU-LHT series and says only very small amounts remain for NASA testing.
best_for: Ground tests of excavation, drilling and abrasion, and oxygen-extraction feedstock for highlands composition (2010 NASA guide)
weakest_at: Cohesion and friction angle are not reported for NU-LHT-2M (n/a in the 2024 guide), and supply is nearly exhausted
identity:
formula: Highlands simulant made of crystalline Stillwater anorthosite and norite (65%), pseudo-agglutinate (30%) and good glass (5%) by design, with minor synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite (troilite substitute)
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 3, page 20 (mixing ratio and minor minerals); page 19 (feedstock)
tags:
environments: []
stresses:
- dust-abrasion
applications:
- rovers-and-surface-systems
- habitats-and-suits
- propulsion-and-tanks
properties:
- benchmark: density
label: Bulk density range, NU-LHT-2M (minimum to maximum)
value: 1.37
value_high: 2.06
bound: range
unit: g/cm3
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M lunar highlands simulant
basis: rho(min) and rho(max) as printed; the table does not state compaction or moisture
method: Averaged rho(min) and rho(max) values printed in the table, citing Zeng et al. 2010
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 16, Lunar Simulant Density Values, NU-LHT-2M row
- benchmark: density
label: Bulk density range, Apollo 16 regolith (first of two rows in the table)
value: 1.4
value_high: 1.8
bound: range
unit: g/cm3
scope: material
conditions:
material: Apollo 16 lunar regolith (reference, not a simulant)
basis: rho(min) and rho(max) as printed
method: Printed range for Apollo 16, cited to Mitchell et al. 1972b and Carrier 1974
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 15, Lunar Regolith Density values, Apollo 16 first row
- benchmark: density
label: Bulk density range, Apollo 16 regolith (second row in the table, disagrees with the first)
value: 1.47
value_high: 1.75
bound: range
unit: g/cm3
scope: material
conditions:
material: Apollo 16 lunar regolith (reference, not a simulant)
basis: rho(min) and rho(max) as printed
method: Printed range for Apollo 16, cited to Carrier 1974
status: ground
note: The two Apollo 16 rows in the table give different ranges; both are kept.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 15, Lunar Regolith Density values, Apollo 16 second row
- benchmark: particle_size_q25
label: Particle size, 25th percentile (Q25), NU-LHT-2M
value: 55.9
unit: µm
scope: material
conditions:
quartile: Q25
basis: average QN of the simulant PSD as printed
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Average Q25 printed in the table; the text below the table credits Clark 2021 (JSC-ARES) with laser diffraction (ISO 13320-1)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 10, NU-LHT-2M row, Q25 column; method text below Table 10
- benchmark: particle_size_q50
label: Particle size, median (Q50), NU-LHT-2M
value: 125.7
unit: µm
scope: material
conditions:
quartile: Q50
basis: average QN of the simulant PSD as printed
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Average Q50 printed in the table; the text below the table credits Clark 2021 (JSC-ARES) with laser diffraction (ISO 13320-1)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 10, NU-LHT-2M row, Q50 column; method text below Table 10
- benchmark: particle_size_q75
label: Particle size, 75th percentile (Q75), NU-LHT-2M
value: 244.5
unit: µm
scope: material
conditions:
quartile: Q75
basis: average QN of the simulant PSD as printed
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Average Q75 printed in the table; the text below the table credits Clark 2021 (JSC-ARES) with laser diffraction (ISO 13320-1)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 10, NU-LHT-2M row, Q75 column; method text below Table 10
- benchmark: aspect_ratio
label: Aspect ratio of bulk particle geometry, NU-LHT-2M
value: 0.63
unit: '-'
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M
basis: bulk particle geometry value as printed (dimensionless)
method: Value printed in the table, citing SDL 2022 (JSC-ARES)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 13, Lunar regolith simulant particle geometry, NU-LHT-2M row, AR column
- benchmark: root_form_factor
label: Root form factor (square root of FF), NU-LHT-2M
value: 0.91
unit: '-'
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M
basis: bulk particle geometry value as printed (dimensionless)
method: Value printed in the table, citing SDL 2022 (JSC-ARES)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 13, Lunar regolith simulant particle geometry, NU-LHT-2M row, root form factor column
- benchmark: crystalline_silica_total
label: Total crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (DCM Science Laboratories, 2023)
value: 0.67
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: 'total crystalline silica as defined in the table footnote: quartz plus cristobalite plus tridymite'
analysis_lab: DCM Science Laboratories (footnote symbol section mark)
method: Analysis printed in Table 25; footnote defines the total
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 25, Summary of Total Percent Crystalline and Respirable Silica, NU-LHT-2M row, first entry
- benchmark: crystalline_silica_total
label: Total crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (Herndon Solutions Group, 2021)
value: 0.82
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: total crystalline silica as defined in the table footnote
analysis_lab: Herndon Solutions Group (footnote double dagger)
method: Analysis printed in Table 25; no respirable value given for this analysis
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the 0.67 wt% DCM value above; both are kept.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 25, NU-LHT-2M row, second entry
- benchmark: crystalline_silica_respirable
label: Respirable crystalline silica, NU-LHT-2M (DCM Science Laboratories, 2023)
value: 0.07
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: crystalline silica in the respirable fraction (below 10 µm), removed by wet sieving through a 10 µm sieve
analysis_lab: DCM Science Laboratories
method: Analysis printed in Table 25
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 25, NU-LHT-2M row, Total Respirable Crystalline Silica column
- benchmark: fraction_below_10um
label: Percent passing below 10 µm (respirable fraction), NU-LHT-2M
value: 10.1
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: percent passing the 10 µm sieve, DCM analysis only
analysis_lab: DCM Science Laboratories
method: Value printed in Table 25
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 25, NU-LHT-2M row, Percent Passing (below 10 µm) column
- benchmark: bulk_sio2
label: Bulk SiO2, NU-LHT-2M
value: 47
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, SiO2 column
- benchmark: bulk_tio2
label: Bulk TiO2, NU-LHT-2M
value: 0.4
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, TiO2 column
- benchmark: bulk_al2o3
label: Bulk Al2O3, NU-LHT-2M
value: 24.5
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, Al2O3 column
- benchmark: bulk_feo
label: Bulk FeO, NU-LHT-2M
value: 3.7
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
note: The 2010 guide describes NU-LHT-2M as slightly low in FeO against a lunar reference of about 5 wt.% (Table 8 text); the 2024 Apollo highlands average is 6.6 wt.% (Table 6). Both references are recorded in the story.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, FeO column
- benchmark: bulk_mgo
label: Bulk MgO, NU-LHT-2M
value: 8.4
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, MgO column
- benchmark: bulk_cao
label: Bulk CaO, NU-LHT-2M
value: 13.6
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, CaO column
- benchmark: bulk_na2o
label: Bulk Na2O, NU-LHT-2M
value: 1.5
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, Na2O column
- benchmark: bulk_k2o
label: Bulk K2O, NU-LHT-2M
value: 0.1
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: bulk oxide chemistry as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Oxide analysis printed in the table, cited to Wilson USGS 2020
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 7, Lunar Simulant Bulk Chemistry, NU-LHT-2M row, K2O column
- benchmark: plagioclase_modal
label: Plagioclase, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M
value: 54.9
unit: modal %
scope: material
conditions:
basis: particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 2, particle type modal data, NU-LHT-2M column, Plagioclase row
- benchmark: glass_modal
label: Glass, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M
value: 7.2
unit: modal %
scope: material
conditions:
basis: particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 2, particle type modal data, NU-LHT-2M column, Glass row
- benchmark: agglutinate_modal
label: Agglutinates, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M (2010 guide)
value: 23.5
unit: modal %
scope: material
conditions:
basis: particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data)
status: ground
note: The 2024 guide gives 29.02 wt.% agglutinate for the same simulant (below); the two values differ and are not reconciled in either source.
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 2, particle type modal data, NU-LHT-2M column, Agglutinates row
- benchmark: agglutinate_wt
label: Agglutinates, NU-LHT-2M (2024 guide, wt.%)
value: 29.02
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: modal mineralogy by mineral group as printed, wt.%
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 5, modal mineralogy by FoM mineral group
status: ground
note: The 2010 guide gives 23.5 modal % for the same simulant; the two values differ and are both kept.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 5, Lunar regolith simulant modal mineralogy (wt.%), NU-LHT-2M row, Agglutinates column
- benchmark: olivine_modal
label: Olivine, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M
value: 9.5
unit: modal %
scope: material
conditions:
basis: particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 2, particle type modal data, NU-LHT-2M column, Olivine row
- benchmark: clinopyroxene_modal
label: Clinopyroxene, particle-type modal share, NU-LHT-2M
value: 4
unit: modal %
scope: material
conditions:
basis: particle-type modal data from electron beam (QEMSCAN) analysis; the table prints no unit and the figure axis reads Modal (%)
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 2 (particle type modal data)
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 2, particle type modal data, NU-LHT-2M column, Clinopyroxene row
- benchmark: plagioclase_anorthite
label: Plagioclase anorthite content, NU-LHT-2M
value: 80
unit: An%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: molar percent anorthite end-member of plagioclase, as printed in the row labelled Plag. An%
material: NU-LHT-2M
reference: Apollo 64001/64002 reference is 95 An% in the same table
method: Value printed in Table 2, Plag. An% row
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 2, (Plag. An%) row, NU-LHT-2M column
- benchmark: particle_shape_rounded
label: Rounded particles, QEMSCAN shape class share, NU-LHT-2M
value: 52.8
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: QEMSCAN shape classes by weight percent of geologic classification bins
material: NU-LHT-2M
method: Value printed in Table 6, shape parameters derived by QEMSCAN
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 6, Shape parameters of simulants, NU-LHT-2M column, Rounded row
- benchmark: fom_composition_score
label: Figure of Merit, composition, NU-LHT-2M against lunar reference 64001/64002
value: 0.55
unit: '-'
scope: material
conditions:
basis: FoM Revision 1 composition algorithm against reference 64001/64002, score as printed
method: Score printed in Table 3, FoM composition analysis
status: ground
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 3, Results of FoM composition analysis, NU-LHT-2M row
- benchmark: specific_gravity
label: Specific gravity, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table)
value: 2.749
unit: g/cm3
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M
basis: specific gravity as printed in the ARES table, with its reference [2] (Zeng et al. 2010)
method: Value printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table for NU-LHT-2M, citing Zeng et al. (2010), Journal of Aerospace Engineering 23(4), 213-218
status: ground
source: nasa-ares-nu-lht
where: Geomechanical Properties for NU-LHT-2M table, Specific Gravity column
- benchmark: density
label: Bulk density range, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table)
value: 1.648
value_high: 1.869
bound: range
unit: g/cm3
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M
basis: bulk density range as printed in the ARES table, with its reference [2] (Zeng et al. 2010)
method: Range printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table, citing Zeng et al. (2010)
status: ground
note: The 2024 guide Table 16 gives a different range for the same simulant (1.37 to 2.06 g/cm3, above); both are kept.
source: nasa-ares-nu-lht
where: Geomechanical Properties for NU-LHT-2M table, Density (g/cm 3) Bulk row
- benchmark: void_ratio
label: Void ratio range, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table)
value: 0.332
value_high: 1.004
bound: range
unit: '-'
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M
basis: dimensionless void ratio range as printed in the ARES table, with its reference [2]
method: Range printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table, citing Zeng et al. (2010)
status: ground
source: nasa-ares-nu-lht
where: Geomechanical Properties for NU-LHT-2M table, Void Ratio row
- benchmark: friction_angle
label: Triaxial friction angle, NU-LHT-2M (NASA JSC ARES geomechanical table)
value: 36
value_high: 40.7
bound: range
unit: °
scope: material
conditions:
material: NU-LHT-2M
basis: triaxial shear strength, friction angle as printed in the ARES table; the same table gives no cohesion value for this simulant
method: Range printed in the ARES Geomechanical Properties table, citing Zeng et al. (2010)
status: ground
note: The 2024 guide Table 19 prints n/a for NU-LHT-2M cohesion and friction angle; the ARES page gives a value and the 2024 guide does not, so both are kept.
source: nasa-ares-nu-lht
where: Geomechanical Properties for NU-LHT-2M table, Triaxial Shear Strength, Friction Angle column
corrosion:
- environment: Moist air during storage and transport
headline: Simulant takes up water from moist air and can weather over time, so the 2024 guide says to store it away from moist air.
effect: The 2024 guide says simulant materials must be stored to minimise or eliminate contact with moist air, to avoid water intake and possible weathering over time. It also says all simulants show some hygroscopicity and that available simulants are often contaminated with adsorbed water and humid air from transportation and previous testing. This is a general statement for simulants; no NU-LHT-2M-specific water-uptake value was found in the sections read.
rating: moderate
conditions:
basis: general statement for lunar regolith simulants; the rating is the assistant's judgment, as the guide gives none
exposure: storage and transport; no humidity level or time given
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 6.3 (storage paragraph); Section 6.3.1 (Desiccation); Section 6.2.1.B.(i) (Low Temperatures, adsorbed water)
- environment: Size segregation during storage and transport (physical change)
headline: Stored simulant segregates by size, so the particle size distribution changes unless the container is mixed before sampling.
effect: The 2024 guide says the particle size distribution does not stay the same during transport and storage, because larger, more buoyant particles migrate upward when vibrated. It recommends homogenising stored simulant by rolling and overturning the containers before sampling, and measuring the size distribution of used simulant before reuse.
rating: moderate
conditions:
basis: general statement for stored lunar regolith simulants; the rating is the assistant's judgment, as the guide gives none
process: transport and storage in containers with vibration
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 6.3 (paragraph on size segregation)
- environment: High-temperature processing in ambient air (oxidation)
headline: Processing simulant at high temperature in ambient air can form oxidation products that would not form under lunar conditions.
effect: The 2024 guide says high-temperature processing of regolith in ambient conditions increases the potential of forming oxidation products that would not be formed under lunar conditions. It says oxidation can involve minor components that change yields or form unwanted by-products, and it advises an inert atmosphere for ambient-pressure processing tests.
rating: moderate
conditions:
basis: general statement for lunar regolith simulants; the guide gives no temperature for this statement; the rating is the assistant's judgment
atmosphere: ambient air
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 6.2.1.B.(ii) (High Temperatures)
risks:
hazards:
- text: Crystalline silica is the main health concern for people using the simulant. The guide names quartz, cristobalite and tridymite, and says chronic inhalation of respirable particles below 10 microns can lead to pneumoconiosis, including silicosis.
ghs: []
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 5.5.2 (Illness)
- text: Table 25 gives NU-LHT-2M 0.67 wt.% total crystalline silica and 0.07 wt.% respirable crystalline silica (DCM 2023). The guide says crystalline silica is regulated under OSHA general industry and construction standards.
ghs: []
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 25, NU-LHT-2M row; Section 5.5.2
- text: PubChem's GHS record for cristobalite (ECHA notifications, EC 238-455-4), a crystalline silica phase the 2024 guide names, gives H350 'May cause cancer' (12.6% of notifications) and H372 'Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure' (46%), with signal word Danger and pictogram GHS08. The percentages are the share of notifications that reported each code, as printed.
ghs:
- H350
- H372
source: pubchem-silica-ghs
where: Safety and Hazards, GHS Classification (CID 24261), ECHA entry for Cristobalite (EC 238-455-4)
- text: OSHA says respirable crystalline silica can cause silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and kidney disease, and that dust is created when stone, rock, concrete, brick and mortar are cut, sawed, ground, drilled or crushed.
ghs: []
source: osha-silica-page
where: Crystalline silica topic page, health effects and dust-creation text
failure_risks:
- mode: Airborne particles and soil movement during vacuum pump-down
trigger: Pumping down a simulant bed in a vacuum chamber, where adsorbed water comes off the particles
consequence: The 2024 guide says simulant off-gasses violently during pump-down, that particulate matter poses a risk to chamber hardware (pumps and instruments), and that soil movement can make spouts of airborne particles that disturb the bed. Regulating the pump rate to keep pressure decay slow reduces the disturbance.
severity: moderate
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 6.2.2.A.(i) (Dry Regolith Tests)
- mode: Moisture carried into a test from storage or earlier use
trigger: Simulant used without drying after transport or earlier testing
consequence: Simulants are often contaminated with adsorbed water and humid air, which changes the starting state of a test. The guide recommends thorough drying before emplacement in the test environment; chamber evacuation removes some moisture, but ambient desiccation is limited.
severity: moderate
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 6.2.1.B.(i) (Low Temperatures); Section 6.2.2.A.(i) (Dry Regolith Tests)
side_effects:
- text: The 2010 guide says the phosphates and sulfides in NU-LHT-2M are realistic but possibly hazardous to ISRU processes; the table does not say how.
affects: ISRU oxygen-extraction processes that heat or reduce the feedstock
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 8, Oxygen Production column, NU-LHT-2M row
handling:
- text: The 2024 guide says eye protection, glasses or goggles, is needed depending on the simulant's physical characteristics.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 5.5, text before 5.5.2
- text: Crystalline silica can become airborne when workers chip, cut, drill or grind objects that contain silica.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 5.5.2 (Illness)
- text: OSHA's respirable crystalline silica standard sets the permissible exposure limit at no exposure 'in excess of 50 μg/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA' (29 CFR 1910.1053(c)), with an action level of 25 μg/m3 calculated as an 8-hour TWA (29 CFR 1910.1053(b)).
source: osha-1910-1053
where: 29 CFR 1910.1053, paragraphs (b) and (c)
mitigations:
- text: The 2024 guide says simulant used in ambient-condition mechanical testing should be stored dry in a location with active humidity control; if that is not possible, it should be desiccated first using the Section 6.3.1 methods.
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Section 6.2.1 key recommendations (ambient condition mechanical testing); Section 6.3.1 (Desiccation)
uses:
- application: rovers-and-surface-systems
device: Excavation and flow testing
example: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M recommended for excavation and flow, because pseudo-agglutinates affect geomechanical behavior that may be important to excavation.
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 7, fit-to-use matrix, Excavation/Flow column, NU-LHT-2M row
- application: rovers-and-surface-systems
device: Drilling and abrasion or wear testing
example: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M recommended for drilling and abrasion, because fidelity to mineral and glass percentages should yield appropriate abrasiveness.
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 7, fit-to-use matrix, Drilling and Abrasion/Wear columns, NU-LHT-2M row
- application: propulsion-and-tanks
device: Oxygen production feedstock for in-situ resource utilization tests
example: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M most recommended for highlands oxygen production, with slightly low FeO against the lunar reference (about 4 against 5 wt.%); it also says the high iron in silicates will slow reduction.
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 8, Oxygen Production column, NU-LHT-2M row
- application: habitats-and-suits
device: Human health and dust studies
example: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M the most suitable composition for human health studies, with a reasonable PSD that is too coarse in the fine fraction.
source: nasa-tm-2010-216446
where: Table 8, Human Health Studies column, NU-LHT-2M row
supply:
- subject: NU-LHT-2M simulant (USGS and NASA)
abundance: not stated in the three sources
producers: []
critical_lists: []
recycling: not stated in the three sources
substitutes: []
source: nasa-tm-2024-guide
where: Table 2 (producer USGS/NASA, footnote ** says these entities no longer manufacture the simulant); Section 3.4 (only very small amounts still exist for NASA testing); Section 3.5 (NU-LHT supply was about spent)
- subject: Feldspar, the mineral class of the anorthosite feedstock (USGS feldspar chapter; not NU-LHT-2M itself)
abundance: not stated in the USGS feldspar chapter
producers:
- country: India
share_percent: 19.4
year: 2025
- country: Turkey
share_percent: 17.1
year: 2025
- country: Iran
share_percent: 12.6
year: 2025
- country: China
share_percent: 11.9
year: 2025
- country: Italy
share_percent: 7.1
year: 2025
critical_lists: []
recycling: 'USGS feldspar chapter: feldspar and nepheline syenite are not recycled by producers; glass container producers use cullet, which reduces feldspar consumption.'
substitutes:
- 'USGS: feldspar can be replaced in some end uses by clays, electric furnace slag, feldspar-silica mixtures, pyrophyllite, spodumene, or talc.'
source: usgs-mcs2026-feldspar
where: World Mine Production and Reserves table, mine production 2025 (world total 31,000 thousand t, rounded; shares calculated by Space Mushroom against that total); Recycling; Substitutes
media: []
documents:
- title: NASA/TM-2010-216446, Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide (Schrader et al., September 2010)
type: report
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100038451/downloads/20100038451.pdf
year: 2010
- title: NASA/TM-20240011783, Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide, Revision A (Slabic et al., effective 10/24/2024)
type: report
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240011783/downloads/Lunar_Regolith_Simulant_Users_Guide_Rev_A_28OCT.pdf
year: 2024
- title: NASA Lunar Regolith Simulant Program (Edmunson et al., 3-page abstract)
type: report
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100017474/downloads/20100017474.pdf
year: 2010
- title: NASA JSC ARES, NU-LHT simulant page with Geomechanical Properties table
type: report
url: https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/projects/simulants/nu-lht.html
- title: Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026, Feldspar and Nepheline Syenite (USGS)
type: report
url: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2026/mcs2026-feldspar.pdf
year: 2026
- title: PubChem, Silica (CID 24261), Safety and Hazards, GHS Classification
type: database
url: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rest/pug_view/data/compound/24261/JSON?heading=GHS+Classification
- title: OSHA, Crystalline Silica topic page
type: report
url: https://www.osha.gov/silica-crystalline
- title: 29 CFR 1910.1053, Respirable crystalline silica (general industry)
type: standard
url: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1053
- title: RF Metrology of Lunar Highlands Regolith Simulant NU-LHT-2M (Johnson, Eckman, Swank, Zemba, 2023)
type: report
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230013296
year: 2023
gaps:
- No NU-LHT-2M-specific corrosion or moisture-uptake value was found. The ageing entries are the 2024 guide's general statements for all simulants, and their ratings (moderate) are the assistant's judgment, as the guide gives none.
- 'Cohesion is not reported for NU-LHT-2M in any source read: the 2024 guide prints n/a (Table 19) and the ARES table shows a dash in the cohesion column.'
- The friction angle of 36 to 40.7 degrees comes from the ARES page only, which cites Zeng et al. (2010); the 2024 guide prints n/a for it. Both are kept, and the primary Zeng paper was not opened.
- No safety data sheet or PubChem GHS record for NU-LHT-2M itself was found. The GHS entry is for cristobalite, a silica phase the 2024 guide names in the simulant; the OSHA entries are its health-effect text.
- No control measures beyond eye protection, dust avoidance and dry storage are stated in the sources read.
- 'Supply of NU-LHT-2M: no current producer, stock quantity or price was found. The 2024 guide says the producers no longer manufacture it; the ARES page says the USGS is looking into re-starting its simulant efforts.'
- Critical-mineral lists (USGS and EU) were not checked for feldspar or the anorthosite feedstock in this run.
- The feldspar supply entry covers feldspar mineral production, the mineral class of anorthosite; it is not a supply figure for anorthosite or for NU-LHT-2M.
- Modal mineralogy disagrees between the 2010 and 2024 guides (agglutinates 23.5 modal % against 29.02 wt.%); neither source reconciles the two, so both are kept.
- The 65, 30 and 5 percent mixing ratio is the design ratio stated in the 2024 guide, not a measured value; the measured modal values are listed as properties.
- Magnetic susceptibility (Table 22, log units) and the 2024 figure-of-merit summary scores were not added as properties; the composition FoM from the 2010 guide is included.
- The MDPI Aerospace 2024 paper on NU-LHT-2M (Zanotti et al., doi 10.3390/aerospace11040295) returned 403 Access Denied to automated access, so it was not read. The Zeng 2010 and Martin 2022 papers were not opened.
- Void ratio, specific gravity and friction angle use snake_case names that are not in spores/property-canon.yaml.
- The OSHA permissible exposure limit was read through WebFetch of the OSHA 1910.1053 page, because curl to that page was blocked (403), so the quotation is not from raw page text.
- The NASA abstract (NTRS 20100017474) prints no year in the PDF text; the year 2010 is taken from the NTRS identifier.
sources:
nasa-tm-2010-216446:
title: Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide (NASA/TM-2010-216446)
id: NASA/TM-2010-216446, September 2010
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100038451/downloads/20100038451.pdf
year: 2010
kind: report
license: public domain (NASA)
nasa-tm-2024-guide:
title: Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide, Revision A (NASA/TM-20240011783)
id: NASA/TM-20240011783, Rev A effective 10/24/2024
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240011783/downloads/Lunar_Regolith_Simulant_Users_Guide_Rev_A_28OCT.pdf
year: 2024
kind: report
license: public domain (NASA)
nasa-lpsc-abstract:
title: NASA Lunar Regolith Simulant Program (Edmunson et al., 3-page abstract)
id: NTRS 20100017474 (year not printed in the PDF text)
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100017474/downloads/20100017474.pdf
year: 2010
kind: report
license: public domain (NASA)
nasa-ares-nu-lht:
title: NU-LHT simulant page, NASA JSC Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES), with Geomechanical Properties table
id: NASA JSC ARES simulants page for NU-LHT; geomechanical table cites Zeng et al. (2010)
url: https://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/projects/simulants/nu-lht.html
kind: web
license: NASA website (cited, not reproduced)
usgs-mcs2026-feldspar:
title: Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026, Feldspar and Nepheline Syenite (USGS)
id: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026, feldspar chapter
url: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2026/mcs2026-feldspar.pdf
year: 2026
kind: report
license: public domain (USGS)
pubchem-silica-ghs:
title: PubChem, Silica (CID 24261), Safety and Hazards, GHS Classification (ECHA entries)
id: PubChem CID 24261; ECHA C&L Inventory entries as shown on PubChem
url: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rest/pug_view/data/compound/24261/JSON?heading=GHS+Classification
kind: database
license: PubChem (NIH), data as shown
osha-silica-page:
title: OSHA, Crystalline Silica (topic page)
id: osha.gov/silica-crystalline
url: https://www.osha.gov/silica-crystalline
kind: web
license: public domain (US government)
osha-1910-1053:
title: 29 CFR 1910.1053, Respirable crystalline silica (general industry)
id: 29 CFR 1910.1053
url: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1053
kind: standard
license: public domain (US government)
johnson2023-ntrs:
title: RF Metrology of Lunar Highlands Regolith Simulant NU-LHT-2M (Johnson, Eckman, Swank, Zemba, 2023)
id: NASA NTRS 20230013296
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230013296
year: 2023
kind: report
license: public domain (NASA)
license: CC-BY-4.0
updated: '2026-11-01'
review:
status: draft
method: assistant
checked_values: 33
unreachable: 0
caveats: 2
note: Written by an AI assistant from nine sources read in this run (three NASA guides and report pages, the NASA JSC ARES simulant page, the USGS feldspar chapter, PubChem and two OSHA pages). The MDPI open paper returned 403 and was not read. Values are as printed; discrepancies are shown side by side.
story:
recipe:
line: NU-LHT-2M is a physical mixture, not one compound. Its crystalline part is Stillwater anorthosite and norite with minor synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite. Its pseudo-agglutinate is made from Stillwater mill sand in a plasma arc, and its good glass is a synthetic glass with a highlands-like composition.
parts:
- name: Stillwater anorthosite and norite (crystalline)
share: 65% crystalline (design mixing ratio)
role: The dominant rocks in the mix. Plagioclase, pyroxene and olivine make up the crystalline part, as the 2010 and 2024 modal tables show.
- name: Pseudo-agglutinate
share: 30% (design mixing ratio)
role: Glass-bonded fragments made from Stillwater mill sand in a plasma arc. The 2010 guide counts them as agglutinates.
- name: Good glass
share: 5% (design mixing ratio)
role: Glass with no mineral inclusions, per the 2024 guide.
- name: Minor synthetic minerals
share: not stated
role: Synthetic whitlockite, fluorapatite and pyrite (troilite substitute), included in -2M and not in -1M.
risk_groups:
- title: For people
level: 0
verdict: 'Dust is the concern: silica is present at low levels'
lead: The 2024 guide says the primary exposure concerns for simulant users are crystalline silica and total dust.
points:
- label: Silica content
line: Table 25 gives 0.67 wt.% total crystalline silica (DCM 2023) and 0.82 wt.% (Herndon 2021) for NU-LHT-2M. The respirable crystalline silica is 0.07 wt.% (DCM 2023).
- label: Illness
line: The guide says chronic inhalation of respirable particles below 10 microns can lead to pneumoconiosis, including silicosis, after years of exposure.
- label: Dust in work
line: Crystalline silica can become airborne when workers chip, cut, drill or grind objects that contain silica.
- title: In ISRU processing
lead: The 2010 guide names the phosphates and sulfides as a possible hazard for ISRU processes.
points:
- label: Minerals
line: Table 8 says the phosphates and sulfides in NU-LHT-2M are realistic but possibly hazardous to ISRU processes. The table does not say how.
- label: Oxygen production
line: Table 8 rates NU-LHT-2M most recommended for highlands oxygen production, with slightly low FeO (about 4 against 5 wt.%). It also says the high iron in its silicates will slow reduction.
- title: Handling and storage
points:
- label: Eye protection
line: The 2024 guide says glasses or goggles are needed depending on the simulant's physical characteristics.
- label: Airborne dust
line: Silica-bearing material becomes airborne when it is chipped, cut, drilled or ground.
why: NU-LHT-2M is a NASA and USGS lunar highlands simulant. It was built to match the average composition, particle size and particle shape of Apollo 16 sample 64001/64002, and it was the prototype version of the NU-LHT series. The 2024 guide says only very small amounts remain for NASA testing.
uses:
- where: Excavation and drilling
line: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M recommended for excavation and flow, and recommended for drilling and abrasion testing, because its mineral and glass percentages should give realistic abrasiveness.
- where: Oxygen production (in-situ resource utilization)
line: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M most recommended for highlands oxygen production, because its FeO is slightly low against the lunar reference (about 4 against 5 wt.%), but it warns that its phosphates and sulfides may be hazardous to ISRU processes.
- where: Human health studies
line: The 2010 guide rates NU-LHT-2M the most suitable composition for human health studies, with a reasonable particle size distribution that is too coarse in the fine fraction.
can_do:
- label: Density
benchmark: density
line: Bulk density ranges from 1.37 to 2.06 g/cm3 for NU-LHT-2M, as printed in the 2024 guide Table 16. The two Apollo 16 regolith rows in Table 15 are listed as separate properties of this profile.
- label: Particle size
benchmark: particle_size_q50
line: The median particle size (Q50) is 125.7 µm, with Q25 at 55.9 µm and Q75 at 244.5 µm, as printed in Table 10 (Clark 2021).
- label: Particle shape
benchmark: aspect_ratio
line: The bulk aspect ratio is 0.63 and the root form factor 0.91 (Table 13, SDL 2022). The 2010 guide's QEMSCAN count gives 52.8 wt.% rounded particles (Table 6).
- label: Composition
benchmark: bulk_sio2
line: Bulk SiO2 is 47 wt.% and bulk Al2O3 is 24.5 wt.% (Table 7, Wilson USGS 2020). The composition figure of merit against the Apollo 64001/64002 reference is 0.55 (Table 3, 2010 guide).
compare: 'NU-LHT-2M sits at the highlands end of the NU-LHT family. On the 2010 composition figure of merit it scores 0.55 against lunar reference 64001/64002. The same table ranks it above every other simulant listed except NU-LHT-1M, which scores higher (Table 3). Its median particle size is 125.7 µm (Table 10). The two Apollo 16 density rows in Table 15 disagree, and the NU-LHT-2M density range is printed alongside them (Table 16). The reference FeO is also not settled: the 2024 guide gives 6.6 wt.% for the Apollo highlands average (Table 6), while the 2010 guide cites about 5 wt.% for its lunar reference. Cohesion is not reported for this simulant. The NASA JSC ARES page gives a triaxial friction angle of 36 to 40.7 degrees (Zeng et al. 2010), where the 2024 guide prints n/a (Table 19).'
compare_rows:
- label: Bulk density range
benchmark: density
- label: Median particle size, Q50
benchmark: particle_size_q50
- label: Composition figure of merit
benchmark: fom_composition_score
handling:
- 'Treat dust as a health concern: the guide reports 0.67 wt.% total crystalline silica and 0.07 wt.% respirable crystalline silica.'
- Wear eye protection suited to the simulant's physical form, as the 2024 guide advises.
- Keep the dust from becoming airborne when cutting, drilling or grinding silica-bearing objects.
- Only very small amounts remain for NASA testing, so check availability before planning a test.
- Store the simulant dry under active humidity control, or desiccate it first (2024 guide, Section 6.2.1).
good_for:
- 'Highlands-like composition: bulk SiO2 of 47 wt.% and Al2O3 of 24.5 wt.% (Table 7, Wilson USGS 2020).'
- Oxygen-production and excavation studies, which the 2010 guide rates recommended for this composition (Tables 7 and 8).
watch_out:
- Cohesion is not reported for NU-LHT-2M, and the 2024 guide prints n/a for its friction angle (Table 19). The ARES page gives 36 to 40.7 degrees, a value the 2024 guide does not reconcile.
- 'Supply is nearly exhausted: the 2024 guide says the producers no longer manufacture this simulant.'
- Phosphates and sulfides may be hazardous to ISRU processes (Table 8, 2010 guide).
verdict: NU-LHT-2M is a well-documented highlands simulant in these three NASA guides, with composition, particle size, shape and density data. Its supply is nearly exhausted and its cohesion is not reported, so new test programmes should check availability first.
References
Every number above carries a reference number. Click one to see the source and where in it the value comes from.
| # | Source | Type | Year | Used for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide (NASA/TM-2010-216446) | report | 2010 | 13 values | |
| Lunar Regolith Simulant User's Guide, Revision A (NASA/TM-20240011783) | report | 2024 | 33 values | |
| NASA Lunar Regolith Simulant Program (Edmunson et al., 3-page abstract) | report | 2010 | 0 values | |
| NU-LHT simulant page, NASA JSC Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES), with Geomechanical Properties table | web | 4 values | ||
| Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026, Feldspar and Nepheline Syenite (USGS) | report | 2026 | 1 value | |
| PubChem, Silica (CID 24261), Safety and Hazards, GHS Classification (ECHA entries) | database | 1 value | ||
| OSHA, Crystalline Silica (topic page) | web | 1 value | ||
| 29 CFR 1910.1053, Respirable crystalline silica (general industry) | standard | 1 value | ||
| RF Metrology of Lunar Highlands Regolith Simulant NU-LHT-2M (Johnson, Eckman, Swank, Zemba, 2023) | report | 2023 | 0 values |
Updated