Too much assumptions. Still a lot to investigate and learn about this.

The settled science of the moon's origin takes another hit. Then again tweaking the theory wherein a early solar system comet bombardment brought water to quickly cooled moon might save it.

If there's one thing we learned from Kepler and the spectroscopically detected hot Jupiters, our 20th century models of how the solar system was formed were completely inadequate to mirror reality.

For over 40 years, they have had the opportunity to study these samples/rocks in detail with every piece of high tech equipment that they could get there hands on. And still, they completely fail to find any water indicators. Now all of a sudden, they find it.

Why the sudden change in data?? Did they find a new tech to analyze the sample?

Also, one more reason why you never take a theory as fact, no matter how long the theory has been around. Age is not proof.

The fact that the moon has frozen water at its poles is old news. This will, in no doubt, come as an asset for future moon colonists.

The initial water content of Earth mantle would be something like 500 ppm (~ 0.05 % water by mass) and the initial water content of Mars mantle was similar (IIRC ~ 150 ppm). That Moon would have something similar (1/100 from dewatered magmatic rocks) shouldn't surprise anyone.

We know from zink isotopes that there was a large-scale evaporation of volatiles (eg zink) on the Moon, indicative of an impact formation. Lately the access to high capacity simulations have reformed [sic] the field, with many possible pathways to a Moon with similar isotope ratios for refractories (tungsten, chromium and titanium) as well as oxygen (and so water) as the Earth. [ http://docmadhatt...oon.html ]

[cont] Interestingly the likeliest scenario, that of two similar sized planetoids under low velocity impact, starts out with little to no rotation. That is also the best initial conditions for getting Vesta's two major impact craters (Venenia & Rheasilvia) correct. [ http://arstechnic...d-vesta/ ] It seems random aggregation leaves bodies with little to no rotation, it is impacts that gets the ball rolling.

@philw: There was never anything "settled" about Moon formation. The impact hypothesis was, and remains, the likeliest. But if, and exactly how, an impact formed the Moon is not tested yet. Here are the 5 serious contenders: fission, capture, condensation, collision, ejection. [ http://csep10.phy...ion.html ]

"Generally, work over the last 10 years has essentially ruled out the first two explanations and made the third one rather unlikely. At present the fifth hypothesis, that the Moon was formed from a ring of matter ejected by collision of a large object with the Earth, is the favored hypothesis; however, the question is not completely settled and many details remain to the accounted for."

@Tangent: "They" didn't fail to find water, they assumed for good reasons (no vacuum handling) it was contamination. It had to wait for modern sample methods to uncover the crystal water, which is why they look at hydrogen, see the article.
"In August 1976, a Soviet rocket landed on the moon, drilled six feet into the surface, extracted about half a pound of rock and flew back. In the rocks that it brought back, water made up around 0.1%."
"Nasa's Clementine mission bounced radio waves off the surface of the moon in 1994, and found evidence of water. Arlin Crotts at Columbia University in New York city says, 'No other author has ever cited the Luna 24 work.'"
"http://www.dailym...ry.html"

As for the rest, you are confusing observation with theory. A well tested theory (Moon water) is more solid than any ad hoc observation (Apollo rock water).