Talk:Moon

Moon Rocks category

How come the 'Moon Rocks' paragraph does not tell "which" minerals are present on the moon? I understand from a recent article (http://www.starstryder.com/2009/03/24/the-moon-is-made-of-minerals/) that there are plenty of different types of minerals on the moon, not just the 'basalt' described here on Wiki. 132.8.8.45 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Orbit and relationship to Earth

The "Diagram illustrating various phases of the Moon in their order of ...", to my best, is not true. The diagram shows the trajectory of the moon to be at times convex and at times concave when it should be always convex. Please see the article "Orbit of the Moon" the section "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun". (JJCP (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCP (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it wouldn't be possible to show the concave motion within such an image. If you click on the image itself and read the "Summary" text, it states that the representation could be misleading. As you note, we have an article to make the true motion clear. Hopefully, none of our readers will draw conclusions based only on a line in an image. Franamax (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] I think JJCP has a point if you look at the image closely enough, because the various 'Earths' seem to be shown as stages on Earth's journey around the Sun shown much too slow relative to the Moon, the Moon looks here as if it is whizzing round at a rate that the geometry would indicate as several tens of months each year, and going retrograde each month, which it doesn't in fact do. It's a very poor and unsuitable image for another reason as well, because it introduces the nearly irrelevant feature of the earth's orbit round the sun, and fails to demonstrate the vital ingredient for moon-phases, which is the angular relation between Moon and Sun as seen from the Earth. The old fashioned circular diagrams with about 8 Moon phases in relation to the direction of the Sun were much clearer in respect of the point to be demonstrated. I'll see if I can find a usable one. Terry0051 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot in my last post to ask whether a better image is available. It seems to me that if we wished to show the Moon motion properly, we would need very w-i-ide display screens. So the question becomes: what is the main purpose of this illustration? And is there any way that the image caption can be tweaked to make the intent more clear? I rather doubt that the purpose of this image is to prove any facts about the Moon's orbital relationship to the Sun. Franamax (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] This post is again about a possible better image for demonstrating (more clearly than we have at present) the cause of moon-phases:-- The kind of thing I referred to in last post was rather like File:NSRW_Phases_of_the_Moon.jpg. That image seems clear enough about the relation with the Moon's monthly journey around the Earth, but the drawback I see is that this image contains no explicit indication of the direction of the Sun. Of course in a sense it's obvious that the Sun is way off the top of the image in the upward direction, but I take it that the purpose is to make things clear to a reader who isn't yet oriented to all of that. Is there anything better around? Terry0051 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a link it "Metonic cycle" in the "See Also" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.54.38 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If the moon's Radius is about 1/4 that of earth's, it's surface area should be about 1/16th that of earth's (which should correspond to the area of Russia) instead of the posted 1/4 Area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.202.162 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor line-spacing problem above Eccentricity line.

[From Solspot] The line "Semi-major axis 384,399 km" appears as 384.399 (the comma appears as a decimal point; it may mislead a reader). Perhaps it's overlaid by the line below: "Eccentricity 0.054". It seems ok in the source, but I can't identify the line-spacing command. Solspot (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NASA water discovery

Can someone put in a mention about this as it just featured on the news and is very important - a large quantity (by lunar stantards anyway) was found in the soil. According to the scientist on the news if you squeezed a washing machine full of the soil you would get about a litre of water from it. He did not mention the type of water however. 78.145.175.176 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There has recently, been the detection of air molecules also. The implications of this are immense. With no atmosphere on the moon, the detection of air molecules would signal the presence of intelligent life being contained with an advanced life support type system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.5.20 (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Water on the moon is confirmed. Any of these new imagesImage1 Image2can be introduced into the section.Bcs09 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Volcanic Pearls

These are mentioned in the article but no explanation or hyperlink is given.

Hiya 82.39.112.228, and welcome to Wikipedia! The link you are looking for is the "Main article" link at the beginning of that section called Lunar ice. The volcanic pearls are explained there. Also I added another reference citation from the Lunar ice article that does not have to be translated. Hope this helps! (As soon as somebody creates an article all about those volcanic pearls, then it can be linked to. <g>)

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox ambiguity

On the line for 'Volume,' the units are in cubic kilometers, but the link is shown as k[m^3], which may (?) lead people to believe that we are talking about thousands of cubic meters, rather than billions of cubic meters.

KJBurns (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The link for km³ now goes to 1 E+9 m³. Isn't that better?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Moon

The moon is earth's only natural satellite and the fifth largest in the Solar System. The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,403 kilometres (238,857 mi), about thirty times the diameter of the Earth. The common centre of mass of the system (the barycentre) is locatedd at aboout 1,700 kilometres (1,100)--- aquater the Earth' radius----- beneath the surface of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.211.111 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Object close to the Moon

The picture that show the "halo" around the Moon, have something strange. It isn't true? --Little bishop (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Eclipses

This statement "Likewise, about 600 million years from now (assuming that the angular diameter of the Sun will not change), the Moon will no longer cover the Sun completely and only annular eclipses will occur.[69]" is not supported by the cited source "69" which is "^ a b Thieman, J.; Keating, S. (2006-05-02). "Eclipse 99, Frequently Asked Questions". NASA. http://eclipse99.nasa.gov/pages/faq.html. Retrieved 2007-04-12.". According to that source, the number is 1 billion years. However, the following source does say 600 million and it's also a NASA source: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php. The source or the number of years should be changed, however, that does beg the question about which source, if either, is accurate. If someone or some persons are keeping a close eye on this page, please advise.Rodney420 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Increasing Earth-Moon distance by 3.8 cm

Is this line appropriate to add to article?

By coincidence, diameter of corner cubes in retroreflectors on Moon is also 3.8 cm with references http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

Thanks! Rāmāh (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't thinks so. This is almost WP:SYNTHESIS, although if you had been WP:BOLD and put it in, people might have left it in. Martin451 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Committed to Moon?

Intro, para 3 says:

The U.S. has committed to return to the Moon by 2018.^[5][6][7]

All citations is from 2005. It needs update with at least some Oct/Nov 2009 fact link, because of the economical crisis and Obamas decisions on the space programs. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hole in the Moon Could Shelter Colonists

This site: [Fox] writes that hole in the Moon could shelter colonists.Agre22 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Article needs grammatical corrections

In the section "Ocean Tides" I have changed three things:

1) I added, parenthetically, that the sun also contributes to the ocean tides, with about half the gravitational effect of the moon.

2) I corrected two or three occurrences of "nearest" and/or "farthest" where, in comparing two objects, it should be "nearer" and "farther".

") In one paragraph only, I corrected a repeated capitalization error. In the phrase "I live on Earth", the upper-case "E" is correct. In the phrase "I live on the earth", the "e" should not be capitalized. Likewise, "the moon" requires a lower-case "m". This capitalization discrepancy should be corrected throughout the entire article, but I didn't take the time to do it, because someone may simply reverses my efforts. In any case, the way it stands now, the capitalization is incorrect. Worldrimroamer (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)