Talk:Moon

Archive issues

I combined the multiple archives that only had one thread per archive. I also increased the size of the archive and I may have fixed the bug that was creating the many small archives. I do not follow this talk page, so if you need me, drop a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vegaswikian. I have no idea what cause the issue with archiving, but I was certainly happy to see that you were (and have, apparently) straightened it out.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New lead additions

A good bit was added to the lead today. Is it appropriate to include this new information there or should it be moved down to the "exploration" area. I might should be being bold, but I'm still easing into wikipedia... I did remove a part of a sentence that seems speculative. Cmiych (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that it should be moved, then you should definitely go for it. That's how Wikipedia works and is improved, after all.

As for the last half of the sentence which you removed, be sure to check the references. Speculation is OK as long as it's reasonable and well referenced (no fringe theories being the biggest issue). So, I put the sentence back, but don't let that discourage you at all. This is one surefire way to generate communication, with the key being that you actually came here and started a topic about it on the talk page.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this here

"The U.S. has committed to return to the moon by 2018." I have removed it because 1) It has no relavance 2) Beyond some PR cash & blarmy, NASA has done nothing that indicates it will happen & 3) So what, it shouldn't be in the introduction anyway. 89.168.56.242 (talk)

Seems the page is semi-protected, must have missed that so i will leave it to registered users to get rid of that line while i go register.89.168.56.242 (talk)

I brought up the same thing about a week ago, but other seemed to believe it was worth inclusion... That statement in the lead is actually much trimmed down from what was originally inserted... Cmiych (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

NASA is planning a return mission in the 2020s - Constellation Programme 88.105.5.75 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tempted to pull it out. The refs are all from 2005 articles. I just spent some time looking at internet articles on the recent 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, and found a wide range of opinion on what is up with the "U.S. return to the moon" concept - it seems a bit doubtful if the money is there, etc. Await more info and opinion here. Jusdafax (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no planned date for a return to the moon, so you can just remove it. Since 2005 the budget has been cut and plans have been changed. A recent presentation by dr. sally ride of the augustine hsf review committee estimated how future nasa human space operations would play out if the status quo remained, and with information from aerospace corp and nasa, she said it was unlikely that orion and ares 1 would be complete by 2020 if the status quo remained. the lunar lander, which is not even designed yet, was not even mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.124.147 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Full moons closest to the earth (Perigree)

The mention of certain dates when the moon is full, but the orbit's mileage moves closest to the earth. This happened three times in the last 20 years (on average every 9.5 years) such as the full moons of Dec. 1-2, 1990, Dec. 20/21, 1999 (the first day of northern hemisphere winter with the longest duration of twilight) and Dec. 12/13, 2008. A similar near-approach to earth was Jan. 11, 2009 and Dec. 30/31, 1990 on New Years' eve, thus it can occur twice in a single lunar month or 28.5 days apart. The next full moon in ultra-perigree (or 330,000 to 350,000 km from earth) is in on Christmas night Dec. 26, 2017 or a near-approach on Nov. 25, 2017. Winter full moons happen to be on a higher horizon on the epilpetic in the northern hemisphere, about 23 degrees North (or 20-21' N in the year 2017), and the 1999 Winter solstice full moon was located in 20-21' degrees north. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to alter "The Moon" file.

I konw information on the formation on the moon and would like to place it in "The Moon" file. It tells the way on how the moon formed. --Thunder 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}} --Thunder 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK...that would be great. If you have some references to reliable sources, then please add the info. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Moon in Popular Culture/TV &Film?

I thought a section like this would be a good inclusion to the article; as it would show more about how people percieve the moon and the mystery/whatever it "contains" - and just how the moon's depicted as being like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"although a few robotic landers and orbiters have been sent to the Moon since that time."

remove "a few". imaginary quantification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.124.147 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cruithne, et al.?

How about some mention of the other natural orbiting bodies, such as Cruithne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

3753 Cruithne does not orbit the Earth. Cruithne orbits the Sun, and it's orbit is influenced by the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Alternative hypothesis for only one viewable side to the moon

When viewing the moon from both sides you'll immediately notice that the side of the moon we don't see has no major markings/gray areas called Lunar mare, however the side constantly facing us does! Possibly caused by Giant impact hypothesis

The lunar mare are composed of basalt and heavy metals.

Now, we've established a possibility that one side of the moon has a 'heavier' side, kind of like an egg with its yolk at one end.

Gravity "is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another".

So we have the Earth with its gravity, attracting the Moon i.e. keeping the Moon in orbit. However the one side of the moon will have a greater gravitational influence than the other because of it's lobsided core (heavier side). This side will have a greater attraction to the Earth and thus we will only ever really see the one side of it.

An analogy that works quite well is if you tie a string to a tennis ball and swing it above your head: You are the Earth, the string is gravity, the tennis ball is the Moon and the point at which the string connects to the ball is the lobsided core.

If you 'loosen the connection' to the Moon you'll find that it would indeed wobble slightly while it gets 'swung' around the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McAnix101 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 September 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)

Indian water discovery by Chandrayaan-1

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)