Talk:Moon/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Legal Status of the Moon

My understanding of the relevant laws is that while the Outer Space Treaty did establish res communis on the Moon, the prohibition on military installations was part of the Moon Treaty, a UN treaty that was neither is signed nor ratified by any spacefaring nation. The footnote links to a UN page, so while they might state this is the state of things, my understanding (backed up by the Moon Treaty page) is that the Moon Treaty failed specifically because groups like the L5 Society lobbied against any constraints that might hamper lunar colonization...

Ribald (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

clarification on the orbit and rotation characteristics of the Moon

Yeah, so in the article, it says that the same side of the moon always faces the Earth, and it implies that the whole Moon moving away from us (the Earth) thing has stopped and that what we have is permanent. I just wanted to mention that technically, it's not permanent. "The moon is moving away from Earth at a speed of about 1 1/2 inches (3.8 centimeters) per year." Because of the conservation of angular momentum, this means that rotation and the revolution of the moon must slow down. So, technically, the same side of the moon didn't used to always face us, and it won't always. Also, the rotation of the earth, and because of that, the revolution of the earth, slows down at a VERY slow rate. To be accurate, I think we should change the article to say that the same side is "currently always turned away from the Earth." However, because the source costs money, http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html here is a free look at it, from NASA's website!

Spudis, Paul D. (2004). "Moon". World Book Online Reference Center. Retrieved 2008-03-23.

ObiBinks (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the Earth-Moon distance is increasing. Saying that the Moon is in synchronous rotation with the Earth does not imply that the Moon no longer recedes from us. The article also says that it wasn't always so locked. Saros136 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

es138 1:28, 04 April 2009 (PST)

The Equatorial Rotation Velocity, noted in the rightside table for Physical Characteristics is incorrect. It is off by two decimal points and reflects a figure similar to the measurment in km/minute not m/s. Can someone please correct the Equatorial rotation velocity to "10.35 miles per hour," or "16.7 km/hr," Please?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99142.htm

I don't see that this has been changed recently, and the figure in the table is 4.627 m/sec, which is correct. To see this, just divide 16,700 m/hr by 60 to get m/min, then by 60 again to get m/sec. You'll find that the 4.627 m/sec figure is correct.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaceship Moon Theory

Added Spaceship Moon Theory - also called the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, was put forth in July 1970 by two Russian scientists, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in an article titled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?". In the article they put foreword the theory that the moon was a hollowed out planetoid by persons unknown bearing a technology far superior to any on Earth. They prose that huge machines were used to melt rock and form large cavities within the moon with the molten lava spewing out onto the moon's surface. Thus the moon was protected by a hull-like inner shell and an outer shell made from metallic rocky slag. They propose that for reasons unknown, the spaceship moon was steered thru spaced and was then parked in orbit around the earth. In 1975 Don Wilson published "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon" in which he compiled what he considered supporting facts.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed this for several reasons. One, it has no proper citations - but more importantly it does not appear to be a theory that is taken seriously, and it doesn't fit with the other ones in the section. If consensus supports inclusion, so be it - but I think we should discuss this one first before adding. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I quickly looked over the contribution in question here & I don't feel like it fits with our article. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

E Dog95, what do you mean that "you" don't feel that this belongs here. Are you attempting ownership of this article? The Spaceship Moon Theory is just another theory on how the moon got here. The plethora of theories demonstrates our lack of knowledge in this matter.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't throw out rash accusations - this has nothing whatsoever to do with "article ownership". There are no solid references (even in the linked article), the "theory" is discredited by scientists (per the references I provided in the linked article), and the text is contested by two different editors. The onus is on you to build consensus for inclusion. Please, let's not disrupt the article - discuss it here instead, and get a good solid consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Space plane

• Just because a belief or conjecture is labeled as a “theory” doesn’t mean it is generally accepted by most scientists in the field (or can even pass the “grin” test). Scientologist believe that 75 million years ago a galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in space planes that looked identical to McDonald-Douglas DC-8 airliners, repopulated them around volcanoes on Earth, and murdered them all with nuclear bombs. Then the spirits of these dead space aliens were captured and taken to giant cinemas where they were brainwashed with propaganda films. While this may be entirely true,* as Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Until such time that good evidence is presented, such conjectures are not generally accepted as plausible scientific theories in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific circles nor do they belong in scientific articles of encyclopedias. Ckatz and E_dog95 were merely editing this article to comply with Wikipedia policy. Your rhetorical question suggesting E_dog95 had an “ownership” issue with this article was unfounded. Greg L (my talk) 21:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. This is Wikipedia and free thinking and free speech should be encouraged. After specializing in space flight dynamics for a couple of years, the "accepted" theories just don't pass my grin test. The Spaceship Moon theory is the most plausible theory if one applies logical thinking and orbital mechanics. The other theories just can't explain why the orbit and orientation of the moon are in such peculiar ways. As long as the "scientists" don't come up with a better explanation, I would suggest including this theory in the main article.
Wikipedia has been and still is avantgarde in so many respects, why not do the right thing regarding this? For anybody still having doubts: Check out Hohmann transfer orbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.192.58 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And many, many more who know the relavant subjects would totally reject the Spaceship Moon theory. Where is the documented support among scientists?

It is not a matter of free speech. All sorts of theories convince someone. That's not good enough. Wikipedia looks to scientists. Saros136 (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with 1/6th our gravity, the tensile strength required for a hollow moon to not collapse solid is no less than building a 1000 mile wide flat roof with absolutely no support whatsoever except the for the edge. Why do you think planets are round? Seismographs of moon earthquakes and measuring its gravity precisely enough to show small imperfections, all show very decidedly nonhollowness. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Albedo contradiction

In the section "Observation", it says "The Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system and reflects only about 7% of the light incident upon it." Not only is this "about the poorest" inappropriate in tone, but in addition this seems to contract the data box at the top of the article giving the Moon's albedo as 0.12.

I'd add a "contradict" tag, but the article is semi-protected, so I can't. (No, I am not going to register.) --207.176.159.90 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source that gives three numbers!

Lunar Albedo The original definition of albedo, proposed by Bond, is the ratio of total solar radiation scattered from a body to the radiation incident upon it. The Bond albedo of the moon is 11%. But limiting this figure to V-band radiation produces quite a different value. The average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side of the moon is 7.2%. ... The visual geometric albedo of the full moon is 12.5%, but much less at other phases.

Tom Ruen (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, something like this needs to be explained in the article insteaed of just quoting different numbers in different places, then. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rare Earth hypothesis

This text was added to the "Orbit and relationship to Earth" section:

"The Rare Earth hypothesis posits that the creation and presence of the Moon has been and is essential for creating a climate suitable to life on the Earth."

I'm not sure if that is the best place for it - any thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still find that this is very relevant to the article, though I agree that it doesn't fit particularly well into that section. However, since there doesn't seem to be any better place, I would rather have it there than nowhere at all. Rune Kock (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Surface Temperature

The article refers to the Moon's "Surface Temperature". How is this measured? On rocks that are facing the sun (or dark), or at some depth? Doesn't it depend crucially on the color of such a rock, or of regolith? (I was always taught that the Moon doesn't *have* a temperature.) Mcswell (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth's only natural satellite?

Cruithne's distance to Earth and the Sun plotted over 500 years (top) and 10 years (bottom).

The Moon (Latin: Luna) is Earth's only natural satellite...

This is not strictly true (at least not all the time) if 6R10DB9 really is a natural satellite and not a piece of man-made space junk. Perhaps this could be mentioned. Matt 04:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Since it usually isn't orbiting the Earth, I don't think it's worth mentioning. The Encyclopædia Britannica says the Moon is the only one . The same goes for for Encarta. Tables always list one. Saros136 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Earth has five moons, four discovered recently by the hubble telescope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.127.220 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May well be worth an edit with regards to the following page:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html

Respected website - not sure if they are technically considered satellites, but not much mention on the page and the top sentence seems unjustified.

Cruithne is a quasi-satellite. But I agree. Greggydude (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cruithne is as large as some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and they are considered moons. The thing is natural, and has a regularly-timed orbit around the earth. It counts as a moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cruithne has been brought up numerous times here in the past. It's not a matter of size, it's the fact that it does not directly orbit the Earth. It orbits the Sun in the same region as the Earth. There are other claims occasionally for meteoroids that go into orbit for one or two revolutions, but then either head back off into space or impact. None of these are really worth mentioning, especially in the lead paragraph for this body. --Patteroast (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

3753 Cruithne spend more time closer to the Sun than it does to the Earth... -- Kheider (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

theories for moon's creation

FTA: "Early speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust because of centrifugal forces, leaving a basin (presumed to be the Pacific Ocean) behind as a scar"

Really childish theory. The Mariana Trench in the western North Pacific is the deepest point in the Pacific and the world, reaching a depth of 10.9km. Mean diameter of moon 3475 km.

Utterly medieval theory. Might as well theorize that the moon came from the grand canyon. Deipnosopher (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to insult the ideas of the astronomers of the 18th and 19th centuries, many of whom had already deduced that planets orbited other suns long before this was discounted in the 20th century. 153.2.246.33 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

etymology addendum

I propose that the moon be given the name lyftstan (pronounced lift-stan). This would roughly translate into the phrase sky rock in Anglo-Saxon. Since the earth derives its name from Anglo-Saxon and unfairly does not have its own name this seems like a good choice. Any other thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmalulu23 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The name Moon comes from Lithuanian word 'Menuo/Menulis'=Moon and means to remind ('mena'=it reminds). The same root is for 'mintis'=a thought, 'minti'=to mean, 'omeny'=in mind, 'atmintis'=a memory, 'menesis'=a month, 'menesines'=menses. However in Lithuanian 'protas'=a mind or 'gresme'=a menace are not derived from that root as in English. And it is wrongly ascribed as if it comes from Proto-Indo-Europeanian root 'me-'. 'Me-' this is not a root, it's just a silable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, both Earth and Moon comes from Lithuanian language through Germanic language as Anglo-Saxon is. Read what I've wrote on Earth's discusion board.

78.151.247.184 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC) By the way 'Luna' comes from Lithuanian word for Moon 'Menulis' too, for that you need to use the inversion from 'Menul'-is to 'Lunem'...it's so simple for those who knows

Direction of the the Moon's Axis of Rotation

Various tilts are given, but I see no straightforward statement of the direction of the Moon's axis of rotation with respect to the Heavenly Sphere of Fixed Stars.

See also Hal Clement's "Mistaken for Granted".

One might think that the direction of the axis was substantially fixed in the short (human lifetime) term, like that of the Earth; but reading of the (present) last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Properties_of_the_lunar_orbit suggests that it is not, but that its intersections with the Heavenly Sphere remain at about 1.5 degrees from the Perpendicular to the Ecliptic and rotate about it with a period of about 18.6 years. The Perpendicular appears to meet the Sphere near an object designated 6543, in Draco, and in Doradus near the edge of the LMC.

Perhaps some expert would determine whether that is indeed so, and add a brief description to the Page itself.

82.163.24.100 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Moon

how does the moon get craters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.139.126 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Impacts from asteroids. In the case of a question like this in the future, feel free to visit the reference desk. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

the earth only has1 moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.79.202 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Celestial Body

"The Moon is the only celestial body to which humans have travelled and upon which humans have landed" Shouldn't this be extraterrestrial body? or something similar considering that the Earth is a celestial body and the article linked lists it as one. Would change this myself and see if it sticks, however someone else did similar and was reverted and I don't wanna step on anybody's toes.McVities (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we didn't travel to or land on the Earth. Saros136 (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the Apollo astronauts come back? 68.148.123.76 (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's ignore that that's not entirely how the sentence reads, are you actually saying no human has travelled to the Earth and landed upon it? 137.222.215.52 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I had left America for the first time, I never would have said America is the only country to which I have travelled. Even after I had flown over Canada (enroute to Alaska),I would never have said I had travelled to Amercia. Saros136 (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Celestial bodies usually does not include the Earth. In the article you referred to, These terms differ from celestial objects and celestial bodies only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth. The table below lists the general categories of objects by their location or structure Saros136 (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Moon Illusion

Much is said about the apparent size of the moon being an illusion when close to the horizon, but what about the size of the moon when it's at perigee and apogee? Does the apparent size of the moon change when viewed at these two points? I'm sure it must.Asher196 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Very little. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this web site that makes it look quite noticable. Could you take a look and tell me what you think? http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.htmlAsher196 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The diameter of the Moon changes by 16 percent, and the apparent area of the moon changes by more than about 35% using the number in the Moon article. In the examples on Walker's page, the difference was less, at perigee only 12% wider, with 27% more area. He says Most people don't notice the difference because they see the Moon in a sky that offers no reference by which angular extent may be judged. To observe the difference, you have to either make a scale to measure the Moon, or else photograph the Moon at perigee and apogee and compare the pictures, as I've done here. Saros136 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Presence of water

Under the subject "presence of water", it states, at the end of the first paragraph: "Water molecules that ended up in these craters could be stable for long periods of time." While this is true, the ice would eventually sublime - that is the process of going from a solid directly to the gaseous, without a liquid forming.

Sublimation is the process used to cool space suits, including the Apollo Lunar suits used on the Moon's surface. The "sublimator panel" was on the back of the PLSS - Portable Life Suport System - worn on the back of the suit. The sublimator did not rely on temperature - it was shielded from the heat of the sun.

For that reason, I would modify the page to include this important fact. It was used on a small scale, but the rate of sublimation would be easily determined. This would give an idea of how long ice would exist on the Moon.

It also means, that, over the past few million years since the last major impact series, there has been sufficient time for all the ice to sublime.

--124.188.35.73 (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Alan Erskine--124.188.35.73 (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.35.73 (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maximum and minimum orbit distances

I was disappointed to find that the article doesn't mention the distances of the moon at apogee and perigee (but that's because that's what i came to it looking for). the information can be found at http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html . there are three different values listed for each and i don't know what the differences mean, though perhaps they can be generalized into one rounded number for apogee and one for perigee instead of explaining. though there are also other values listed for apogee and perigee which I suppose people may or may not consider equally important (or unimportant) as their distances. Inhahe (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In the sidebar there are values for the perigee and apogee. This article gives:

Perigee 363,104 km  (0.0024 AU)
Apogee  405,696 km  (0.0027 AU)

There seems to be a slight disagreement with the source you give, though. --Slashme (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The perigee and apogee distances each given for one time on the page Inhahe cited, for the perigee or apogee closest to the time of the picture. ( The distance is different at every per/apogee.) Saros136 (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The moon is not alone

A satellite called Cruithne is also in orbit around the earth. So the statement in the main section is incorrect. Admittedly it is a very small satellite being only 3 miles in diameter and it orbits once every 770 years. But it is a natural satellite of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadlock (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. This comes up every so often, but if you look back through the talk page (and archives) you'll find explanations of why Cruithne is not considered a natural satellite of Earth. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Incase you don't feel like looking it up: Cruithne orbits the Sun, and it's orbit is influenced by the Earth (the simple explaination). 68.148.123.76 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Albedo change

Hello there, I have recently published a paper on a technique to measure lunar albedo using the NASA CERES instruments (thought to be the most accurate radiometers in orbit). At a static 7 degree lunar phase (i.e. observer above zero degrees selonographic lat/long) the CERES instruments measure the albedo to be 0.1362, somewhat higher than the figure of 0.12 put on the moon page, however I myself do not have editing privileges on this page.

The paper can be found at G. Matthews 2008, "Celestial body irradiance determination from an under-filled satellite radiometer: Application to albedo and thermal emission measurements of the Moon using CERES", Applied Optics 47(28), pp4981-4993

I can provide a pdf of the paper in case you don’t have OSA subscription

Snerby (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Moon's Name

i was thinking about this over the weekend. other planet's moon's have names like titan, io, etc. what our moon's name? the moon?Morgan Cohen 17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganacohen (talk • contribs)

I would guess that its called 'moon' and we use this word to say what other 'moons' are called. Moon seems to be both a scientific explanation and a pet name as it was the first one to be discovered by us. Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.215.237 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that another name for our moon was the latin name for moon being Luna, seems i may be wrong Mr Deathbat 13:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Deathbat (talk • contribs)

It would also make no sense to give it a name now seeing as we have called it 'moon' for so long Mr Deathbat 13:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Deathbat (talk • contribs)

Actually you are right, 'Luna' is the correct term. Greggydude (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lunar albedo paper download

Hi again, to read the paper that measures the moons albedo to be 0.1362 go to the link http://sites.google.com/site/cerestesteditiontoed2ratios/ and download 'moonpaper2.pdf'Snerby (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)