Molten Core Inside The Moon?

beggs writes: "The Times (free reg et al.) is running an article about the possibility of a molten core inside the moon and that this, if confirmed may lend support the the theory that the moon is the child of a violent collision between mother earth and some other heavenly body in the distance past."

Comments

Even if it does have a molten core

[ObviousGuy]

The plate tectonics that would have ensued from having an active core (like Earth's) has ceased, for quite a long time too.

Re:Silly scientists..

[zulux]

It was proved (through observation) many years ago that the moon is made of cheese.

Now we know that it also has a rich-'n-creamy center! Mmmmmm... I'm hopping it's nougat, topped with caramel.

Re:Energy

[Christopher Thomas]

IF we had a moon colony how would a molten core compare to solar cells as an energy source?

Solar would be better.

Especially with no atmosphere or weather to degrade the incoming sunlight, solar cells work quite well.

Geothermal is a pain to work with under the best of circumstances (you can only build a large-scale plant (no small power sources)), and even if the moon has an energy-producing core (tidally kneaded or (like Earth's) radioisotope-powered), the amount of energy flowing out of it is small compared to Earth's (no volcanism or rapidly convecting mantle). This means that the yield from geothermal on the moon will under the best of conditions be much lower than on Earth.

Given that solar power is so convenient, I don't see any strong reason to use geothermal. Power storage for half a month isn't *that* hard, and if you need enough power to make storage impractical, you can put big mylar mirrors in orbit around the moon to reflect enough sunlight to supply your photocells (probably cheaper than a power cable around the equator).

No way

[AllMightyPaul]

Having a molten core would NOT lend support to the theory that the moon splintered off of the Earth. In fact, the non-existence of a molten-core would better lend support to that theory than a molten core. This is simply because if the moon splintered off of the earth, it is going to be one giant rock. How does one get a molten core from just a rock? Does anyone else see what I'm saying?

Re:No way

[CheshireCatCO]

Darwin's (no, George Darwin, Charles's son) idea about planetary fission to form the Moon doesn't work. There's insufficent angular momentum in the system to make it work. The giant impact model is the ONLY model that makes sense right now. (The tidal locking of the Moon causing it to show us one face at all times has nothing to do with anything.)

In fact, the original poster is correct: if the Moon formed in a giant impact, it appears that it should be almost all rock akin to Earth's mantle. The iron and other metallic elements would have sunk into the interior of the Earth, being lost to the disk of debris what would go on to form the Moon.

Re:No way

[drudd]

What a lot of people are missing is the fact that the moon is in such an orbit that only one side faces us at any given time

Yes, this is true... it also has nothing to do with how the moon formed. Angular momentum transfer from tidal forces automatically forces an orbiting body into just such a configuration. It's called being tidally locked. This same process has caused the earth's rotation to slow, and to increase the average radius of the moon's orbit.

Doug