Hotspot Found On Moon's Far Side

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hotspot Found On Moon's Far Side

Posted by Soulskill on Monday July 25, 2011 @10:48AM from the thermal-exhaust-port dept.

derGoldstein tips this news from Discovery.com: "Scientists have found evidence of volcanoes on the far side of the moon. The new discovery, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience (abstract) is a rare example of volcanism on the lunar surface not associated with asteroid, meteor or comet impact events. ... They focused on an area containing numerous domes, some more than six kilometers high. The domes featured steeply sloping sides which Jolliff and colleagues interpret as, 'volcanic in origin and formed from viscous lava.'"

65 of 96 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Submission completed by dtmos · 2011-07-25 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

The domes featured steeply sloping sides which Jolliff and colleagues interpret as, 'volcanic in origin and formed from viscous lava'. . .
. . . 800 million years ago. While undeniably still an interesting and intriguing find, it was a hotspot, um, a while back.
1. Re:Submission completed by derGoldstein · 2011-07-25 11:10 · Score: 3
  
  The history of the moon is a subject that keeps being revised and researched. If you asked 20 years ago: "What is the Moon's origin?", it's likely that you'd be told it was a planet that got caught in Earth's gravity, because using the information they had then, it was the most likely theory. Now the Giant Impact Hypothesis is favored. And water on the moon? Just a few years ago that would be a joke. Any new information helps.
  
  --
  Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
2. Re:Submission completed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-25 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  The "water on the Moon" theory has been around for a long while, actually--Clementine first provided evidence for it back in 1994, and it's been current in a fair amount of space development talk since then. The big news in recent years is proof that the hypothesized water ice is actually there. Similarly, the Giant Impact hypothesis was actually developed in the mid '70s (from the article you linked), and has been current since the mid '80s or so. Of course, it can take a while for that to trickle down.
3. Re:Submission completed by Thing+1 · 2011-07-25 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It's Futurama's claims of whalers on the moon that I suspect. (Impact hypothesis, from the wiki page, was originally proposed in 1946.)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
4. Re:Submission completed by formfeed · 2011-07-25 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  . . . 800 million years ago. While undeniably still an interesting and intriguing find, it was a hotspot, um, a while back.
  That fits with some of the complaints that /. is running more and more old stories..
5. Re:Submission completed by xmundt · 2011-07-25 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  greetings and salutations....
  800 million years is only a slight tick of the clock in geological terms....Now. on my part, I saw the headline and before I expanded the article and saw it was about volcanoes.... I found myself wondering if it was open, used WEP (almost open) or WPA(2) for security, and, if I put a Yagi on my systerm, or hooked it up to a big dish (I have a spare 8' one kicking around), could I get a decent signal? I kind of figured it had to be faster than Verizon's air card these days....
  
  --
  YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
6. Re:Submission completed by black+soap · 2011-07-26 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It's Futurama's claims of whalers on the moon that I suspect. (Impact hypothesis, from the wiki page, was originally proposed in 1946.)
  What, you think that just because there aint no whales, there can't be whalers on the moon?
7. Re:Submission completed by squidflakes · 2011-07-26 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  There may not be whales, but there certainly are tall tales. Also, a pretty bitchin' arcade.
8. Re:Submission completed by SleazyRidr · 2011-07-26 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well there used to be whales, but over-whaling has wiped them out.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
9. Re:Submission completed by SleazyRidr · 2011-07-26 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe in astronomical terms 800 million years isn't a long time, but geologically it's still quite a while. The Earth looked quite different 800 million years ago.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
Hotspot Found on Moon's Far Side by tomcode · 2011-07-25 10:50 · Score: 5, Funny

The bad news: You need an AT&T account to use it.

--
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
1. Re:Hotspot Found on Moon's Far Side by mellon · 2011-07-25 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  The latency, of course, is *horrible*.
2. Re:Hotspot Found on Moon's Far Side by Tumbleweed · 2011-07-25 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  > The bad news: You need an AT&T account to use it.
  Or an AT-AT, which is way cooler.
3. Re:Hotspot Found on Moon's Far Side by steelfood · 2011-07-25 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  You need an AT&T account to use it.
  Yeah, a lot of good that would do for all the AT&T customers trying to make phone calls.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Boo... by kenh · 2011-07-25 10:53 · Score: 1

I thought you were going to tell me about a new Starbucks for the Decepticons...

--
Ken
1. Re:Boo... by ae1294 · 2011-07-25 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm behind seven proxies, one is on the moon... Good Luck!
It's a black monolith by Megahard · 2011-07-25 10:58 · Score: 2

Buried on the far side. Dimensions 1:4:9.

--
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
1. Re:It's a black monolith by outsider007 · 2011-07-25 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  No I think that's where Superman buried Nuclear Man at the end of Superman IV
  
  --
  If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
2. Re:It's a black monolith by sconeu · 2011-07-25 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  Turn in your geek card.
  The monolith was in Tycho, which is on Nearside, not Farside.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
3. Re:It's a black monolith by rhook · 2011-07-25 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  The actual dimensions of a black monolith are "however big it needs to be". 1:4:9 is just the ratio of the proportions.
4. Re:It's a black monolith by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-25 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Turn in your geek card.
  The monolith was in Tycho, which is on Nearside, not Farside.
  Maybe Clarke was wrong on this little detail.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
5. Re:It's a black monolith by RockDoctor · 2011-07-26 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe Clarke was wrong on this little detail.
  HERETIC!
  Burn the HERETIC!
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
6. Re:It's a black monolith by lennier · 2011-07-26 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is it sad that the part I wasn't able to suspend disbelief for was the part where Superman threw him into the exhaust of a nuclear reactor?
  What about the part where Superman said "Nuke... I am your father?" And then Jimmy Olsen kissed Lois Lane and told him she was Kal-El's sister and she said "I know... somehow I've always known."
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
7. Re:It's a black monolith by Daniel+Klugh · 2011-07-27 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that this is the Silver Age Superman that we're talking about. The one who had a god-like tactile-psycho-kinetic (i.e. like psycho-kinesis, but only affecting what he's touching) ability to lift/move impossibly large objects without them falling apart under their own weight/mass.
  No, what's really threatening to comic book fans sanity in this movie is Supes' rebuilding-the-great-wall-of-china vision!
  
  --
  Daniel Klugh
starbucks by ZeroNullVoid · 2011-07-25 10:59 · Score: 1

Where there is a hotspot there is a starbucks. The rates are exceptionally well. I hope you recognized star....
$32 for the results of public funded research by anwyn · 2011-07-25 11:11 · Score: 2

This information was mostly created by NASA. The Authors mostly have jobs at Universities. So why does a member of the public have to pay $32 to read this paper?
1. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by hoytak · 2011-07-25 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite the same thing, but closer: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/abstracts/lpsc42/a_l11j02.pdf
  
  --
  Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
2. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by wrook · 2011-07-25 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Probably a rhetorical question, but basically the publisher charges for organizing the peer review, editing and distribution. One of the primary goals of creating the WWW was to allow researchers to distribute their work without having to be at the mercy of the journal publishers. But even though a lot of papers are available for free on the web, the prestige factor still prompts a lot (most?) researchers to go through the old channels. As I'm sure you're aware, they don't actually get paid for it (and neither do the peer reviewers). But if you get your paper published in Nature (which is a *very* prestigious journal), it helps on your next grant application. Putting your paper on your own web server doesn't help at all.
3. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by derGoldstein · 2011-07-25 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  If an organization is in a position to erect a paywall, they will likely do so. If you inquire into it, they'll bombard you with bureaucracy and tell you that, in fact, you're only paying a symbolic amount for the work they do, and you should be thankful. Academia and science journals are big fans of this approach.
  
  --
  Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
4. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by Will.Woodhull · 2011-07-25 12:10 · Score: 2
  
  basically the publisher charges for organizing the peer review, editing and distribution.
  That used to be the case, but increasingly in the USA over the last 20 years, companies like elsevier have been following a new paradigm: the publisher charges to make a profit.
  
  --
  Will
5. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-07-25 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they did not read this? http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html
  "Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations. "
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
6. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by drinkypoo · 2011-07-25 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  That used to be the case, but increasingly in the USA over the last 20 years, companies like elsevier have been following a new paradigm: print whatever the corporations what you to print
  
  There, fixed that for you. Just don't want anyone to think elsevier is a credible publisher of scientific journals.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:$32 for the results of public funded research by RockDoctor · 2011-07-26 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  This information was mostly created by NASA. The Authors mostly have jobs at Universities. So why does a member of the public have to pay $32 to read this paper?
  The authors are at a mixture of American and German institutions (that information is freely available) ; the publication is British (costs a little research). So surely your question should be "why should anyone who is not British, German or American have to pay â30(Euro symbol, thank you incompetence of Slashcode) to read the full article?
  To which the answer is : you do have the choice of paying around â150 (I don't know this years price scheme) and getting access to thousands of such article per year.
  Your choice. Or perhaps you'd like the job of administering the paywall that keeps out non-Anglo-Americo-Deutsch people who haven't paid their sheckels?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Anyone else.. by derGoldstein · 2011-07-25 11:15 · Score: 1

You'd need the pringles can hack to get that far.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
The lunatic is on the grass by MrEricSir · 2011-07-25 11:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:The lunatic is on the grass by Thing+1 · 2011-07-25 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  "The lunatic is on the grass" -- oh yeah, thanks for reminding me! :)
  And, wow, lol at the fortune: "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? -- Pink Floyd" (The randomness of the universe continues to amaze me...)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
2. Re:The lunatic is on the grass by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-25 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  There's no dark side of the moon really.
  Matter of fact its all dark.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:The lunatic is on the grass by alext · 2011-07-25 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  ...cloudbursts thunder...
Ooooh! Really? by mj1856 · 2011-07-25 11:19 · Score: 1

Where can I get a geek card? I keep asking, but nobody ever listens to me...
1. Re:Ooooh! Really? by derGoldstein · 2011-07-25 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore this post, it's an imposter.
  
  You can only get a Geek Card(TM) if you pass the Standard Nerdacity Exam, and interview before your local Council of Geekery. Inquire at your local Dorkstation.
  
  --
  Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
2. Re:Ooooh! Really? by PwnzerDragoon · 2011-07-26 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I remember when I got my geek card. The worst part was the questioning by the Elders of the Internet before final approval...
WEP Key by UnknownJoe · 2011-07-25 11:21 · Score: 1

Dang, it's protected. Anyone know what the WEP key is? I really want to use their WiFi on my moon vacations every other Tuesday.
1. Re:WEP Key by ProzacPatient · 2011-07-25 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Haha I wish I had modpoints right now. Puns are usually cheesy but once awhile you come across a gem.
2. Re:WEP Key by Anomalyst · 2011-07-26 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you cant crack a WEP key, you are not really qualified to have an /. account.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Geez guys .... by giorgist · 2011-07-25 11:28 · Score: 1

Had this been a true to the title story, it would be phenomenal.
Its about lava activity 800million years ago, still cool though (sic)

You guys are stuck with starbucks and wifi ...
Re:Didn’t I by derGoldstein · 2011-07-25 11:36 · Score: 2

Dude... You actually watched that thing? My condolences.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:Let the games begin! by whovian · 2011-07-25 11:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

35/32C/f/Ashley

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
NASA standard Lunar Approach Joke #18 by Tetsujin · 2011-07-25 12:01 · Score: 1

Where there is a hotspot there is a starbucks.
The rates are exceptionally well.
It's not a very good location, though. Seating's cramped and awkward, the baristas are always kind of unpleasant, there's not much of a view - the place just has no atmosphere.
This joke is just one of the many wonderful innovations brought to us by the Apollo program.

--
Bow-ties are cool.
1. Re:NASA standard Lunar Approach Joke #18 by rhook · 2011-07-25 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget about all the iPad toting hipsters that stink up the place.
great news by shakuni · 2011-07-25 12:15 · Score: 1

i dont have to worry about internet connectivity when on business trips to the dark side...
1. Re:great news by dotancohen · 2011-07-25 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  i dont have to worry about internet connectivity when on business trips to the dark side...
  There is no dark side of the moon. As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
  
  --
  It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
So it is true ... by gerddie · 2011-07-25 12:22 · Score: 1

... and they found it early.
Obligatory Star Control II reference by Cyrano+de+Maniac · 2011-07-25 13:13 · Score: 1

Fwiffo? Is that you?

--
Cyrano de Maniac
1. Re:Obligatory Star Control II reference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-25 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Hello hunam, Fwiffo was on pluto!
Re:TITLE AND SUMMARY CORRECTION..... by derGoldstein · 2011-07-25 13:21 · Score: 2

Thank you for your constructive criticism. The title is actually the title as it appears on Discovery.com, and the part that's in quotes is ( -- wait for it -- ) a quote. I'm sure that Discovery News has a feedback section -- you should contact them asap, and include your edifying CAPS-LOCK comments.

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Hell of a long way to go for wifi ! by Snaller · 2011-07-25 13:34 · Score: 1

And I'm not paying for the trip either.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
1. Re:Hell of a long way to go for wifi ! by Anomalyst · 2011-07-26 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  You just need to properly orient your pringles can.
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Volcano's or Vespane Geysers? by l0ungeb0y · 2011-07-25 14:10 · Score: 1

It took long enough, but the Terran's have just found their natural expansion point for a second Command Post -- better send some over some SCV's
1. Re:Volcano's or Vespane Geysers? by drinkypoo · 2011-07-25 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think you have it all wrong, it's time to park a recycler on the vent...
  (This reference even goes with the impactor theory... how quickly we forget the classics!)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
wifi by Tom · 2011-07-26 00:48 · Score: 2

Ok, hands up, who else thought "what the heck are they doing with WIFI on the moon?" upon reading the headline? :-)

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Well of course... by LongearedBat · 2011-07-26 01:54 · Score: 1

... it's the Sentinel's ship.
Not Volcanos.... Engines... by Lumpy · 2011-07-26 03:30 · Score: 1

The moon is a giant space ship!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
To be fair ... by PPH · 2011-07-26 03:42 · Score: 1

... it was still new back when NASA began planning a mission to go study it.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:And my life will change how? by RockDoctor · 2011-07-26 04:47 · Score: 1

Great discovery, but my life will go on as usual! I don't see it being useful or beneficial at least at this time!
Said Becquerel's brother about the mysterious markings on his photographic plates.
Or, to quote a (possibly apocryphal) bumper sticker : "If we knew what we were doing, or what it was for, we couldn't call it research."

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:TITLE AND SUMMARY CORRECTION..... by RockDoctor · 2011-07-26 05:03 · Score: 1

In addition to derGoldstein's valid points, as a geologist (a planetary scientist specialising in the planet that you reside on) the title, summary and article all seemed perfectly correct to me. "Hotspot" has been a geological term for some 25 years longer than it's been a computing term - in fact I was deeply puzzled by the first few comments talking about telephone companies and didn't make the connection until later. (Then again, people have died in my work for using wireless when misconfigured cards have set off detonators. I never did trust wireless networking and use it as little as possible. I wish I could get a laptop without it.)
800Myr ago? That would make it some of the most recent volcanism on the Moon. Pretty damned important ; doubly so because there's about 50km more rock to get from the core to the surface on the far side of the Moon than on the near side. That's like ... the thickness of the Himalayas.
No volcanoes on the Moon? BULLSHIT. The volcanoes on the Moon are (mostly) not (very) active, and are considerably different to volcanoes on the Earth (and to volcanoes on Mars, Venus, Triton or Io), but that doesn't make them any the less volcanoes. They may not fit your mental model of a "volcano", but unless you're some doyenne of volcanology whose existence I've not heard of before and the concept of whose existence I find, literally incredible, that marks a problem with you, not with the volcanicity of these volcanoes.
I love it when people come out with such intensely didactic statements as yours. It marks the author very clearly as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, and whose opinion is of less value than the birdshit on my car roof.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"