Moon May Not Be As Dead As We Thought

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Moon May Not Be As Dead As We Thought

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @04:19AM from the lunological-activity dept.

rivin2e writes "It would seem our neighbor, the moon, has something hidden below the surface. 'Images collected by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter hints the moon has probably seen tectonic activity within the last 50 million years.' It would appear from the article that the moon is changing a lot more than we think, even if it doesn't seem like it. I, for one, am still waiting for that big black obelisk to be dug up." From NASA's press release: "A team of researchers analyzing high-resolution images obtained by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) show small, narrow trenches typically much longer than they are wide. This indicates the lunar crust is being pulled apart at these locations. These linear valleys, known as graben, form when the moon's crust stretches, breaks and drops down along two bounding faults. A handful of these graben systems have been found across the lunar surface."

120 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

the moon is growing by mestar · 2012-02-21 04:23 · Score: 3, Funny

It is obvious. The moon is growing.
1. Re:the moon is growing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's not growing--something inside it is ready to burst out. This must be what the Mayans were talking about.
2. Re:the moon is growing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It's the First Angel, Adam.
  The Second Impact occurs 12 years later than we thought, but it's imminent.
3. Re:the moon is growing by g0bshiTe · 2012-02-21 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  The moon isn't growing. It's due to Mooninite overpopulation.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
4. Re:the moon is growing by fedos · 2012-02-21 04:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's a mutant space goat. We better get the telephone cleaners and hair dressers loaded onto B Ark.
5. Re:the moon is growing by Coisiche · 2012-02-21 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it was a book of it's time.
  I think in the modern world, we of the 99% know exactly who the real drains on society who should be on the B ark are.
6. Re:the moon is growing by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-02-21 05:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm not worried. The last time any Gods showed up, we killed it -- nailed the fucking thing to a cross and let it bleed to death. This was during the Roman Empire when the highest technology was what, a slightly faster chariot? A Galleon with archers on deck?
  It's 2012. We've got battleships, satellites, hypersonic jet aircraft, helicopter gunships, atomic weapons, and a grudge deeper than Mariana's Trench.
  You want to destroy the Earth? Well, you'll have to get through us first.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
7. Re:the moon is growing by tom17 · 2012-02-21 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  We need to make sure that when we get there, we have a good infrastructure of lawyers, big media execs and politicians.
8. Re:the moon is growing by dkleinsc · 2012-02-21 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't forget banking and finance. They definitely need capital markets if they're going to accomplish anything. After all, without the possibility of great monetary reward, there's no way anybody would bother to build a shelter for themselves or gather fruit to eat.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
9. Re:the moon is growing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  it's an ocean full of alien life forms.! were all one day going to seas world :the moon!!!
  i wonder how they will get a glass space helmet on shamu XXXXVI
10. Re:the moon is growing by hairyfeet · 2012-02-21 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just don't go near the pole man and you'll be alright. Oh and if anything twitches KILL IT!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
11. Re:the moon is growing by tom17 · 2012-02-21 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think the first guys sorted the monetary system by using leaves as currency.
  What could possibly go wrong with that?
12. Re:the moon is growing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently AC's comment could use some explaining...
  
  Adam
  Second Impact
13. Re:the moon is growing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  you mean people without jobs that instead of looking for jobs or making themselves more employable instead squat on public land in the name of 'protesting' while they have no clear goals or a clue as to how to achieve them?
14. Re:the moon is growing by osu-neko · 2012-02-21 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. It used to be that only gods could destroy cities in an instant, and took 40 days to destroy the whole world. Now we can do better. We've leveled up beyond that in the last century.
  Oh wait... what if the gods have leveled up too? They seem to have been gone for a while, but perhaps they've just be running a particularly long instance for XP and awesome loot? This could be bad...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
15. Re:the moon is growing by smellsofbikes · 2012-02-21 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  It's a mutant space goat. We better get the telephone cleaners and hair dressers loaded onto B Ark.
  A bit of Douglas Adams humor that's often overlooked is the final sequel to the story: all the people left on the planet, the ones who would've been in the A and C arks, were killed by a disease caught from a dirty telephone, because they'd gotten rid of all their telephone sanitizers. The people on the B ark ended up outliving all the "useful" people, a point that is wilfully missed by most readers who identify with the A and C ark people. I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams knew exactly how this would be read, and enjoyed his double-depth joke all the more for knowing that.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
16. Re:the moon is growing by bryan1945 · 2012-02-21 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  No. FSM is making his Noodly Reappearance!
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
17. Re:the moon is growing by bryan1945 · 2012-02-21 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Beardo, meet Cthulhu. Cthulhu, meet Beardo. I'm outta here!
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
18. Re:the moon is growing by MadMoses · 2012-02-22 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  You might be joking, but there is a hypothesis that it actually is growing:
  http://www.nealadams.com/sciencedown/sciencepremium.html
  
  --
  
  Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
19. Re:the moon is growing by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-02-22 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've got mod points, but I couldn't find the mod for +1, way too cool.
  Gotterdammerung!
20. Re:the moon is growing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-25 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  But.....(Inwardly thinks if we're going to colonize ourselves in the past we should send smart people instead of idiots)........nevermind....
Moon... dead? by girlintraining · 2012-02-21 04:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not sure tectonic plate activity really moves a planet over from the 'dead' category to the 'mostly dead' category (also known as 'slightly alive'). Unless of course you just found Thor hanging out there running around banging mountains flat or something.
Perhaps you meant to say "Moon not as geologically stable as we thought." ?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Moon... dead? by chill · 2012-02-21 04:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Its not fooling anyone, you know? The moon'll be stone dead in a moment.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
2. Re:Moon... dead? by flirno · 2012-02-21 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Undead
3. Re:Moon... dead? by Kjella · 2012-02-21 04:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Dead as in inert, inactive like a dead volcano. Not everything we describe as dead was ever alive...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:Moon... dead? by equex · 2012-02-21 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't it just gravity pull from the earth ? Lots of other moons in our solar system has gravity trenches.
  
  --
  Can I light a sig ?
5. Re:Moon... dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Where there is warmth there just might be life. Where there is radioactivity there might be life. There is life buried miles below where you are standing digesting rock.
  Life finds a way.
6. Re:Moon... dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. No there isn't
7. Re:Moon... dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Especially when we aim for sensationalism. You can defend slashdot, but this is a consistant annoying habbit with them.
  Treating readers like morons.
  The first two sentences of this article are:
  "Moon May Not Be As Dead As We Thought. It would seem our neighbor, the moon, has something hidden below the surface."
  This implies something is "living below the surface of the moon".
  Get it?
  It could have been writen 1000 differnet ways but they choose this approach time and time again. REALLY ANNOYING.
8. Re:Moon... dead? by mikael · 2012-02-21 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's life jim, but not as we know it. What they are saying is that these crinkles are forming as the moon is slowly contracting inwards?
  Has any compared visually, high-resolution photographs taken from the 1960's (or whenever photographs were first taken) against photographs now, using something basic like ImageMagick subtract? Just to see what changes have occurred?
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
9. Re:Moon... dead? by poly_pusher · 2012-02-21 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure they took that into account. They can even reproduce the effects of the moons gravity on our oceans in simulations. The other moons that contain trenches from the pull of a planets gravity "Titan, Europa" are orbiting Saturn which is 95 times the mass of the earth.
  
  Not that it isn't possible. Our scientific theories keep being revised as we learn more but that's just it. It would be unlikely that it is caused by earths gravity and we should invest our research in other possibilities that seem more likely.
10. Re:Moon... dead? by butalearner · 2012-02-21 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure tectonic plate activity really moves a planet over from the 'dead' category to the 'mostly dead' category (also known as 'slightly alive'). Unless of course you just found Thor hanging out there running around banging mountains flat or something.
  Perhaps you meant to say "Moon not as geologically stable as we thought." ?
  I don't know, can we still try a miracle asteroid with chocolate frosting (to make it go down easier)?
11. Re:Moon... dead? by girlintraining · 2012-02-21 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Dead as in inert, inactive like a dead volcano. Not everything we describe as dead was ever alive...
  These words, they do not mean what you think they mean. In this context, dead is used as an adjective: and in that context it means no longer living, deprived of life, not endowed with life, inanimate, resembling death, bereft of sensation: numb, etc. There is no definition of "dead" which does not imply it was once alive.
  The moon is dead. It has been dead for a very long time. It is bereft of life. Nothing grows on the Moon. Nothing is alive on the moon except the occasional man from Ohio which, for yet unknown reasons, compels people who live there to want to flee the planet. Dead. Dead. Very dead. So very very dead. Dead. In the same way every other celestial body save our own is dead, and even ours is only coated in a very thin coat of life, most of which is busy trying to kill off other forms of life either because it is a biological imperative or because they hear voices, call them God, and then occasionally run for political office.
  The. Moon. Is. Dead.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
12. Re:Moon... dead? by jamstar7 · 2012-02-21 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's not dead! That's just a flesh wound! It's feeling bettah!!
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
13. Re:Moon... dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  for example: the article title was dead wrong.
14. Re:Moon... dead? by Kittenman · 2012-02-21 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Dead as in inert, inactive like a dead volcano. .
  Well, it may not be inert, but it's a long way from being ert. (With apologies to P.G. Wodehouse)
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
15. Re:Moon... dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Those words, they do not mean what you think they mean. In this context, the meaning of dead is not important. You are correct in your definition of dead. Where are wrong is the meaning of the word alive. Is a mass deemed "alive" because has biological life on it? I think not. In context they are referring to the thermal activity as an indicator of a mass being alive, or in other words active as stated in the GP's comments. By your definition then people are not actually dead for quite some time. Our bodies (aka the mass) have life all over and inside them well after our departure. You are using one definition of alive. Society has more than one and it's context based
16. Re:Moon... dead? by RivenAleem · 2012-02-21 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's just sleeping.
17. Re:Moon... dead? by davewoods · 2012-02-23 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that was a pretty obscure reference... I applaud you, sir.
Until proven otherwise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:25 · Score: 1, Funny

I will assume that it is no moon, but is, in fact, a battle station.
1. Re:Until proven otherwise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  But is it fully armed and operational?
  That IS the question.
Yeah, yeah. by pushing-robot · 2012-02-21 04:25 · Score: 5, Funny

We all know this is just marketing for Iron Sky.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
1. Re:Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Awesome! A sequel to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
2. Re:Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  In the bulging, cracking Moon, the Nazis market you!
3. Re:Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Trololo!
Major nerd points lost. by sidragon.net · 2012-02-21 04:26 · Score: 1

I, for one, am still waiting for that big black obelisk to be dug up.

Obelisk? Really? Not a 1:4:9 rectangular solid?
1. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Sectoid_Dev · 2012-02-21 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  I, for one, am still waiting for that big black obelisk to be dug up.
  Obelisk? Really? Not a 1:4:9 rectangular solid?
  I believe the word you are looking for is 'monolith'.
2. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Gideon+Wells · 2012-02-21 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh sure, hold up the 1:4:9s as the standard of beauty. Anorexic slabs. Its bad enough that they go through purge cycles. Just look at what they did to Jupiter. Now if they maintained a healthy mass...
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
3. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  I believe the word you are looking for is 'monolith'.
  Does the word “monolith” imply any particular shape?
4. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  I love this post. :}
5. Re:Major nerd points lost. by rivin2e · 2012-02-21 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  As i just replied to someone else, its been a while since i read the book. My mistake.
6. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  A FAILURE IS YOU
7. Re:Major nerd points lost. by blueg3 · 2012-02-21 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, only number of stones used to construct it (one).
8. Re:Major nerd points lost. by tom17 · 2012-02-21 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Then click 'love'
9. Re:Major nerd points lost. by camperdave · 2012-02-21 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you assume the series stops at 1:4:9 ?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
10. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Sulphur · 2012-02-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh sure, hold up the 1:4:9s as the standard of beauty. Anorexic slabs. Its bad enough that they go through purge cycles. Just look at what they did to Jupiter. Now if they maintained a healthy mass...
  You didn't say that when they discovered Alice Kramden.
11. Re:Major nerd points lost. by Dogtanian · 2012-02-21 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you assume the series stops at 1:4:9 ?
  Does this mean it's 16:9 widescreen in the third and fourth dimensions?
  
  Does the Monolith support 1080p? At any rate, I hear that they're extremely black and non-reflective, so contrast and saturation should be absolutely excellent on them. Plus I hear that these are *very* smart TVs.
  
  They'll still be out-of-date in a couple of years time, though.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
No volcanos by i+kan+reed · 2012-02-21 04:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Regardless of the facts concerning the moon's plate tectonics, there's a lot of evidence of how dead it is in the lack of active volcanoes. Earth has 2-5 eruptions each year, the moon has none, as long as we've been observing it. Any active mantle, must therefor be deep below the crust. I've heard it said that tidally locked planetoids elsewhere in the solar system have some high energy earthquakes due to the relative forces on their near and far faces. Perhaps this is like that?
1. Re:No volcanos by vlm · 2012-02-21 04:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Another good point in favor of dead moon is the seismological studies that were done. Supposedly all evidence at that time pointed to a solid body. For example seismic waves reflect off solid/liq transition boundary, you see that on earth, not on moon, so either the entire moon is liquid or the entire moon is solid, and surface studies clearly show its solid, so the inside must also be solid. Plate tectonics are much harder if the whole moon is a solid cold rock.
  Probably a good excuse to visit the moon again... drop a permanent base, several geologists with moon buggies and C-4 to run some standard seismic surveys...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:No volcanos by mbone · 2012-02-21 04:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ...the moon has none, as long as we've been observing it.
  Don't be so sure.
  The Moon has shallow (non-tidal) Moonquakes. No one knows much about their causes.
  No other solar system body (except, of course, for the Earth) has had any seismological data at all. (One of the Viking landers had a working seismometer; it was totally swamped by wind vibrations; at most it may have detected the grand total of one Marsquake, but that's not clear.)
3. Re:No volcanos by stjobe · 2012-02-21 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Earth has 2-5 eruptions each year
  That's off by a factor of ten.
  From wikipedia: "Presently there are about 500 active volcanoes in the world – the majority following along the Pacific 'Ring of Fire' – and around 50 of these erupt each year.[6] The United States is home to 50 active volcanoes.[7] There are more than 1,500 potentially active volcanoes.[8] An estimated 500 million people live near active volcanoes.[9]"
  
  --
  "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
4. Re:No volcanos by mbone · 2012-02-21 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and I can't resist commenting that the fully functional Apollo seismological network was shut off to save $ 200,000 per year, and that Senator Proxmire was proud to be responsible for this saving of government waste.
5. Re:No volcanos by steelfood · 2012-02-21 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  How about we ditch the base and buggies, keep the C-4, and swap those geologists with lawyers, politicians, and media company executives?
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
6. Re:No volcanos by penguinchris · 2012-02-22 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as a geologist who would go on that mission in a heartbeat, even if it was one-way: you can do it with robots, and so there's no way you'd be able to convince any funding bodies to fund a manned mission. If a manned mission/moon base is planned for other reasons as well, of course, then it certainly would be a lot easier to do it with moon buggies than with slow robots.
7. Re:No volcanos by vlm · 2012-02-22 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  you can do it with robots, and so there's no way you'd be able to convince any funding bodies to fund a manned mission
  Ask your friends in engineering, we'll find a way. Probably you're right, dozens (hundreds?) of little RC cars with C4 and geophones driving everywhere, but you're gonna need a RC car mechanic back at the garage to maintain the cars, replacing wheel bearings if nothing else, and may as well make that dude a geologist too...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
appolo 18 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:27 · Score: 0

and all these cracks appear right next to where Appolo 18 and the Soviets landed.
Run! by Lord+Lode · 2012-02-21 04:27 · Score: 1

It's a Moonquake!
1. Re:Run! by Chas · 2012-02-21 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  You can't run on the moon. If you do, the combination of low gravity and leg power will push you into orbit.
  So "Shuffle really really fast man!"
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
2. Re:Run! by riverat1 · 2012-02-21 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  Ooh, you awakened the pedant in me. I doubt you could achieve orbit around the Moon on human power alone.
  According to the Wikipedia article on orbital speed orbital velocity for a circular orbit where the orbiting body's mass is small compared to the body being orbited is approximately equal to sqrt(u/a) where u is actually the Greek letter mu and the standard gravitational parameter and a is the length of the semi-major axis which for a circle is the radius. So the SGP for the Moon (from the Wikipedia article) is 4,902.7779 (km^3 sec^-2) and the Moon's mean radius is 1737 km so adding 3 km to clear the mountain peaks would give you sqrt(4903/1740) = an orbital velocity of 2.82 km/sec or 10152 km/hr. That would be pretty difficult to achieve on human power.
3. Re:Run! by the_Bionic_lemming · 2012-02-21 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  an orbital velocity of 2.82 km/sec or 10152 km/hr. That would be pretty difficult to achieve on human power.
  Noted, Added propulsion will be required - I vote for White Castle Sliders.
  They can cause liftoff in earths gravity well at times.
  
  --
  _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Monolith, not Obelisk by na1led · 2012-02-21 04:29 · Score: 2

An obelisk is a tall pointed structure, the monolith in 2001 was not pointed, it was rectangular.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
1. Re:Monolith, not Obelisk by rivin2e · 2012-02-21 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ooo you are right. Whoops. Its been a while since I read the books. My mistake.
Only mostly dead? by Galaga88 · 2012-02-21 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Science Max: It just so happens that your moon here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Moontoya: What's that?
Science Max: Go through its craters and look for loose helium-3.
1. Re:Only mostly dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sir, if this post doesn't have a +5 (Inconceivable) rating by the end of the day - you have been robbed.
2. Re:Only mostly dead? by yurtinus · 2012-02-21 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  Oh gods, my kingdom for an Inconceivable mod!!!
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
3. Re:Only mostly dead? by lennier · 2012-02-21 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sir, if this post doesn't have a +5 (Inconceivable) rating by the end of the day - you have been robbed.
  As we all know, Slashdot is populated entirely by criminals.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Not dead, just sleeping. Too much wild partying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:32 · Score: 0

Moon May Not Be As Dead As We Thought
Uh-oh! Somebody needs to fix the Moon entry at Wikipedia.
Hyatt hotel chain beware. There's gonna be a shitload of new smashed hotel suites when he finally wakes up again.
So "Being Alive" is defined as what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:33 · Score: 0

There is nothing in my opinion then the personification of objects. But this type of nonsense of defining life by 'movement' is nearly as foolish. A ripple in water is now 'signs of life'. Give us all a break and actually stop publishing this dribble and sensationalizing what Johnny found in his pocket today articles.
1. Re:So "Being Alive" is defined as what? by mbone · 2012-02-21 04:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Geologically, "live" means active and "dead," or "extinct" means inactive (as in a dead or extinct volcano). This terminology has been used for a long time (decades, if not centuries) and is reasonably expressive.
  By the way, electrical engineering has live wires, using the same analogy. Best not to touch them.
Lava Tubes by phrostie · 2012-02-21 04:33 · Score: 1

Weren't they saying last year that these were ancient lava tubes that had collapsed?
1. Re:Lava Tubes by bmo · 2012-02-21 04:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But that was before they got a closer look.
  When the model changes to accept new data, we call it science.
  When the model never changes and rejects all new data, we call it religion and dogma.
  Hope this helps.
  --
  BMO
2. Re:Lava Tubes by idontgno · 2012-02-21 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Even religion can change the model, once in a while.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:Lava Tubes by yurtinus · 2012-02-21 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're saying is... Science was wrong and will always be wrong!!! Praise Jesus!
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
4. Re:Lava Tubes by tompaulco · 2012-02-21 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hawkin's Theory of Progress: "Progress does not consist of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong."
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
5. Re:Lava Tubes by bmo · 2012-02-22 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  The model really didn't change.
  Just a bunch of smaller models spun off of it with more rigid thinking.
  What changed was the politics.
  --
  BMO
TLP, baby by mbone · 2012-02-21 04:39 · Score: 2

The Moon has Transient Lunar Phenomena - lights and other features that come and go. These have
been observed enough, over a long enough time, and are correlated enough with recent lunar features to make me think they are real.
So to me, the real questions is, are these LRO features correlated with the TLP locations ?
Tidal forces? by Hentes · 2012-02-21 04:41 · Score: 1

Couldn't these formations be caused by Earth's tidal forces instead of tectonic ones?
1. Re:Tidal forces? by mikael · 2012-02-21 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Tidal forces would cause the moon to squash and stretch, if it rotated, like Earth's oceans. But the moon is gravity locked to facing the Earth.
  There are line formations on Earth, I'm curious about this formation in the North Sea?
  Google Ocean maps
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
See? by geminidomino · 2012-02-21 04:44 · Score: 1

It's only mostly dead!
(It was either that, or yet another Parrot Sketch reference.)
Wouldn't the first hint be by future+assassin · 2012-02-21 04:45 · Score: 1

the blue planet next to it?

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Upgraded by MadKeithV · 2012-02-21 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny

The moon has been upgraded from "harmless" to "mostly harmless" then?
1. Re:Upgraded by hcs_$reboot · 2012-02-21 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Downgraded?
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Upgraded by Hillgiant · 2012-02-21 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's only mostly dead.
  
  --
  -
3. Re:Upgraded by MadKeithV · 2012-02-22 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's not dead, it's resting.
Obligatory by Lucky75 · 2012-02-21 05:08 · Score: 2

That's no moon!

--
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
Obelisk? by aitikin · 2012-02-21 05:14 · Score: 1

I, for one, am still waiting for that big black obelisk to be dug up.
Don't you mean the tetrahedron?

--
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Fracking... by Oswald+McWeany · 2012-02-21 05:24 · Score: 1

The tectonic activity on the moon is caused by Chinese Teikonauts fracking the moon to extract natural gas.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Isn't that kind of how trenches work? by davidbrit2 · 2012-02-21 05:41 · Score: 4, Funny

...small, narrow trenches typically much longer than they are wide.
Well yeah, if they aren't, we just call them "holes".
other factors? by vmerc · 2012-02-21 05:42 · Score: 1

Did they first rule out the earth's gravitational pull as the cause of these small delicately formed features? I am guessing not since it was not mentioned in the article.
Graben by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:44 · Score: 0

Graben is German for ditch.
Why can't we just call it a ditch?
Soon the moon will crack open... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 05:57 · Score: 0

...and a thousand thousand dragons will pour forth.
It is known.
Pix of the where the monolith should be by Squidlips · 2012-02-21 06:16 · Score: 2

Here is the top of the central peak in Tycho: http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articles/tycho-central-peak-spectacular Maybe it is a round monolith ;^)
It's.... HATCHING!!!! by Timmy+D+Programmer · 2012-02-21 06:16 · Score: 1

It's a giant EGG!

--

(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Sodium cloud atmosphere by k6mfw · 2012-02-21 06:17 · Score: 1

Along with the body being active, moon has a active exosphere and surrounded by a sodium cloud bright enough to be seen by the unaided eye if not for the brightness of the moon's surface. This active "atmosphere" will be further investigated by LADEE, Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer, spacecraft being built now at NASA Ames and Space Systems Loral (on San Antonio off hwy 101 few miles north of Ames), to be launched next year. LADEE is Small Spacecraft/Big Science. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/main/ And discussion on exosphere at http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/solar-storms-sandblast-moon

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Mostly Dead? by Ogive17 · 2012-02-21 06:19 · Score: 2

NASA should seek out Miracle Max, maybe he can help.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
In other news by argStyopa · 2012-02-21 07:15 · Score: 1

In the phrase "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
R'lyeh was apparently mistranscribed by Mr Johanssen. Rl'yeh is the southern Pacific. R'lyeh is in fact, the moon.

--
-Styopa
Don't Breathe This... by Dogtanian · 2012-02-21 07:44 · Score: 2

I will assume that it is no moon, but is, in fact, a battle station.
But is it fully armed and operational? That IS the question.
No, it's not.

"Will It Blend?"... *That* is the question!

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It's not dead! by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2012-02-21 07:57 · Score: 1

It's just pining for the fjords!

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
actually .... by RobertLTux · 2012-02-21 08:08 · Score: 1

"By the way, electrical engineering has live wires, using the same analogy. Best not to touch them."
[SNARK type="Order of the Boondock BrotherHood"]
if you could the next chance you get find a nice thick shiny one take a shoe off and stand on that foot. Next get a good grip on the wire with the opposite hand (so if you are standing on your left foot use your right hand and vise versa).
you are aware that "Live" does not only mean in the biological sense right??
[/SNARK]

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Maybe it's the oil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 08:42 · Score: 0

Maybe it's the trillions of barrels worth of crude oil sloshing around, just below the surface. A shame we gave up after a few surface samples.
Ia! Ia! by CthulhuFhtagn · 2012-02-21 08:54 · Score: 1

Just wait until it opens it's eye.
Welcome to my secret Moon-base lair... by Jawnn · 2012-02-21 09:07 · Score: 1

....Mr. Powers. As you can see, we have been busy with our new supply of red-hot mag-muh. Bwah-ha-ha....
H. G. Wells already knew this and warned us! by IwantToKeepAnon · 2012-02-21 09:55 · Score: 1

Never, never discuss the earth and how brutal its inhabitants are with a Selenite and certainly not with the Grand Lunar. Else the consequences can be quite dire.

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
Actually, it's just Dahak by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 10:36 · Score: 0

Now would be a good time for someone to announce that they're turning Mutineer's Moon into a movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutineers%27_Moon
Everyone, please ignore the Utu-class planetoid starship of the Fourth Imperium that quietly replaced our moon and has been sitting there dormant for millenia...
Erm... safe bet? by Sinn3d · 2012-02-21 20:04 · Score: 1

> has probably seen tectonic activity within the last 50 million years.
probably, 50 million years.
Seriously?
Expanding moon theory?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 01:18 · Score: 0

Tectonic plates on the seems unlikely to me. Occam's razor would suggest planetary expansion to me.
Just saying
"Apollo 18" was right I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 10:46 · Score: 0

I just thought that all the Movies were based on fiction, just remember to avoid touching those rock-bugs stuffs