Slashdot Mirror


Watch How the Moon Was Formed

itwbennett writes "A pair of NASA videos released today show the moon as you've never seen it before. In one video, you get an up-close tour of the moon's craters, thanks to video and images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. In the other, you can watch an animation of the moon's creation and evolution."

56 comments

  1. I'm curious by jimmetry · · Score: 2

    How did they narrow down the timescale of the events to be so specific without any samples?

    1. Re:I'm curious by HeavyDDuty · · Score: 3, Funny

      At NASA we don't take chances , we double up on everything... including guesswork.

    2. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many samples. We just don't know where they are.

    3. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I imagine a lot of them are on the Moon.

    4. Re:I'm curious by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Most of the times had at least a billion years range. Is that narrow for you?

      Craters are usually dated by looking at how many craters are superimposed on them and making estimates based on expected bombardment rates.

  2. This contradicts with what my pastor says. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This does not correspond at all to how my pastor says the earth, the moon, the sun, and everything else was created. Why should I believe what NASA has to say?

    - Jim from Arkansas

    1. Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Obvious troll as the real Jim from Arkansas would not say "how my pastor says" but "how the Bible says" or "how God says". Attributing the pastor indicates some level of critical thinking that could make this question somewhat legitimate: "Why should I believe NASA? What evidence do they have beyond the circumstantial?"

    2. Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. by siddesu · · Score: 2

      No, it doesn't, you're not careful, my son. Not only does the video show the Moon after it was initially shaped by the hand of God, it also showed God's hand during its changing through the aeons. Consider the sounds of all those explosions from the stones God threw at the moon. The mad scientists would have you believe you can't hear them in space, but by God's will you heard them loud and clear.

      Sincerely, your father Porphirios.

    3. Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what's more depressing - that this 6000 year joke is made EVERY time such a story appears on slashdot, or that it's modded +5 Funny EVERY time.

      If your wish is to marginalise the religious then the best course of action is to just ignore them.

    4. Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. by chinton · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Jim. Your pastor is an idiot. Not even the Vatican believes in the 6000-year-old universe.

    5. Re:This contradicts with what my pastor says. by lemur3 · · Score: 1

      If your wish is to marginalise the religious then the best course of action is to just ignore them.

      but, one cant register their superiority that way!!

  3. Why not post link to NASA website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Why not post link to NASA website? by Eevee · · Score: 1

      Because nobody is being paid to post links to NASA.

    2. Re:Why not post link to NASA website? by teridon · · Score: 2
      The LRO page has both videos http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/vid-tour.html/

      Fuck you ITWorld author for not linking back to the source

      --
      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  4. Not according to David Icke by phonewebcam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who says it's hollow, and was towed here by aliens.

    1. Re:Not according to David Icke by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Nice, haven't had a laugh listening to bollocks like that for a while. I would hate to stand between him and an episode of Ancient Aliens though, I reckon he would hit pretty hard and hustle like a pro.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Not according to David Icke by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Are the Aliens Amazon Babes? I was promised an invasion by alien amazon babes!

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  5. Earth impact? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

    Didn't the moon impact the earth at one point? Isn't that why it's fairly lopsided?

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:Earth impact? by Rollgunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Large-Impact Hypothesis is the current consensus. One smaller protoplanet grazed a larger one, leaving a large chunk of itself behind. The larger became the Earth, the smaller, the moon.

      As to why the Lunar crust is (believed to be) about 1/3 thicker of the far side than the near side, no one is quite sure.

    2. Re:Earth impact? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      I guess it's the other way around and the mascons and tidal licking... locking and... magnets!

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  6. No Sound in Space by ad454 · · Score: 0

    Strange that they would animate the meteoroid impacts with sound.

    Last I check, there wasn't any sound in the near perfect vacuum of space on and around the moon.

    1. Re:No Sound in Space by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you where standing on the moon(presumable in a space suit) then yes, you would here the impact.

      Otherwise, stop being a jack ass, it's for illustration purposes, so they had sound..cause space is freaking boring.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:No Sound in Space by dittbub · · Score: 1

      maybe space could sound like david bowie then.

    3. Re:No Sound in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but the camera's not being held by a spaceman on the moon.

      Come to think of it, how did they get that footage anyway??? Did they have a satellite trained on the moon, videotaping it just in case of an impact? How did they know when to expect the impacts? I'm sorry, but I smell a conspiracy here.

    4. Re:No Sound in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it bothers you that much, mute your speakers before watching any space-related video.

    5. Re:No Sound in Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hEAR with your EAR

  7. what is the fate of the moon? by dittbub · · Score: 1

    I've read lots about what happens to the earth when the move leaves orbit. but what happens to the moon? does it fly into the sun? towards jupiter? or become a planet of its own?

  8. Time frame written incorrectly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the formation of the moon video, the time frame starts at "-4.5 billion years ago".
    "4.5 billion years ago" or "-4.5 billion years" makes sense (the former making more sense, but the latter is still acceptable), but what exactly is "-4.5 billion years ago"?

    1. Re:Time frame written incorrectly? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      I think it's a tilde ~ not a minus -. I assume it means approx. 4.5 billion years ago.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    2. Re:Time frame written incorrectly? by EdBear69 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's a tilde (~) and not a hyphen (-). If reading out loud, replace the tilde with the word 'approximately'.

      --
      I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV...
  9. Moon's 'evolution'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, what, you gonna tell me the moon evolved from apes?

  10. bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that doesn't show how the moon was formed. isn't it supposed to be the result of 2 separate impacts?

  11. I know you meant to be snarky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When the meteroids impacted, they would have caused a broad spectrum of light. That includes light at very low frequencies.

    A few years back, we watched an intense meteor shower. As the meteors became visibly 'fuzzy' and then 'snapped' out of view, we HEARD corresponding sounds. This seemed impossible, but turned out to be real (they weren't delayed by speed of sound). The cause was low frequency light, which was transduced by fine elements around us -- like our hair, and dry grasses.

    So an observer with a full head of hair would have 'heard' sounds of the meteor impacts, if he was in a quiet environment.

    1. Re:I know you meant to be snarky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's why we all hear radio with our hair.

  12. God's Throne by Cito · · Score: 1
    Everyone knows the moon was God's throne he sat on while he created the Earth.

    When he was finished he left it behind.

    :)

  13. This is cool but by Verloc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not "How the moon was formed", it is "Why the moon looks like it does". Still a very cool video.

  14. Sound by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't help but wonder... why am I watching a NASA video where the crater's falling on the moon makes sound in a vacuum?

    I know it's artistic license and all, but aren't videos like this reserved for nerds, who actually care about things like accuracy?

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Sound by Trogre · · Score: 2

      No, they're PR.

      NASA needs to make stuff look and sound as cool as possible at the moment.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:Sound by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      You might as well ask why there's music, too.

    3. Re:Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, you don't call out the fact that there are stars!

    4. Re:Sound by Chozabu · · Score: 1

      I can't help but wonder... why am I watching a NASA video where the crater's falling on the moon makes sound in a vacuum?

      I know it's artistic license and all, but aren't videos like this reserved for nerds, who actually care about things like accuracy?

      Just press the Mute button if it bothers you =P

    5. Re:Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum. However, there were sound waves generated by the impacts. They traveled through the moon itself and the debris and gasses that ejected from the impacts.

  15. Cheese!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was common knowledge the moon was formed in Wisconson.

  16. I think there are better explanations by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Based on recent articles in the Physics Today, the moon is almost entirely made of Earth Mantle. Therefore, the viewpoint of a georeactor megavolcano probably is more likely.

    Based on recent articles in Science News, it seems that in the formation of Kimberlite rock, there is a reaction which can send the magma into orbit, basically with carbon dioxide being the rocket fuel.

    Referencing back to a Slashdot article not too long ago, the main structure of the moon is from two smaller moons colliding in a fairly slow collision.

    Based on the new kimberlites found in a huge ring of 950-mi radius all around the Hudson, and the age of the Hudson rock [ the margin of error in rock dating, plus the fact that georeactors will throw off the Uranium isotope counts but perhaps not the Pb/Pb counts, allow for the probability], I'd say that the Hudson is one likely origin of the moon.

    *But* that doesn't mean I don't think a much smaller asteroid triggered it. Based on the probability that georeactors will create enough vapor pressure to keep themselves from getting dense enough to go critical, it would take a large, sudden, horizontal force on a uranium-laden calcium berg in the mantle, to force it critical. Once it went critical, shock waves in the mantle could trigger another georeactor on the opposite side of the earth.

    My guess, based on all that? 2.1 billion years ago, a relatively small asteroid [that is, not mars-sized] impacted near the south pole at a shallow angle, plowing the submantle south of Tierra Del Fuego, and throwing shocked glass all around South Africa, Antarctica, and Australia. You can see the plowed area in Google Maps, from Del Fuego to the South Sandwich Islands. It triggered a georeactor that exists under the South Sandwich Islands, and at the time was under the Vredefort Crater. The georeactor blew, making the volcanic crater. On the other side of the globe, near where Iceland is today, was another georeactor, with what is now the Hudson Bay above it. That georeactor also blew, creating the bay, shattering the crust all around it, and causing Kimberlate / Lamproite blasts through the shattered crust.

    At that point, you had a huge amount of matter orbiting the earth at relatively slow speeds. Some of it fell back, but a lot of it formed into two moons, which at some point later, merged in a relatively slow collision.

    I can't throw a probability on the scenario, but I tend to think [based on the articles I have read] that that scenario is more probable than any other that has been proposed.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:I think there are better explanations by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      2.1 billion years ago pre-dates our current continent configuration, it pre-dates Pangea, it pre-dates Rodinia, that's around (or even before) Columbia/Nuna. Three super continents have come and gone since then, so Google maps isn't the proof you're looking for.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:I think there are better explanations by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the guy further up who thinks the moon is hollow and aliens towed it here is going to give you a run for your money on the whole "most probable theory" thing. You guys probably read similar articles though.

    3. Re:I think there are better explanations by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      It doesn't predate the Canadian Archon, or Vaalbara, or even possibly Vredefort, or the Hudson Bay structure. Arguably it doesn't predate all the oceanic trenches, nor the alignment of the continental shelf shapes. So there is a lot that has lasted.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  17. This is why NASA is no longer relavent. by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    This much more informative video by the Smashing Pumpkins clearly shows that the moon looks like either cheese or some type of cookie. Furthermore it is populated with ugly jumping guys covered with craters that are easily defeated with a parasol or umbrella.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  18. That's no... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 0

    moon? It never does get old, does it?

    --
    In C++, your friends can see your privates.
  19. In Soviet Russia by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Moon watch YOU being formed!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  20. Direct link to the crater tour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=135569041

    That's a must see - really well done.

  21. Stable for a billion years? by Rhipf · · Score: 1

    So the moon hasn't change significantly in a billion years? Interesting.

  22. Letterbox format? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.40:1 aspect ratio showing a spherical object, cutting out the top and the bottom? The framing is ugly.

  23. Re:Not according to David Icke (and H.G. Wells) by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

    H.G. Wells concurs. The First Men in the Moon

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
  24. ____world sites suk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you could please stop linking to itworld and pcworld, etc... until they remove the *&^% full page ads, that would be super keen. Thank you.