Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 8 March 2009

	Moon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Moon is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted January 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 14, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

Template:WPSpace

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Pressure on the Surface of the Moon

people often thought that there were canals on the moons surface, but they were wrong. Why is the pressure on the surface of the moon not displayed? I see it in the parameter box when I go to edit it, but not on the displayed page. Why is this? How do I get the surface pressure to be displayed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A19grey (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I thought the moon was mad eof cheese (yummy)

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)

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_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' 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_spy 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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_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?

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 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)

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.

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/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 crters —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 / )} 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)

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_spy 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

last paragraph in "Presence of Water" section of "Moon" page

The current version uses strange, technically incorrect language, and does not use primary sources:

In July 2008, small amounts of water were found in the interior of volcanic pearls from the Moon (brought to Earth by Apollo 15).

I would suggest making the following changes:

In 2007, small concentrations of water (up to 0.005%) were found inside volcanic glass formed by surface eruptions on the Moon (and sampled by Apollo 15). The discoverers of this lunar water also found sulfur, chlorine and fluorine, and argued that the water concentration of these glasses was originally about 0.05%, a possible challenge to the commonly accepted giant impact hypothesis of lunar formation. .

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)

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)

Other natural satellites?

The article The Great Daylight 1972 Fireball#All known Earth-grazing fireballs cites an old paper about a 1913 series of fireballs, which believed them to have resulted from the breaking up of a (very small) natural satellite. Is this still regarded as plausible, and if so, could there be others? This article says the Moon is the Earth's only natural satellite - should that be modified to the only known natural satellite? Though given the recent news on 2008 TC3 I suppose any unknown satellites would have to be utterly miniscule. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We track chunks of junk the size of bolts in Earth orbit, so I suspect that there are no other natural satellites. kwami (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd been thinking that only good radar reflectors could be tracked, but now I read the ESA Space Debris Telescope can detect 15-cm objects by sight at the geostationary orbit. Maybe there could still be a chunk of black rock the size of a Volkswagen circling the L5 point? On the other hand: can someone explain why a system like the Earth and Moon can't manage to capture so much as a stray meteoroid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural occurring orbits are statistically extremely rare and even harder to maintain over long periods of time.

65.101.251.116 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

However the earth has a naturally occurring 'temporary satellite'-- a Sun orbiting asteroid (only 6 meters across) that periodically enters Earths orbit (usually just about four Earth orbits) before being thrown back out into its solar orbit.

65.101.251.116 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Luna should be boldface in lead

According to Misplaced Pages:Boldface "proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms" should be in bold typeface. According to the article, "The Moon is occasionally referred to by its Latin name, Luna." Luna is a synonym for the Moon, which is why it is included in the lead in the first place, and therefore should be in bold. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted (until discussion completes) as this could also affect Sun. As per what has already been stated, "Luna" is neither the proper name (in English) or a common term; it tends to appear in science fiction rather than in science or day-to-day use. This has been discussed before, which is why the bold was removed quite some time ago by other editors. (There were actually several occasions where "Luna" was removed from the lead altogether, which speaks to the occasional text you quoted and also to the fact it is not common.) --Ckatz_spy 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's not common enough then it should be removed altogether. I do admit that I've mainly heard it used in science fiction, particularly star trek, but even if it is primarily a science fiction/pop culture reference then I think that alone could make it common enough to be listed as an alternate term in the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to dig through the talk page and the edit history to be sure, but I seem to recall that "Luna" was left in the lead in part for historical purposes. The debate surfaces every so often because of questions over the name "Moon"; per the IAU, there is no formal English name for our satellite other than "Moon", but the use of "Luna" in science fiction causes confusion. (The same issue arises with "Sun" and "Sol" as well.) Obviously, to bold or not to bold is a minor issue, but with regards to this particular word it is a bit more involved. Let's give this some time on the talk page so that the other regular editors can add their thoughts. --Ckatz_spy 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been used in poetry since the 16th century. From the OED:

1529 Whan Luna, full of mutabylyte, As emperes the dyademe hath worne Of our pole artyke.

1588 (Shakespeare) Dul.: What is dictima? Nath.: A title to Phebe, to Luna, to the Moone.

1592 And Luna hides her selfe to pleasure vs.

1836 Luna shone bright in the blue arch above.

I don't get similar results from 'Selene'. You could argue this is really the Roman goddess, the Moon personified, but one of the Webster's defines 'Luna' simply as 'the moon'.

BTW, the OED has a similar entry for Sol as 'the Sun (personified)':

c1450 Sol is hote & dry but not as mars is.

1592 Ere Sol had slept three nights in Thetis lap.

1593 More beautiful ... Than Sol himself amid the Planets seven.

1609 His smile is like the Meridian Sol Discern'd a dauncing in the burbling brook.

1670 The Vines ... doth shelter them from the scorching beams of Sols fiery influence.

1712–4 (Pope) Sol thro' white curtains shot a tim'rous ray.

1791 (Cowper) Till Sol, declining in the west, Shall call to supper.

1820 In bright Sol's diurnal round, No such delightful place was found.

1837 Clytie, inconsolable for the loss of the affections of Sol, ... is represented as brooding over her griefs in silence and in solitude.

kwami (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines Luna as simply "the moon." Rreagan007 (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the same page link, Dictionary.com defines it as the Roman goddess, silver, and a religious item, while the American Heritage Dictionary and Wordnet both define it exclusively as the goddess. (None of those three works describe it as the Moon; additionally, the Webster's entry lists silver.) Furthermore, the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary doesn't even have an entry for "luna". --Ckatz_spy 05:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Even one major dictionary defining Luna as the Moon demonstrates that the term is in use in English. I did a quick google search and found multiple uses of Luna as the moon.

• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=luna
• http://space.about.com/od/moonluna/
• http://apollo-society.org/luna.html
• http://www.kidsastronomy.com/earth/moons.htm
• http://www.spaceref.com/directory/Astronomy/Planets/Earth/The_Moon_(Luna)/
• http://excelsis.com/1.0/entry.php?sectionid=25&entryid=8

This demonstrates to me that Luna is accepted in English as a synonym for the Moon. Whether this usage originated with modern science fiction or classical English literature, Luna is an alternative name for the Moon and the lead should reflect that with proper MoS formatting. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it does not meet the "common term" requirement, nor is it recognized as a scientific or proper term for the Moon. Furthermore, many of the Google hits you've listed are not relevant; Urban Dictionary, for one, is completely unreliable. (I could sign up tonight, enter a definition saying "Luna" means "cheese", and it would have equal listing with what is there now.) About.com lists Luna as the Latin name, not the English name. Astronomy for Kids is riddled with inconsistencies (Pluto is a planet and a dwarf planet; it has one and three moons.) Spaceref.com does not describe the Moon's name as "Luna"; it only uses the term in a title. Both the Apollo Society and Excelsis do not appear to meet any "reliable source" definitions. Look, I'm not saying the term isn't used occasionally, only that we cannot justify claiming it is a "common term" for Moon. The number of reliable sources - dictionaries, scientific resources, and so on - that do not endorse such a claim appear to far outweigh any that do. --Ckatz_spy 06:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, remember that the "Luna" in the lead sentence is there as a Latin translation, not as a synonym. --Ckatz_spy 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not using those links as "reliable sources" per se. I was merely using them to show that the term is in common use in English (though your criticism of Urban Dictionary sounds a lot like a criticism of Misplaced Pages that I hear all the time). I think your definition of what constitutes a "common use" is a little narrow. Certainly Luna is not the most common term used for the moon, but it is certainly not an obscure use if many mainstream websites and a major published dictionary use it. Indeed, I'm sure you would agree that "Luna" is the most common alternative to "the Moon" in English. However, if it is not a common enough use to be recognized, then there is no need to have the Latin translation in the lead at all. Why not put the Latin translation on the Earth article? Because it would be stupid and pointless to just stick the Latin translation there. The only reason the Latin translation is in the lead in the Moon article is that it is the most common synonym for the Moon in English. It should therefore be in bold. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)people often thought that there were canals on the moons surface, but they were wrong.

Gif image reduction

I am concerned with the size of the Image:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif; while it is spectacular I'm surprised and taken aback at the 9874.97 KB it requires to download. Initially I wanted to remove the gif immediately, but after further consideration I would like to request that a downgraded version be done for article use. The goal being to reduce load time for users and mitigate long term costs to Misplaced Pages, as this article has heavy traffic. This makes sense given it is thumb-nailed anyway. Thoughts? - RoyBoy 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. - RoyBoy 05:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Early tides

It seems worth mentioning in this article that in the geologic past, when the moon was closer to the earth, the tides were much larger as well (100s of meters, I believe) -- which has a lot of relevance to Earth geology and probably evolution. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

is this statement correct?

"although several countries have either sent or announced plans to send people and/or robotic spacecraft to the Moon."

Which countries since 1972 have sent people to the moon?Tigershoot (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is correct: there have been multiple countries to send probes (or orbiters) to the moon and many countries have plans to go to it. Twintop (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It reads though as if people have been sent. I know that probes have, and that there have been announcements of sending people, but no human has been sent since 1972. Would it would read better as "although several countries have sent robotic spacecraft to the Moon, or announced plans to send people as well." Tigershoot (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Moon Formation: Volcanic Eruption Theory

I just had this idea and it seems very valid, especially based on the silica and other contents of the moon. Whenever the moon was formed the Earth core had to be much much hotter, thus larger, more frequent volcanic eruptions. Perhaps an eruption might have been so enormous that it was able to propel 2% of the Earth's contents beyond its atmosphere. There in space it was floating out in a straight line but liquids in space tend to form into spherical shapes, thus it formed into a sphere and was captured into orbit. Feedback please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutekos (talk • contribs) 08:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

May I first recommend reading Giant impact hypothesis? Moon is (AFAIK) formed from Proto-Earth's crust, not the core. With some shoe-horning, the Giant impact hypothesis counterparts fairly well to your reasoning, except the cause was a planetary impact, not a giant volcanic eruption. But, if you make your own theories, you have to publish them outside Misplaced Pages, and if they seems to explain as many facts and more than the current theories, we may consider making an article of it. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not such a ridiculus idea as it might seem to most, though instead of a volcanic eruption a nuclear explosion at the core/mantle boundary is sugested. Though this theory is still under construction and modeling as has been done for the giant impact hypothesis has still to be carried out.Grissini (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Distance

I was watching a documentary on channel four called catastrophe a few weeks ago. it was saying about the giant impact theory and someother things that i cant remember, what i can remember is that it was said that the moon was around ten times closer to us when the earth was young than it is today. im just wondering if this is true and if it is would it be worth putting into the article.

Mr Deathbat 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already here: Giant impact hypothesis. If you consider there's something missing in that article, you may add it into there, if you provide suitable external sources. Otherwise proofreading and spell correction is always welcome. Regarding it's truth: the theory is accepted by the majority of astronomers that have an opinion in the topic, but it is far from proven. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What i was actually Enquiring about was what i said about the distance being ten times closer to the earth not long after the moons formation. do you think this could be true? my bad should of written it a bit clearer

Mr Deathbat talk 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon as a planet

Just out of curiosity (and boredom), would the moon be classified as a planet if it didnt orbit earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.182.189 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be along with some of the other bigger moons that orbit other planets, if they had their own orbit around the sun.

the moon is bigger than Pluto and Pluto is classed as a dwarf planet so maybe. Mr Deathbat (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is a very good question. I believe if Pluto is treated as a real planet than the 7 largest moons of the solar system should also be real planets based on their large sizes. The problem with the moon being a planet (if it did not orbit the Earth) is it would have a weak Stern-Levinson parameter, and I doubt it would have a stable orbit (of 5 Billion years) if it had an orbit between say Earth and Venus. See Giant impact hypothesis. -- Kheider (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It could, but it depends on the circumstances. The first two IAU definitions of planet are that it needs to be in orbit around the Sun and that it needs to be of sufficient mass to assume a nearly round shape. The moon is round by its own gravity and could have been in a direct orbit around the Sun. But there is one third requirement which is where Pluto among others fail; it needs to be the dominating body in it's vicinity, having cleared any other larger objects from its orbit. This is basically why Mercury, the only sizable object in the innermost region of the solar system, is a planet while Pluto, located in the Kuiper belt, is not. Replace Mercury with the moon and it would classify as a planet, replace Pluto with the moon and it would not classify as a planet. Finally I might suggest asking questions like this one at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science instead as the talk pages are really meant for discussing work on the article, also you are more likely to receive a quick response at the help desk. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "thus" in second paragraph

The second paragraph has a sentence "Thus, the Moon's volume is about 2 percent that of Earth;" However, the volume of the Earth is not given (there's not even a Misplaced Pages link to Earth!). "Thus" implies a conclusion from previous information, which is not available here.

In short: replace "Thus" with "As such", and it will be fine. And a wiki-link to Earth would be appreciated too.

Yes, minor nitpick, would've edited myself, but for some reason I couldn't find, the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.77.254 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

color

what color is the moon really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.160.155 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon landings on other bodies?

The third paragraph states: "The Moon is the only celestial body to which humans have travelled and upon which humans have performed a manned moon landing". If we were to land on another celestial body, wouldn't it be a "manned landing" and not a "manned moon landing"? Moon landings only occur on Earth's moon.--Rosattin (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cood catch. Saros136 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bettering the Article

This website seems to explain better Moon rotation and libation. The slow Moon rotation on it's slanted axis, plus the monthly rotation around the Earth, is the reason for only one side to be visible always to Earth. But that the Moon does rotate around itself as a spinning top, similar to Earth. What it would seem is that it is not rotating on its own axis, and stationary, and only rotating around the Earth. -- IS this correct or right...??? (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)).

A very interesting number is 1.0022km/s = 3,679.2km/h. The "rotation" speed around it's axis. And it does not have "magnetic field", only the "gravitational" one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeFThomson (talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Earth's only natural Satellite?

Aren't there also other small rocks that orbit earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.136.137 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice on talk page about Cruithne

I think it would be helpful to add a notice near the top of this talk page summarizing why Cruithne is not considered a moon of the Earth, and thus not suitable for more mention in the article than it already has. The topic has come up many times, at least twice since the last archive, and a notice might reduce this. My reasoning is similar to the reasoning behind the notice on the article for Earth, mentioning that references to 'Mostly Harmless' aren't suitable for the article. I'd add such a notice myself, but I am inexperienced at Misplaced Pages technical wizardry of that sort. :P --Patteroast (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you could do it easily. Go to the Earth talk page, click the edit tab, and copy and paste the relevant part to this page. Saros136 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moon or moon

Should we use initial caps on the word Moon? (This question is related to the question above about the name of our moon.) Is Moon the proper name for our moon, or is it just a generic term identifying the kind of heavenly body nearest Earth? In other words, is Moon to our moon as Earth is to our planet? John (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We capitalize it , as the Moon is the proper name. Both are considered acceptable in English, and both get done here at times. Saros136 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be used that way; we often say "the moon". I couldn't convince myself that moon is a proper name. How do you know? John (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Moon" is a capitalized proper name, as is "Luna". The use of the word moon for other natural satellites is not capitalized, nor usually its combination with contemporary phrases that imply Luna, as in "moon landings" and "moon rocks" Dfoofnik (talk)

Need more images from the southern-hemisphere perspective

Most of the images in the article are almost all images of the Moon from the perspective of the Northern Hemisphere. (The exceptions are Fir0002's Belt of Venus shot where the moon image is rather small, and the eclipse image is ambiguous.) There are no large images of the moon that show what the moon looks like as seen from the Southern Hemisphere. This is a violation of the Manual of Style (limited geographic scope). Adding some additional southern-hemisphere content in the form of a large image of the southern-hemisphere view of the moon would improve the article by providing more balanced information on the topic. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just flip one of the images upside-down. We could display them side-by-side, to contrast the difference. And of course we need them rotated 90° so we get the view from the equator. kwami (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That can work. The only difficulty with doing this is how to integrate four more large images of the moon into the article while writing some good text to accompany them. The equatorial description may need a little creativity, as the two equatorial views would be the rising and setting moon. Any thoughts? -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

moon

the moon doesnt give itself light —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.234.46 (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Double planet

I added the following information to the section about why some people consider the Earth and Moon to be a double planet system:

the sun actually has a stronger pull on the Moon than the Earth does. As a result of that, when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth, it does not move away from the sun and towards the Earth, as most satellites do. It keeps moving towards the Sun. It just slows down, which allows the Earth to pass the Moon, which gives the appearance that the Moon is circling the Earth.

Someone reverted my edit, claiming it was utterly incoherent. I restored it. If you think it's incoherent, feel free to make it more coherent. Or explain why you think it's incoherent, and I'll address it myself. But don't just delete good information because you don't like how it's phrased. And by the way, my phrasing isn't incoherent at all. The guy probably just rejected it because he'd never considered it before, and didn't know what he was talking about. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, OK, if the Moon "keeps moving towards the Sun", why doesn't it fall into it? Presumably the Moon moves away from the Sun at some point? You appear to just be saying that the Moon orbits the Sun (which it does) and its orbit is perturbed by Earth gravity (which it is). But so what? Earth-Moon are a gravitationally bound system, Earth is bigger. You can state that Asimov thinks it's a double-planet system, but yes, your explanation is incoherent. Please do rephrase, or we can just take it out if you can't do better. Franamax (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Franamax! A quick look at any astronomy guide to the planets will show that true "planets" always fall toward their star. All this means is that the planet's orbital momentum around the star counteracts the planet's tendency to actually accelerate into the star. The fact is: The Moon always falls toward the Sun, just like the "official" eight planets in our Solar System. Only satellites spend part of their time falling toward the Sun and the other part falling away from the Sun. Our Moon only moves away from the Sun in the same manner as the other planets, that is, the slight moving away and moving closer due to their Solar orbits being elliptical rather than circular.  ^) Paine (^  16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the Moon goes around the other side of the Earth, so at some point it has to move away from the Sun. And it's "falling" toward the Earth all the time, like you say, that's what an orbit is. I'll accept your proposition that the Moon doesn't show retrograde motion, but I suspect that is just an artifact of solar system geometry.

Now if you feel the need to tell me here that I need to read an astronomy guide in order to understand your addition to the article, then quite clearly your wording has failed its purpose. This is an encyclopedia for average folk, meant to provide clear explanations. Please consider rewording to make more clear what you are trying to convey. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(Dfoofnik) Yes, the information here (re:Asimov) is both scientifically incorrect and misleading, as the solar gravitational effect on the Moon is only greater in absolute magnitude, not orbital magnitude, or the Moon would not remain with the Earth. This should be removed immediately, and referred as a possible putative revert.

Not sure what you mean by "absolute magnitude" vs. "orbital magnitude", but what was said is simply that the Sun's "pull" on the Moon is twice that of Earth's gravitational effect upon the Moon. And this is an indisputable fact. The only change I would make is to replace "pull" with "gravitational effect".  ^) Paine (^  16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Formation theories

I propose to revamp the formation theories section. It goes through the antiquated theories first, and rejects them, before spending a little bit of space (not much) on the current theory. I would like to see the current theory expanded, and the others put later, in a subsection, or at least downsized in importance, as they currently take up the majority of that section of the article. I'll wait a day or two for objections or (hopefully) suggestions, and then get to work. Awickert (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to do this, and perhaps not. Keep in mind that the current theory is still just a "theory", and that there are still problems with it. For example, the current theory still cannot explain fully why the Moon has a near-circular orbit, nor why the Moon orbits so close to the ecliptic. Until these and other questions are answered, the current theory is still just a better refinement of older theories that may or may not bring us a little closer to a clear picture of physical reality. Just a thought, though, so go with your conscience and "be bold"  ^) Paine (^  17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Spudis, Paul D. (2004). "Moon". World Book Online Reference Center. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
2. Versteckt in Glasperlen: Auf dem Mond gibt es Wasser - Wissenschaft - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• FA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics Solar System featured content
• High-importance Featured topics articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review