From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Ten embarrassed questions about the moon (very long)
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:41:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxD5Hz.Ewt.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
-Subject: NASA Coverup
-Keywords: Ten Embarrassing Questions about the Moon
-Date: 6 Nov 92 23:37:31 GMT

-   As promised ,here come the ...

-                    TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON

I expect you'll get a tremendous number of replies - I'll try to answer some
of the easier questions.

It's pretty evident that you've never read the scientific analyses of the
Apollo data. If you really care as much about the moon as you appear to, it
would definitely be worth your while to study some of them - they'd answer
most of your questions. I've been studying "Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo
View" (Stuart Ross Taylor, Pergamon Press, 1975 - QB592.T38, 
ISBN 0-08-18274-7). There's also a "Lunar Sourcebook" which is alleged to
be better, but I've never been able to locate a copy. The frequently-asked-
questions list includes many references.

You should also try to watch space shows on TV, like the current series
"Space Age". Best of all would be to get NASA Select (by satellite dish
if necessary), and watch the regular replays of footage from the Apollo
program.

-   1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
-       orbit?

-     Scientists have generally offered three major theories to  account  for
-   the  moon  in  orbit around our planet. All three are in serious trouble.
-   Amazingly, the least likely theory prior to the Apollo  missions  emerges
-   as  the  "favorite"  theory.   Evidence  gathered  by  the Apollo program
-   indicate that the moon and  the  earth  differ  greatly  in  composition,
-   thereby degrading the two theories that prevailed prior to these flights.
-   The  first and most popular idea among these scientists was that the moon
-   had been born alongside the earth out of the same cloud of gas  and  dust
-   about  4.6  billion  years  ago. Another theory was that the moon was the
-   earth's "child", ripped out of the Pacific basin ,possibly.

-     However,evidence gathered by the Apollo  missions  indicates  that  the
-   moon  and  earth  differ  greatly in composition.  Scientists now tend to
-   lean toward the third theory -  that  the  moon  was  "captured"  by  the
-   Earth's  gravitational  field  and  locked into orbit ages ago. 

Your information is out of date. A theory that became widely known only a few
years ago has gained greatly in popularity, and was described on "Space Age"
as the "current most popular theory". According to this model, a roving
body about the size of Mars struck the Earth in a glancing impact. The
heat and kinetic energy of the impact caused the body and much of the outer
part of the Earth to be melted/vaporized and blown out into space. Most of this
material fell back to Earth, much of it was lost into interplanetary space,
but some of it coalesced to form the moon. This accounts for the general
similarity of composition of the Earth and the moon, the fact that the moon
has a very low concentration of volatiles (which would have boiled off in
the intense heating following the impact), the fact that the moon apparently
has no large dense core like the Earth has, and a number of other observed
phenomena.

-    3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?

-     99 percent of moon rocks brought back turned out upon  analysis  to  be
-   older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth . If
-   we  assume  that the moon came from a different area of the solar system,
-   where the component material might have been different  ,this  assumption
-   would  still  not  account  for  the  disparity in the average age of the
-   matter composing the two bodies.

The Earth is geologically active, and its surface is continually being
eroded and replenished. Most of the rocks that were on the surface several
billion years ago no longer exist. The moon has been a "dead world" for
several billion years, and apparently never had a tektonic plate structure.
The only "recent" changes you're likely to encounter are lava flows and
disruption by meteor impacts. It's not the least bit surprising that most
surface moon rocks are older than most surface Earth rocks.

-  4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
-     of the moon?

-    The dark areas on the moon are known as "maria" ,some of which form  the
-   familiar  "man  in  the  moon". Maria are significantly absent on the far
-   side of the moon. The ones on the near side area consist mainly of  lunar
-   soil and smaller rocks.  Astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill
-   into  the  surface  of  these dark, plain - like areas. Soil samples weer
-   loaded with rare metals and elements like titanium,  zirconium,  yttruim,
-   and  berylium. How the moon could have been formed by some random process
-   with  such  high  concentrations  of  rare  elements   has   never   been
-   satisfactorily explained.

For chemical analysis, you're going to have to read some actual scientific
papers (it won't show up in Time Magazine). Remember that there are many 
processes active on the Earth that are not present on the moon. A geologist
investigating the composition of stream beds in California might comment
on the unexpectedly low abundance of gold nuggets, not realizing that they
had been removed by humans. :-)

The maria are lava flows that filled impact craters - there's no reason to
be surprised that flow lava is chemically different from the surrounding 
regolith. As for the uneven distribution of the maria, "the apparent
anisotropy of the moon is caused by the lack of mare basalt flooding on the
far side, not by a different cratering history" [above reference].

-  5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?

-    Samples  brought  back to earth by both Soviet and American Space Probes
-   contain particles of pure iron. The  Soviets  announced  that  pure  iron
-   particles  brought back by the remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have
-   not oxidized even after several years on earth. Pure iron particles  that
-   do  not  rust  are  unheard  of in the strange world of science, although
-   there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age  near  New  Delhi  ,India,
-   that has never rusted ,and no one knows why .

Carbon (which makes iron into steel) is one of the volatiles rare on the moon.
Some forms of iron rust much more slowly than common structural steel.
There are iron bridges in England (and perhaps France) that are 100-200
years old and still in regular use. (Gary could probably add more on this.)

-  6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?

-    When  the  Apollo  15  astronauts  used  thermal  equipment  to  measure
-   temperatures  below the surface , they got unusually high readings, which
-   indicated high subsurface temperatures near the  Apennine  mountains.  It
-   was  speculated  that  ,  since  the  presumed  density of the moon would
-   preclude the possibility of lava flows, magma and the like (volcanism has
-   never been observed  on  the  moon)  that  the  high  readings  could  be
-   explained   by  highly  radioactive  elements  just  under  the  surface.
-   Actually, the amount of radioactive materials on the SURFACE of the  moon
-   is  "embarrassingly  high"  .   Where  did  all  of this hot ,radioactive
-   material ( uranium and thorium ) come from ? And  if  it  came  from  the
-   interior  of  the  moon  (very  unlikely)  ,how  did it get to the moon's
-   surface?

The total lunar abundance of uranium is thought to be about 60 ppb, and thorium
about 230 ppb. The only figure I could find for the Earth was 2.7 ppb in the
crust. One might explain the difference by greater gravitational differentiation
in the Earth, since it has greater gravity, and spent a much longer period of
time molten. In other words, the Earth might have the same overall 
concentration, it's just more concentrated in the interior. (Anyone have an
estimate for the overall concentration of uranium in the Earth, including
the interior?)

The temperature at the center of the moon is thought to be between 1000 C
and 1600 C.

-  7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?

-     The few lunar excursions indicate that the moon is a  very  dry  world.
-   One  Lunar  expert  said that the moon was "a million times as dry as the
-   Gobi Desert" .  The early Apollo missions did not even find the slightest
-   trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts  were  stunned  when  a
-   cloud  of  water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on
-   the  moon's  surface.  NASA  officials  suggested  that  two  tiny tanks,
-   abandoned  on the moon by U.S. Astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But  the
-   contents of  these  tanks  could  not  have  produced  a  cloud  of  such
-   magnitude. The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior.
-   Mists, clouds and surface changes have been allegedly seen over the years
-   by  astronomers  .   For  instance  , six astronomers in the last century
-   claimed to have seen a mist which obscured the details on  the  floor  of
-   the  crater Plato. Clouds of any kind would be an extremely odd phenomena
-   on the moon, because of the supposed low gravity, which presumably  could
-   not  hold an atmosphere.  Water trapped beneath the surface, then venting
-   by some unknown process , is one possible explanation - but then what (or
-   WHO) is "letting off steam"?

There have been a number of reported observations of lunar transient
phenomena. Some possible explanations are outgassing, electrostatic
levitation of lunar dust, and impact of meteors or small comets. If small
comets can hit the Earth, why couldn't they also hit the moon?

-  8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?

-     Lunar  explorations  have  revealed  that  much of the lunar surface is
-   covered with a glassy glaze , which indicates that the moon's surface has
-   been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat .   Expert's  analysis
-   shows  that  this  did not result from massive meteorite impactings . One
-   explanation forwarded  was  that  an  intense  solar  flare,  of  awesome
-   proportions  ,  scorched  the moon some 30,000 years ago. Scientists have
-   remarked that the glaze is similar to the glaze created by atomic weapons
-   on earth soil.

There is a considerable amount of glass on the moon. Most of it is in the
form of tiny spheroids, mixed in with the lunar soil, but some of it is in
the form of thin layers splashed over rocks. Close analysis shows that it
is *not* the result of heating by a large solar flare or other external
source of electromagnetic radiation, and the results are very consistent
with melting caused by meteorite impacts.

A very small amount of lunar glass is thought to be associated with lava
flows, like the obsidian on Earth.

-  9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?

-     In 1968 ,tracking data of lunar orbiters first indicated  that  massive
-   concentrations  (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular lunar
-   maria.  NASA  even reported that the gravitational pull caused by themwas
-   so  pronounced  that  the  spacecraft  overhead   dipped   slightly   and
-   accellerated  when  flitting  by  the  lunar  plain  , thus revealing the
-   existence of these hidden structures,  whatever  they  are.  Calculations
-   show that they are enormous concentrations of dense heavy matter centered
-   like a bull's eye under the  lunar  maria.  NASA  has  never  offered  an
-   explanation of their existence.

There have been extensive explanations, though you may never have seen them
in Time Magazine. Lunar mascons are basically a surface phenomenon. Unfilled
lunar craters cause a slight lowering in the local gravity, forming negative
mascons. Craters (and the maria) filled with lava have slightly greater
density than the surrounding ares, and thus form positive mascons. (Generally
these must be greater than about 200 km in diameter.) Large mountain ridges
such as the Apennines have small positive anomalies.

You don't see these phenomena on the Earth, because over the long run it
behaves pretty much like a flexible crust floating on a liquid interior,
so any local area of high density tends to sink down, and any region of low
density tends to bob up, so out at the distance of Earth orbit, the 
anomalous effects tend to cancel out - in other words, the Earth is in 
isostatic equilibrium. (There are tremendous variations in the density of
the crust - the crust under the continents "goes down" much further than
the crust under the oceans. Actually, the balance of the Earth is not
perfect - northern Europe is still rising following the melting of the
ice after the last ice age, and I believe the center of Greenland is
actually below sea level.)

The lunar highlands are in isostatic equilibrium, implying that they formed
while the interior of the moon was still mostly molten.

-   10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?

-     People  who seem to be overly "obsessed" about the moon will often tell
-   you that the moon is indeed endowed with "strange" powers  that  have  an
-   effect  on thier lives. These people are sometimes called "lunatics." 

Henry will probably sneer at the following, but I have long thought that the
moon influences living things on the Earth, and the observations stated in
the above reference are certainly remarkable coincidences, if they are just
coincidence. However, I wouldn't make any claim of strange "psychic 
connections" - tidal and lighting cycles should be considered the main
causes of any possible influence.

Here's a quote from the above-mentioned book - I haven't made any effort
to find the original references:

...............

 - lunar synodical month = lunation = the time between successive new
    moons = 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes
 - sidereal month = average period of revolution of the moon, using a fixed
    star as a reference point = 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes

xiv:"Among many curious correlations of lunar phases with biological rhythms,
    it may be noted that the average duration of human pregnancy is 266 days,
    close to the length of nine lunar synodical months (265.8 days) and that
    the average duration of the human menstrual cycle is 29.5 days, compared
    with the average lunar synodical month of 29.53 days. Menaker, W., and 
    Menaker, A. (1959) Lunar periodicity in human reproduction, Amer. Jour.
    Obstetrics Gynecology. 77:905, and Osley, M., et al. (1973) Ibid., 117:413.

    " More sinister correlations, indicating a connection between lunar cycles
    and psychiatric disturbances (recalling the ancient association of the moon
    and lunacy) are described by Lieber, A.L., and Sherin, C.R. (1972) Amer.
    Jour. Psychiatry. 129:69."

...............

As I mentioned before, if you're honestly interested in this subject (and you
did at least make the effort to write a program to work out your calculations,
which shows some level of dedication), then you should make the effort to
find serious sources, and not just rely on the popular media. Popular sources
can be helpful if the topic is current and there is considerable interest in
it - for instance, the Washington Post has had some excellent articles on
the HST mirror defect and Galileo's high gain antenna. But even at their 
best, they don't have people who have made a living studying the subject and
really understand it, and they don't have mechanisms to prevent occasional
errors and typos. You also run the risk of getting superficial coverage,
with important details left out. (For instance, coverage of the CFC-ozone
debate was really poor for the first decade or so - only in the last year 
or two have the details needed to understand the issue started to get
widespread coverage.)

Also, you really should use your own name. Anonymous posts may be okay in
the conspiracy newsgroup, but in sci.space, people are expected to stand
behind what they say, and to accept the embarrassment if what they post
turns out to be wrong. An anonymous post (especially on a controversial
topic) gives more the impression of an obscene phone call than of a
serious effort to discuss a scientific topic.

I've been working (occasionally) on a long summary of the findings of the
Apollo program. If you'll be patient, I'll try to have it done within a
month or two.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov