Talk:Moon/Archive 3

message: I've noticed in the article on Mars that Mars enthusiasts have actually designed a flag for Mars, which is intriguing. Why then does the moon apparently have no flag? I propose a simple flag, simply a field of grey. It represents both the actual colour of the moon as well as its sterility. Plus, come to thing of it, I think grey is pretty much the only colour (fine, it's not technically a colour) that isn't represented on any terrestrial flag that I'm aware of. Loomis51 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon Flag 

message: The change in the introduction should be improved. Although there is an asteroid "in orbit" , that orbit is temporary. This is one of the reasons it is still under discussion, whether that asteroid should be called a "moon" or not. We should tone down that sentence and mention that (and possible other not yet discovered objects) later in that intro. Awolf002 17:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Cruithne and the like don't merit any mention anywhere near the first paragraph of the Moon's page. And it definitely shouldn't say Earth has multiple moons. At best, they're quasi-satellites. Perhaps mention them near the bottom, with articles linked to accordingly. --Patteroast 07:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it right down to the bottom of the page. I also added that astronomers don't consider it a moon, but I haven't surveyed them all so if anyone knows of exceptions we can change it to "most astronomers". Bryan 08:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One, two or more moons? 

message: While it is a "featured picture", the main image does appear a bit soft to my eyes.  I have uploaded a potential replacement and stuck it beside orbital elements table.  mdf 22:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title image 

message: Yet more howling at the Moon.  The second last paragraph of the Orbit section started with the sentence The Earth and the Moon form in fact a "binary planet": each one is more closely tied to the Sun than to the other.  I have removed it for two reasons:
# It was completely unrelated to the rest of the paragraph;  I hesitate to say "bad style", not being in a position of authority on this sort of thing,
# Much more importantly, however, is that it was a flagrant misrepresentation of the dynamics of the Earth/Moon/Sun system.  The fact that the Sun exerts a quantitatively larger force on the Moon than the Earth does is not particularly important, since the Sun also exerts a similarly large force on the Earth as well.  It is not the direct Sun<->Moon and Sun<->Earth forces that matter, but their differences, or, in dynamics-speak the 'tidal potential':  the Moon orbits the Earth (not the Sun) because the tidal potential due to the Sun is much smaller than the potential that binds the Moon to the Earth.  Or, to come back to the edit, if the Earth and Moon are in fact a "double planet", it is not because of the absolute value of the forces due to the Sun on either body.  mdf 17:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double planet reference in 'Orbit' 

message: I removed the following from the end of the 'Exploration' section:
:For escaping at the surface of the Moon from the Moon and the Earth, the escape velocity is the square root of the sum of the squares of the separate escape velocities of 2.4 and 1.5 km/s, or 2.8 km/s. Thus, using the orbital speed of 1.1 km/s, a delta-v of 2.4 km/s, just enough for escaping the Moon, is more than enough to escape Earth as well.
I'm not entirely sure what is meant here, but is is written so badly I couldn't leave it. Does anyone understand what is meant here? DirkvdM 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escape velocity 

message: Should we add a section about the future of the moon to this page? I believe the moon is currently receding from earth at about 3 cm per year due to tidal forces and transfer of angular momentum, but at some point this transfer would stop and the moon would stop receding. 
I've also read, I believe in Astronomy or Sky and Telescope magazine, that the moon will then start approaching earth until tidal forces rip it apart and give earth a mighty saturn-like ring. Since we have theories about the origin and history in the article, we should probably address the future as well. --Fxer 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a Future of the Moon section, provided it doesn't become a haven for random crank theories.  The first cut at it needs to be good, and cite very legitimate sources, so as to deter people from just adding in any old thing they heard from their parent's brother's cousin's friend's sister's ex-husband... ya know?  The other danger would be speculations on if and how the Moon will be colonized, and that's not really appropriate for the article.  Maybe "Scientific Future of the Moon" might be a better title... I gotta think this over.  --Michael 18:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not make a colonisation section? That could then be combined with the 'legal status' and 'installations on the moon' sections (well, maybe not the latter). There has been quite some talk about the pros and cons of this (eg launching space missions from the Moon or mining). Leaving something out to prevent people adding nonsense would spell the end of Wikipedia as a whole :) . DirkvdM 06:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of the moon 

message: Hi Guys, 
I have a question. Since the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere (in earthly terms) how will the sunrise and sunset look like from the Moon? On Earth we can see twilight before dusk and after dawn and it gives us a feeling of a smooth transition stage from darkness to daylight and vice versa. As we know, twilight is due to diffusion of light through the Earth’s atmosphere. However on the Moon, this phenomenon cannot (possibly) happen. So, I guess, upon sunset the light will go off as if it were “switched off” and during sunrise, the light will appear as if a light source were switched on as soon as the Sun is visible on the horizon. Is this correct? Comments please?
Shibu Jacob, November 15, 2005
:Light reflected off of any hills might cause some light past the local sunset/sunrise. Also, if on the Earth-facing side of the Moon, any light reflected off the Earth will provide some illumination. But yes, it would get a lot darker a lot sooner than on Earth. --Patteroast 02:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the sun's corona should also provide some light after the Sun sets, shouldn't it? --Patteroast 02:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunset and Sunrise on the Moon 

message: According to this article there were 10 missions to the moon in 1971. Looking at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunartimeline.html I can only see 4 in 1971. Fuelbottle | Talk 22:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missions to the moon

message: This is a great article - are the authors thinking of nominating it as a featured article? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Peer review might be better.  There are a couple of issues with some of the images lacking a Wikipedia:Fair use rationale (:Image:Moon_in_x-rays.gif), some of the sections are short paragraphs or lists (like "Satellties"), there are external links in the body of the article, and a few other details.  But it is a good article, and may be close to WP:FA.  Jkelly 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FAC]]

message: Or rather, has anyone ever doubted it since the beginning of civilization? I ask because in Scientific understanding, we have
:By the Middle Ages, before the invention of the telescope, more and more people began to recognize the Moon as a sphere, though they believed that it was "perfectly smooth".
That strongly implies that this was some sort of medieval discovery. The news would surprise Aristotle, who kenw it was no more flat than the Earth. If nobody pipes up soon with a plausible explanation, I'll fix this detail.
Dandrake 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your argument. Considering that nobody educated in the Middle Ages believed the moon to be flat, this paragraph is misleading. A clarifying sentence that at least since Aristotle the moon (as the other planets and the sun) was thought to be perfect spheres would be a good addition. Bhaak 09:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it spherical? 

message: Interestingly, the abnormal orbit of the moon had delayed the formulation of Kepler's Laws. Upon observing intricate measurements of the moon's orbit, Kepler discovered inconsistencies in the moon's perihelion. Scientists still cannot the apparent lack of consistency between the orbit of the moon and other satillites in the solar system.
:Removed this section, since it does not make any sense to me. Can anyone explain what this is supposed to convey and if it can be sourced/verified? Awolf002 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perihelion?? 

message: The paragraphs that start "The energy loss of the Earth's spin" and "Since both angular momentum and energy are conserved" are incorrect, in my opinion.  For example, why must there be "a mechanism on earth to store a surplus or a deficit of angular momentum"?  The transfer of angular momentum from the earth to the moon would happen just the same even if the Earth (apart from its oceans) were a cold solid lump of non-magnetic material with no magnetic field and no internal material currents.  Occultations 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. E. g. we could assume that Earth deformes completely elastially, i. e. no friction losses. Then there would still be a certain loss in rotational energy due to slowing down. The moon would take all of the angular momentum but only part of the energy, as it has to be acording to well-known physical laws. So there would still remain some non-rotational energy at Earth, and it would namely consist of waves created by the tidal bulge. 193.171.121.30 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy and momentum transfers - incorrect? 

message: It seems to me that this book and his author are not part of the set of creators of peer-reviewed theories about the origin of the Moon. Instead, this seems to be a non-notable book with unorthodox (to say the least, with dinosaurs roaming the Moon's surface ) speculations. I remove it from the Origin's section until proven otherwise Awolf002 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Of The Moon 

message: I'm not sure if this is important, but I know about a whole pack of conspiracy theories concerning the allegedly "inexplicable" halt of manned missions to the Moon after the 70-s. There is little to none mention of this in the article itself, which leaves the reader familiar with these theories puzzled. I realize not every conspiracy nut has to be presented in Wikipedia, yet the total blackout on this issue bothers me. Just putting it out there; thanks for your time.
--Chodorkovskiy 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terminology, please - they gave a large amount of evidence. Proof would be, I dunno, firing a laser up at the moon and not getting a reflection. --Golbez 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halt in Lunar Exploration 

message: A     	J     	O     	T     	W      	R
O 	44.11%	-     	-     	-     	42.6%  	-
Na	<     	-     	<     	<     	0.152% 	<
Mg	18.5% 	22.4% 	20.8% 	19.8% 	12.8%  	22.22%
Al	6.21% 	1.96% 	2.04% 	3.25% 	8.63%  	1.97%
Si	19.83%	19.9% 	20.5% 	20.8% 	18.7%  	20.19%
S 	0.415%	-     	0.08% 	-     	0.193% 	-
Ca	6.78% 	-     	2.31% 	3.3%  	9.14%  	2.17%
Ti	0.36% 	0.114%	0.122%	0.184%	0.467% 	0.18%
Cr	0.128%	-     	0.314%	0.43% 	0.203% 	0.22%
Mn	<     	0.15% 	0.131%	0.123%	<      	0.12%
Fe	3.09% 	10.6% 	9.9%  	8.3%  	7.0%   	9.51%
Ni	0.543%	-     	0.472%	-     	0.0914%	0.2487%
Thomas J. Ahrens (ed.), Global Earth Physics : A Handbook of Physical Constants, American Geophysical Union (1995).  Composition of the Solar System, Planets, Meteorites, and Major Terrestrial Reservoirs, Horton E. Newsom. TABLE 11, Compositions of the Silicate Portion of the Moon. From these sources:
*A: Anders, E., Chemical compositions of the Moon, Earth, and eucrite parent body, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A285, 23-40, 1977.
*D: Jones, J.H., and J.W. Delano, A three component model for the bulk composition of the Moon, Geochim Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 513-528, 1989.
*O: O'Neill, H.St.C., The origin of the Moon and the early history of the Earth - A chemical model. Part 1: The Moon, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 55, 1,135-1,157, 1991.
*T: Taylor, S.R., Planetary Science: A Lunar Perspective, 481 pp., Lunar and Planetary Inst., Houston, 1982.
*W: Wänke, H., H. Palme, H. Baddenhausen, H. Kruse, and B. Spettel, Element correlations and the bulk composition of the Moon, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., A285, 41-48, 1977.
*R: Ringwood, A.E., S. Seifert, and H. Wänke, A komatiite component in Apollo 16 highland  breccias: implications for the nickel-cobalt systematics and bulk composition of the Moon, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 81, 105-117, 1986.
Though this source also uses the ambiguous ppm notation, from comparing the data for the Earth with other sources (CRC, Kaye&Laby, Greenwood) that explicitly state the units, it's evident that this means mass fraction.
A cutoff value of 0.1% should be good enough as an overview. "<" stands for small values that I didn't bother to copy (they're available down to the ppb range). Note that they're all estimates based on various assumptions. For the infobox, I arbitrarily chose the most recent source, O'Neill, with the oxygen value from Wänke. I also updated the similar table (also without apparent references) at Geology of the Moon.
Femto 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  The compositional data table in the article is labelled "Crust Composition", when in fact it is the composition of the crust plus the composition of the mantle.  This is a non-trivial distinction.  In geochemical circles this would be called the "bulk silicate" portion of the moon, or just the "silicate" portion because it is the average composition of the entire moon, minus the core (which is dominated by Fe-Ni, not silicates).  I don't know what label would be most clear.  Correct labels include "Bulk composition of crust and mantle", "Bulk composition of the silicate portion of the moon", "Bulk composition of the moon minus the core".  Or a more pleasantly worded version thereof...my writing is not nearly as poetic as others here. :)  If it helps any, the table in O'Neill's paper that these values are presumably taken from (I haven't recalculated them myself to check) is called "Composition of the Moon (silicate portion)...".  Rickert 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, anybody, relabel and describe as appropriate! (Though don't come to me for poetic writing, either.) I'm not an expert on geology, my primary concern was to put some sort of citation behind numbers that were lacking verifiability. Femto 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  I just wanted to see if anyone had a clearer way of labeling the table.  Not everyone immediately understands what is meant by "bulk silicate moon", although it is probably the most precise title...  Rickert 22:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites

message: Maybe it's just me but I like the older one (on the left) better
The second seems much darker, although it has the advantage of being a completely full moon, the first one seems about 1 (1/2?) day or so away from full. I also like that it doesn't COMPLETELY fill the box, a little black all the way around is better, IMHO. I just started watching this article beacuse of the vandalism so I have no background on which is really better, sorry if this got talked about already but did want to mention it.  ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it lots better. Make the switch and see who squawks! ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to license-tag it correctly, right now it's tagged for deletion. Since you started with a PD source (a NASA image), I suggest something like . I'd also suggest that instead of brightening the 250px image, you brighten the original assuming your photoshop can handle it (may be memory intensive!).  mediaWike will automatically generate a 250px version of that image the first time it's rendered in an article so there's little space/bandwidth savings to be had by only doing the small one... In any case thanks for your efforts!!! ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this being a good picture. It is made from pictures taken by a Moon orbiter (I think Clementine) and you can actually see the seams between the individual images. This is too far away from reality to be used as a replacement. Awolf002 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the seams at in the full original image, but not in the 250px version. However the currently used image is at Featured Picture status so maybe my idea that there are better ones is wrong. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead image 

message: I came in through the link to the talk page about the factual nature of the information on the tidal forces. I couldn't find it, so here's what I have to say:
It should be mentioned that the tides on Earth on not due solely to the moon. The sun causes tidal bulges as well. Thus the moon either increases the bulges or balances out the bulges, depending on its location orbiting Earth. 
That should be mention in the tidal forces section. 128.6.175.26 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tidal acceleration is not the same as gravitational acceleration. You can't compute it as simple force on the center of masses. See tide or tidal force. Femto 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You explain this basic but common misconception yourself better than I could have done. - That cleared up, there also seemed to be no reason left on this talk page that would justify keeping the legacy 'disputed' tag in the Tidal effects section. (removed) Femto 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal Forces 

message: The process of Earth's day lengthening and Moon's distance increaseing will stop when 1 future Earth day = 1 future Earth month ~ 55 current Earth days. The Moon will can never be seen from a hemisphere of Earth and suspend on a fix position when be seen from the other hemisphere. -- G.S.K.Lee 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this process will take about 15 billion years, long after the sun has died. --Golbez 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real future of Earth and Moon 

message: This is for clarity.  The first sentence ("The Moon makes a complete orbit about the Earth approximately once every 29.5 days.") is contradicted by the "Revolution Period" figure in the table and is qualified by the second paragraph in a way that makes it inaccurate as a categorical statement, which it appears to be. I suggest deleting the first sentence and replacing it with the entire second paragraph which is an excellent, concise discussion that more completely and accurately answers the question, "how long does it take for a complete orbit?"   Neev 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period of Orbit 

message: When viewed from earth the moon-rise on a full moon day, which are the north and south poles of the moon? - the sides on our left and right of the lunar disk or the the ones at top and bottom side of the lunar disk?  For a common reader, who is not an expert on the subject "moon", this artile is missing with this type of minor points. 
SJP  April 20, 2006
:I'm guessing this information is "missing" because the answer depends on where you are on Earth when you see the Moon rise... Awolf002 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks QBasicJedi for your explanation. That makes sense. For those readers who did not understand QBsicJedi's detailed writing, I will simplify what I understood.  "When you look at a crescent moon, the poles are at the intersections of the two arches made by the perimeter and the terminator. However, the way an observer see these points “up or down” depends on where he stands on earth and which direction he looks at the moon. On the equator, the crescent is not tilted to one side, rather it is  in boat-shaped. When you observe further north or south of the equator, the tilt of the crescent increases, towards that direction. Therefore, a pole which "looks to be at the top of the crescent" will appear to be at "the bottom of the crescent" on the other hemispher of the earth because the tilt of the cresent reverses across the equator. Also, while the lunar disk "moves" in east-west direction during an earth-day in the celestial sphere the "top and bottom" of the lunar disk reverses in appearance.
I kinda figured it would be too complex. I try to simplify things, but I have a habit of going off on tangents. Oh well...
The QBasicJedi 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles of the moon 

message: How would this website and its content fit into the artile? Specifically, which segment thereof.. DrWho42 06:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The web site you point to looks very confusing and unstructured. I do not think it can give any helpful information to a reader of this article. Awolf002 14:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the website is referecned from Apollo moon landing hoax accusations.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LunarAnomalies.com 

message: Removed this:
:In a total eclipse the moon is completely covered by the earth's shadow.
:When the Moon moves into the Earth's shadow, the full Moon turns blood red. What makes it turn red is due to the light bent from the sun filtered by the earth's atmosphere.
:The blood red color of the moon caused some ancient cultures to perceive total lunar eclipses as a kind of cosmic menstruation of the moon.
:A "blood moon" is also noted in the Bible's Book of Revelations  as a sign :from God that the book of seven seals had been opened as evidence that God's :wrath was upon man.
I think such a section is too short to give "Blood Red Moon" wider meaning in a reasonable way. Maybe it should have its own article or dab page? Awolf002 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, I just saw a red moon outside but couldn't find an article on Wikipedia about it. - Rudykog 09:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Red Moon 

message: To counter the usual "We never been to the Moon" case, there's been an alternative theory that believes that the forementioned conspiracy theory is simply a cover to deride people from finding out the "true" reason why we left the Moon (or told the public we stopped going, as John Lear states).
The scientific advisor for Coast to Coast AM, Richard C. Hoagland, frequently propounds and firmly believes that there are ancient ruins on the Moon and discounts the whole collision theory as a misinterpretation of the so-called hi-temperaturely formed "rocks" found when claims they're more akin to what would be found of New York in 10,000 years..
This prolly a whole lot of pseudoscience, as Phil Plait points out as here, but it should be noteworthy in its own way as they're been included other theories as the Welteislehre theory wherein which the Moon is made solidly of ice. DrWho42 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient ruins on the Moon controversy 

message: Odd that the English article only uses metric units in the chart. (Cj67 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this is a joke. Tom Ruen 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The US is the only English-speaking country that doesn't use metric. Note also that the article uses the British word "torch" instead of the American "flashlight". So it's consistent as is. Plus it's a science article, about a feature located outside the US. thx1138 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: units

message: In the table, this article gives the axial tilt as 1.5424° to ecliptic (my emphasis).
However, see the article The_Moon's_Orbit, which states in the heading Inclination of the rotation axis, that the moon's axial tilt relative the lunar orbit is 1.5424°, but the axial tilt relative to the ecliptic is always 6.69° (as discovered by Cassini in 1721).Roo60 12:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re Axial tilt

message: right|thumb|300px
Am I the only person for whom the article renders strangely?  See picture.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me on Firefox, however I also think that I really do not like it. In my oppinion this kind of animation adds nothing to the article. Awolf002 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't fit on the page and it serves very little functional purpose on this page. There are better ways to illustrate the same concept (for example, rotating it 90 degrees would make it work a lot better). I've removed it for now—I'm sure you can find a better way to do this. If all it is meant to illustrate are the relative sizes and distance, this can surely be done a lot better without the distracting "speed of light" illustrated and without cutting the page off in funny ways. --Fastfission 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this image might fit somewhere on the speed of light article? --Patteroast 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a number of images like this in the Commons Category:Moon page. I made up a vertical one at :Image:Earth to moon vertical.png if that fits any better. --Fastfission 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It sort of clutters the page, but I can't think of a better way to handle it. Peyna 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of light picture 

message: I may be wrong and probably am but that image depicting Alan Shepard on the moon.. can it be classed as a genuine photograph due to the image of the flag appearing to be flowing but the moons atmosphere has no air in which the flag can flow in. As i said i am probably wrong use know more than me so if you could let me know thanks
Don't worry about it, it's not a mistake by NASA conspirators! It looks like it's waving because 1) there's a pole in the top of the flag to make sure that it doesn't just slump in a rather unimpressive way 2) Shepard is shaking the flag pole as he plants it, making it ripple. Hope that helps you. Boyinabox 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon Landing Image