back to article Astroboffins solve birth of the Man in the Moon face

NASA's Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) has apparently figured out the origin of the "Man in the Moon". According to the space agency's researchers, who published their findings in this week's edition of hefty boffinry mag Science, the distinctive almost-face-like marks on the Moon are "large, lava-filled, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. MD Rackham

    Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

    Everyone knows that it's a rabbit pounding rice for mochi.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

      I can see a sailing ship, a moose and a packet of crisps, but no man...

    2. ian 22

      Re: Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

      I see a lady clad in shiny black vinyl clutching a whip. With fishnet stockings. And spike heels.

      1. Euripides Pants
        Meh

        Re: Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

        Try looking at the moon and not in your rumpus room.

  2. JamesTQuirk

    Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

    Its about the history of impacts, that maybe the MOON saved us from a lot of it, look at size of craters, super-impose that formation somewhere on google earth, over a populated area, we are lucky more of space crap doesn't hit us, we should pick all the rocks up, it's a Navigational Hazard anyway ...

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

      What part of "4 billion years ago" do you not understand? The earth was similarly pummeled in the same time-frame. Time, geology & weather has (mostly) hidden the evidence. The moon only has one of those processes.

      1. JamesTQuirk

        Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

        4 million years ago, was still here ..... Time has hidden most of evidence, have a geek ruhr valley in germany some day, I was not talking about yesterday, about moon and it's role in this, grow up ..

        1. jake Silver badge

          @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

          Somewhat incoherent comment. Care to try again?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

            Pretty much all of JamesTQuirk's comments are hard to understand, the grammar and sentence structure are so bad.

            1. JamesTQuirk

              Re: @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

              People try to use a forum, to chat about "moon", and you children turn it into a playground, Because you dont like my comments, get a life, you are doing nothing to me, only exposing your own stupidity ...

              1. Martin Budden Silver badge
                Meh

                Re: @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

                Because you dont like my comments

                I didn't say I don't like your comments, I said they are hard to understand.

      2. Nigel 11

        Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

        If 4 billion years is accurate, the Earth wasn't even solid then.

        The oldest dated terrestrial rocks are 3.8 billion years old. The oldest terrestrial zircon crystals are 4.3 billion years old. (Zircons crystallize out in even white-hot magma. They are harder than just about anything except diamond so they survive all subsequent geological processes except deep re-melting. Zircon can contain Uranium but not Lead impurities at formation, which allows accurate radio-isotope dating - any Lead in a Zircon must have started as Uranium when the zircon crystallized.)

    2. Tromos
      FAIL

      Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

      Look up at the sky. Now look at the moon. Not much of a shield, is it?

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Alien

        Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

        > Not much of a shield, is it?

        The moon: An immense TRACTOR BEAM GENERATOR cunningly disguised as a small, burnt-out ball of regolith and brimstone. To fake the gravitational effect, THE ENGINEERS did not forget to put an appropriately-sized BLACK HOLE at the HEART OF THIS ARTIFACT.

        PUNY HUMAN!

    3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Gimp

      Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

      > JamesTQuirk posts disjointed stuff from another part of the multiverse

      Whatever you are on, I don't want it

      1. JamesTQuirk

        Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

        @ Destroy All Monsters

        Why would anyone care, you are a weazle who follows me around because I proved you where a idiot in couple of other posts, how old are you 12 ? Get a life .... People are opinions, just because you dont like them, is no reason to carry on like this, YOU child ...

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

          > Why would anyone care, you are a weazle who follows me around

          Lolno. You think you are important or anything? Begone, butterfly.

          1. JamesTQuirk

            Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

            @ Destroy All Monsters

            Yes I see, ONLY Your Opinion counts, that what it is, I people say something you don't agree with you have one of your tantrums, well sorry this is a forum, people can say what they want, You don't need to say anything, or agree, only offer Your opinions, but you choose to bug/abuse me, well tuff, I am sticking around, because of You, I hate bully’s ......

            1. Denarius
              Happy

              Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

              Its not life as we know it Jim, because a bit more effort is required. More CAPS, preferably random and you get the recognition you deserve. FOTW has been absent for so long.

            2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

              > I hate bully’s ......

              I actually love bully's. They are excellent with mayonnaise.

        2. i like crisps
          Trollface

          Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

          Dear Mr Quirk,

          I only got Grade 2 CSE English, but i think it should have read:

          "i proved you were an idiot" NOT "i proved you where a idiot"

          I could be wrong.

          PS....also you could have used, "i proved that you're an idiot"

          1. JamesTQuirk

            Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

            @ i like crisps

            Others have spellcheck, i just USE you ....

    4. Kristaps

      Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

      No. When stuff comes into the atmosphere, most of it burns up, bar a few bigger pieces of rock (metal?) like the one in Russia earlier this year.

      Also, the chance that something will hit the moon (if it's bound to hit either the earth or the moon) is miniscule. At least so it seems to me.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @JamesTQuirk. @Destroy all Monsters...

      SLAP FIGHT!

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: @JamesTQuirk. @Destroy all Monsters...

        As if.

    6. AussieCanuck46

      Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

      Similar in some way to how Rob Ford has saved the street kids from smoking crack by smoking it all himself?

  3. jake Silver badge

    Personally ...

    ... I never could see the supposed "man in the moon". To me it's a random bunch of craters left by a random bunch of debris leftover from the formation of the Solar System.

    1. Ben Tasker

      Re: Personally ...

      Not just me then... been staring at the photo wondering what other people see. Might actually need someone to draw on the picture to show me where the features are supposed to be!

      1. pepper

        Re: Personally ...

        Good to know there's more of us, I've always seen it as a collection of craters which is fascinating enough on its own. I have googled some images that are supposed to show it but it doesnt make it any clearer to me.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Personally ...

      It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see it. That requires imagination and creativity, neither of which you demonstrate in your posts.

      1. Sandtitz Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: Personally ...

        I can easily see there the Spanish Armada sailing against England over the Sea of Tranquility.

        Good enough for AC?

        1. Elmer Phud

          Re: Personally ...

          I can see a mouse . . .

          1. i like crisps
            Alien

            Re: Personally ...

            I too can see a mouse...but not the pleasant Tom & Jerry type mouse...more

            a sort of ' James Herbert ' type mouse....you wouldn't want to stroke him.

      2. Ben Tasker

        Re: Personally ...

        It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see it. That requires imagination and creativity, neither of which you demonstrate in your posts.

        Imagination and creativity? Looking at the moon again quickly, I'd say it's more likely you'd need a tendency to hallucinate....

        1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

          Re: Personally ...

          Have an upvote from me. I can't see a man in the moon either. Looks like there's a lot of us about.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Personally ...

            I can't see any face in enlargements like this or through a telescope, but I do when staring up at night - I presume it's largely because then I don't see the craters at all, just a collection of grey tones. But the relative contrast against the sky might also help with the illusion.

            (Or the old fella is a sensitive as a small child to the presence of a photographer and always manages to blink or grimace precisely as the shutter finger descends)

            Anyway kids growing up in the southern hemisphere are cruelly mislead by these stories, since upside down it really does look like the rabbit in the moon.

            1. Don Jefe
              Happy

              Re: Personally ...

              There are (at least) two 'men on the moon' depending on what culture you're talking about (every culture has it) and they're intermingled in a really strange way.

              The 'standard' man on the moon looks like a palsied smiley face doodle: two round eyes and a round mouth, the edges of the moon disc form the head. The whole thing is about 14 degrees from straight up (hence the palsied part), if you could rotate the moon 14 degrees it would be easier to see. It is made with three of the enormous 'seas', not the smaller craters, you have to ignore the small craters.

              The weird part, in Ireland, Scotland, parts of India, and a few Native American tribes they have a much more detailed man (or witch) who is walking bent over with a large bundle on his back, like the cover of that untitled Led Zeppelin album with the symbols. It is a rather detailed image that I had to have someone point out to me and it is weird that such disparate cultures share it. Some anthropologists use it as evidence, like Great Deluge stories, that there used to be more intermingling of cultures in the far distant past.

  4. Chris Miller

    I think this article is based on a misreading. The source of the lunar maria (lava fill of impact craters) has been generally accepted for decades. The interesting new science is why the far side has very few maria compared with the face that we see. One theory was that the bombardment was somehow asymmetrical, it looks like GRAIL has contributed to providing us with a better answer.

    1. jake Silver badge

      @Chris Miller

      The Moon is in synchronous rotation with the Earth, thus protecting the near side from most bombardment, and thus most changes. Likewise, the farside isn't quite as protected. Over 4 billion years, the surface texture difference becomes obvious to the thinking man ...

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: @Chris Miller

        Read the article again Jake.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: @Chris Miller

          Spin a bucket around at the end of a rope.

          Allow several hundred people to randomly throw dyed water balloons at said bucket from any and all angles. Observe how much dye actually lands in said bucket, compared to what splatters onto the outside of the bucket and yourself, in the center of the system.

          For fun, and charity purposes, fill the balloons with ketchup instead of water+dye.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: @Chris Miller

        jake, no. Do not pass go. Go home, take a valium. Think about what you are saying

        1) Makes no sense

        2) Would have the reverse effect anyway

        @Chris Miller: You are correct, Sir!

        I also want the old jake back. Or is that another jake?

        1. jake Silver badge

          @DAM (was: Re: @Chris Miller)

          Re-read mine. Nearside & farside refers to the moon, not the earth.

          Once the moon was tidally locked, the nearside had a measure of protection. Only stands to reason. See my reply to Chris Miller.

          1. Vic

            Re: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller)

            > the nearside had a measure of protection. Only stands to reason

            That might "stand to reason", but it's incorrect anyway. From TFA:

            The climate of the Moon is also said to have played a part in the formation of its features. The researchers believe that because the near side of the Moon was warm enough to produce a thinner crust which allowed for larger impacts. As a result, the craters in the near side are said to be as much as twice the size of their counterparts on the far side of the Moon.

            It's the nearside - which you claim is "protected" - that has the bigger impact craters...

            Vic.

            1. jake Silver badge

              @Vic (was: Re: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

              There is only one problem with your argument. Your "impact craters" on the nearside aren't a result of impact. Rather, they are a result of the moon's internal vulcanism.

              I rather suspect the farside had similar features soon after tidal-lock set in.

              The phrase "are said to be" doth not scientific proof make.

              1. Vic

                Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

                > "impact craters" on the nearside aren't a result of impact.

                The article says differently.

                I await your lunar science credentials with bated[1] breath...

                Vic.

                [1] I almost wrote "baited", but I'm really not that interested in this fish.

                1. jake Silver badge

                  Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

                  Try to educate yourself, Vic. Here's a starting point:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_maria

                  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, Wiki sucks. But it's got some good links.

                  Again, see my reply to Chris Miller, above.

                  Not a professional, just an amateur. See these two posts:

                  http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1432149

                  http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1433296

                  The 20 inch is a work in progress ... and again, the Wife is fascinated :-)

                  1. Vic

                    Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

                    > Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, Wiki sucks. But it's got some good links.

                    Ah, I see. Your qualifications are "reading Wikipedia".

                    > Not a professional, just an amateur

                    But you decide to argue with the people quoted in the article who are professionals.

                    Vic.

                    1. jake Silver badge

                      Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

                      Are you really incapable of reading for content, Vic?

                      I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. Professionals are not infallible.

                      1. Vic

                        Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

                        > Are you really incapable of reading for content, Vic?

                        One of us is.

                        > I'm not arguing, I'm discussing

                        In this post, you said :-

                        Your "impact craters" on the nearside aren't a result of impact.

                        That's not discussion. That's assertion.

                        > Professionals are not infallible.

                        Indeed they are not. But when challenging a professional, it's always useful to provide some substantiation when stating baldly that he is wrong. You have provided no such substantiation, nor have you demonstrated any credentials in the field in question. Thus your opinion carries very little weight in opposition to someone who does this as a day job. If you want to gain that gravitas, you'll need to provide some justification for your contrary position.

                        Vic.

    2. picturethis
      Mushroom

      Easy to explain..

      The reason that the near side has so much maria is because it took a lot of nuclear bombs launched from earth to finally nudge the moon into a tidally locked orbit so that the tidal motion of the moon would cause earth's oceans to form life and then have the life migrate to land.

      The real question is who did this?

      1. Vic

        Re: Easy to explain..

        > The real question is who did this?

        Yeah, sorry, I'd had a few beers, and it seemed like a good idea at the time...

        Vic.

  5. AndrueC Silver badge

    It's only the man in the moon from the northern hemisphere. I've no idea what it is to those south of the equator.

    1. Christoph

      The wau iu lya woou ?

    2. Martin Budden Silver badge

      Aussies do see a man in the moon, it's kind of similar to the northern (up-side down) version, but the southern Man uses the craters correctly.

  6. JamesTQuirk

    @ Jake

    You say I am incoherant but go off at me then use my arg in yours "protecting the near side from most bombardment" is what the moon does for us, it collects scrap, if can't see it sorry....

  7. This post has been deleted by its author

  8. skeptical i
    Angel

    So, where's the cheese then?

    Isn't the moon supposed to be made of green cheese?

  9. i like crisps
    Happy

    Having studied your photo...

    ...it reminds me of WC Fields through a ' Fish-eye' lens...

  10. i like crisps
    Megaphone

    " We've been to Button Moon"....

    ...That's why we've got Cancer.

    Would it be fair to say that the Moon is a GIGANTIC RADIATION SPONGE?

    As far as i can see, all it's been doing for the past few billion years, is sitting

    on it's arse getting the "Mother of all Sun Tans". You would probably stand

    less chance of getting Cancer cleaning out the ' HOT ROOM' at Three Mile

    Island with your tongue than you would setting foot on that particular hot rock.

    I could be wrong....probably am

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hogwash! Weekly World News said that...

    ...the moon is the skull of a giant interstellar space creature! Which is why we see the "Man In The Moon"!

    1. Vic

      Re: Hogwash! Weekly World News said that...

      > the moon is the skull of a giant interstellar space creature!

      Space goat, you say?

      Quick! To the Arks!

      Vic.

  12. Denarius

    must have missed something

    so why is the near side crust warmer so it had bigger splashes preserved ? Alternatively, did big impactor bombardment on near side last less than 2 weeks ? The other side copped routine impacts. Not standard historical speculation, but what is demonstratable flaw in this model?

  13. carl_

    question: if the center of mass of the moon is not at its geometric center, will tidal friction cause it to orient itself so the center of mass is closer to earth?

    i suggest that the moon gathered more early solar system material on the "forward" face relative to its direction of motion, then later that side reoriented to point at the earth due to tidal forces. this would explain that there are more (and larger) craters on one face, and also that that face is pointed at the earth.

    an imbalance in the center of mass would normally work itself out in a large enough planet body, but only because the heat cause by accretion would be enough to melt the core. if the moon's accretion never built up enough heat, it could have retained an offset center of mass that resulted in the way it was formed.

    1. JamesTQuirk

      I thought it was because Moon, was generated from Impact event, and reformed after the event into earth-moon we have ...

  14. David Pollard

    The Moon's asymmetry

    Isn't the crucial point that the Moon's density is higher on the side facing the Earth. Presumably, its the orbit and rotation having been locked for some while, the denser components have been steadily pulled more strongly towards and hence migrated towards the Earth-facing side.

    Because the denser materials include most of the radioactive ones this side is a bit warmer than the far side.

    I've been saying for decades that I'd happily have a container of radioactive waste in my garden that could provide background heating. It might not keep the asteroids at bay but at least it would help when winter comes along.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just a correction...

    "Moon was warm enough to produce a thinner crust which allowed for larger impacts. "

    Should read:

    "Moon was warm enough to produce a thinner crust which allowed for larger craters."

    I'd mention cart before the horse, or some such but you get the idea. The thinner crust did not attract asteroids, thus did not attract larger impacts. It did allow for larger craters though, or for the effects to be move visibly prominent. I'd guess the original paper did not put it that way, and it's probably just an error in the type up.

    Thanks!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The moon doesn't even exist

    It's all part of the elaborate moon landing hoax!

  17. Nigel 11

    What the moon DOES do for us

    The moon stabilizes the axis of rotation of the earth, allowing for less extreme winter/summer climate fluctuations (on a timescale of O(10^5) years. It's also possible that lunar tidal drag is critical for maintaining the geo-dynamo, without which the solar wind would have stripped Earth's atmosphere leaving this planet like a hotter Mars. This latter is speculative, because the workings of the geo-dynamo are not well-understood (It's very hard to take a closer look at it :-)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like