EMSC3022: Planetary Science, Essay 1 (due 7/4/2011)

Origin of the Moon

By Emily Teoh (u4512430)

[Source: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/gal_p37298.gif]

July 20, 1969 has been called the most significant day in human history - the culmination of mens age-long fascination with the Moon and our quest to journey there. At 10.56pm EDT, the world watched with bated breath as Neil Armstrong stepped out of Apollo 11s lunar module and onto the Moon[1]. For the first time in history, someone of the human race had touched a celestial body other than Earth. As Armstrong famously uttered, it was one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind - a demonstration of what we could do with determination and imagination. For those back on Earth watching, suddenly, anything must have seemed possible. After the success of the Apollo 11 mission, NASA followed it up by deploying a series of another five manned space crafts to the Moon, the final one being Apollo 17 which touched down on the Moon on December 11, 1972[1]. What had been the purpose of these monumental missions? Whilst national pride (the U.S. was engaged with the Soviet Union in a race to put the first man on the Moon) and the desire to achieve the seemingly impossible were some of the reasons, ultimately the goal was to investigate the origin of the Moon and confirm one of the several theories that had been put forward. Each of these missions brought samples of rock from the Moon back to Earth for analysis. In the years before the landing of Apollo 11, a number of theories of the Moons origin had been proposed. The three major ones were fission, capture, and twin formation[2]. Fission theory suggested that at an early point during Earths formation, it spun so fast that the Moon was spun off its mantle. Capture theory on the other hand supposed that the Moon was formed in another part of the solar system then later captured to orbit around Earth. The final major theory, twin formation, supposed that the Moon is a sister world of Earth in that they had both formed out of the same primordial swarm of planetesimals. Scientists had long argued the merit of these theories but they were all found to suffer from defects. The return of Apollo 11 with samples of Moon rock was expected to finally put the great debate to rest. As Robert Jastrow[3] said, It seemed obvious that as soon as we found out what the Moon was made of, we would be able to tell where it came from: it would have either the same or different chemistry from that of Earth. It took several months before the samples were analysed and results were published. Alas, it was found that hopes that the samples could provide answers were not immediately realised. None of the pre-Apollo theories were consistent with the findings, but the findings did not offer any obvious alternatives. It was discovered that the samples contained the exact same isotopes of oxygen that existed on Earth. Now, oxygen isotope compositions vary with location in the solar system since most types of meteorites differ in this property from Earth[4]. This suggested that the Moon and Earth were formed at the same distance from the Sun, disregarding capture theory. It was also discovered that in comparison with Earth, the Moon was depleted of iron and volatiles, and was very dry[5]. These properties seemed to suggest that it was formed separately from Earth, dismissing both the fission and twin formation theories. The fact that the Moon contained the same oxygen isotopes as Earth and yet lacked iron and was unusually dry unlike Earth, left scientists puzzled as these appeared to be conflicting properties. It did not help their cause that all the samples that Apollo 11 brought back were not from the original lunar surface. These samples were found to be basalt

- rock solidified from molten lava after it flowed through the Moons early surface. Primordial rock, rock that made up the original surface of the Moon, would have been able to give better insight on how the Moon formed. Apollo 15, one of the subsequent missions, was deployed for the very purpose of finding an original piece of surface-crystal rock[6]. This time, they found rock that was 4.5 billion years of age as old as Earth. It was made up of anorthosite, a substance more complex than basalt[6]. The only way this particular type of rock could have been formed was if the Moon had once been completely molten. This seemed to be inconsistent with the fact that a body with the size and current temperature of the Moon should have never reached high enough temperatures to be in a molten state. A new idea was needed that could explain all these facts together. In 1975, several years after the final Apollo mission, William Hartman and Donald Davis suggested a hypothesis for the formation of the Moon that could supposedly account for all the findings called the giant impact hypothesis[7]. According to their theory, when Earth was forming, it was not the only object forming in the region there were smaller bodies, one being about the size of Mars. Earth collided with that object in the later stages of its formation and survived. A swelling mass of rocky debris (from Earth and the smashed impactor) was blown out and went into orbit around Earth, eventually coalescing into the Moon. Upon inspection, this idea was found to be able to account for the findings of the missions. The Moons lack of iron could be explained by considering Earths iron had already drained into the core at the time of the impact. The resulting debris blown out came from the iron-depleted, rocky mantles of Earth and the impactor[2]. The Moons dryness and early molten-state was due to the heat from the collision[6]. The uniformity of the Moon and Earths oxygen isotopes was due to the fact that they were formed in the same region of the Solar System. The theory could also account for why certain planets do not have moons since the formation was a stochastic catastrophic event, there was only a limited probability of it happening to begin with. In recent years, Dr. Robin Canup[8] simulated the giant impact hypothesis and found it to be successful in producing a satellite with our Moons properties under certain conditions. Can we be certain then that this theory is correct? Since we are unable to go back in time to when it happened, we cannot be sure. Nonetheless, it has withstood nearly 26 years of investigation and remains the most widely accepted hypothesis for the formation of the Moon today.

(Word Count: 1100)

References:

[1] Smithsonian: National Air and Space Museum. (n.d.). The Apollo Program. Viewed on 5/4/2011 from http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/apollo.htm [2] Planetary Science Institute. (2010). The Origin of the Moon. Viewed on 5/4/2011 from http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html [3] Jastrow, R. (1974). Moon Still Is A Generally Silent Witness. New York Times, Mar 24. [4] Clayton R. N, Omma N, and Mayeda T.K. (1976). A classifications of meteorites based on oxygen isotopes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 30, 10-18. [5] Wood, J. A. (1986). Moon over Mauna Loa - A review of hypotheses of formation of Earth's moon. Proceedings of the Conference, Kona, HI, October 13-16, 1984. Houston, TX, Lunar and Planetary Institute. p. 17-55. [6] McNab, D. (Director). (1999). The Planets: Moon. A&E Television Networks, British Broadcasting Company (BBC). [7] Hartmann, W., & Davis, D. (1975). Satellite-sized planetesimals and lunar origin. Icarus, 24, p. 504-505. [8] Canup, R. (2004). Simulations of a late lunar forming Impact. Icarus, 168, p 433-45