New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Double Impact May Explain Why Venus Has No Moon

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

One of biggest mysteries in the solar system is why Venus has no moon. A new model suggests that our sister planet may have in fact had a moon, but that it was destroyed.

Earth's moon is thought to have formed when a Mars-size body struck the early Earth, hurling material into orbit, where it coalesced. Normally, material launched ballistically would merely fall back down to the surface, but the impact temporarily distorted Earth's shape and therefore its gravitational field; the lopsided gravity allowed material to remain in orbit. Since it formed, the moon has gradually receded from Earth because of gravitational interactions between the two bodies: the moon raises tides on Earth, and these tides back-react onto the moon, accelerating it at the expense of Earth's rotation.

Venus, being nearly identical in size and general composition to Earth, presumably would also have gotten whacked by large bodies. One possibility is that these bodies did not distort Venus's gravity enough to allow the debris to remain in orbit. Another is that a moon did form and drifted outward to the point that it escaped altogether. The problem with the latter hypothesis is that the outward drift should have taken billions or even tens of billions of years.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


At the Division for Planetary Sciences conference in Pasadena, Calif., on October 9, Alex Alemi, a sophomore undergraduate at the California Institute of Technology, and Caltech planetary scientist David Stevenson argued that the mystery may be connected to another oddity of Venus: its rotation rate, which is not only extremely slow (once every 243 Earth days) but also backward (clockwise as seen from above its north pole, rather than counterclockwise, as it is for Earth and the other planets). They suggested that Venus underwent not one but two large impacts.

The first hit on the side of Venus that caused the planet to spin counterclockwise. It created a moon that began to drift away, like Earth's. The second slammed into the side of Venus that caused it to spin clockwise--canceling the effect of the first collision. The cancellation need not have been exact; the sun's gravity could have completed the task of slowing and even reversing Venus's rotation. The reversal changed the gravitational interactions between the moon and planet, causing the moon to start moving inward and ultimately collide with the planet. The second impact may or may not have created a moon, too. If it did, this moon would have been swept up by the first one on its inward plunge toward doom.

Stevenson says that this model can eventually be tested by looking at isotopic signatures in Venusian rocks. For now, its main significance may simply be to restart discussion over Venus's lack of a moon, a conundrum that planetary scientists have barely explored.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe