New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

‘Man in the Moon’ Older Than Scientists Thought

Revisiting the precious lunar samples on Earth suggests that some areas of the moon’s surface might be older than scientists once thought

The full moon illuminated in the night sky

A perigee full moon, or supermoon, is seen Sunday, August 10, 2014, in Washington. A supermoon occurs when the moon’s orbit is closest (perigee) to Earth at the same time it is full.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The “Man in the Moon,” the dark area of dried lava that looks like a face smiling from the lunar surface, may be older than anyone thought, scientists say. The consequences could echo through the entire solar system.

“It’s like changing the clock for all solar system objects,” says Stephanie Werner, a planetary scientist at the University of Oslo in Norway and a co-author of the new research, which she presented on July 14 at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference in Lyon, France. The finding is currently in press in the Planetary Science Journal.

Unlike Earth, where plate tectonics and biological processes regularly reface the planet, the moon’s surface is an archive of scars from impacts that have occurred over the satellite’s 4.5-billion-year lifetime. Scientists use those craters to determine the relative age of different features: where craters overlap, the one on top must be younger (formed more recently) than the one on the bottom. The more craters covering a spot, the older the rock must be.


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.


Werner and her colleagues revisited analyses of moon rocks from NASA’s six crewed Apollo landings and Russia’s three robotic Luna sample-return missions, all in the 1960s and 1970s, plus China’s 2020 Chang’e 5 spacecraft. The samples revealed the rocks’ absolute ages through a chemical analysis of two forms of the element argon they contained. The researchers also used orbital data, which can indicate how a rock responds to different types of light, to determine whether samples originated from the area from which they were taken during each mission, eliminating any confusion from rocks tossed by past impacts to where they were recovered.

Armed with this knowledge, the scientists figured out that the moon’s large basins—including the dark lava plains we know as the Man in the Moon—formed before its volcanoes erupted. That would mean certain regions, such as the Mare Imbrium, or “Sea of Rains,” might be as much as 200 million years older than scientists once thought.

The finding fits with other recent research revisiting an Apollo-era hypothesis dubbed the late heavy bombardment, which suggested the moon underwent a burst of impacts about four billion years ago. Using a range of techniques, modern scientists have learned that instead, impact size and frequency appear to have trailed off steadily over the moon’s history. In this view, the large craters that are characteristic of the moon’s early existence—such as those that formed the “Man in the Moon”—may have formed earlier than previously thought.

Werner’s team’s age recalibration fits that new picture, says Nicolle Zellner, a planetary scientist at the physics department at Albion College, who was not involved in the research. “The fact that you’re getting the same story now from all of these different methodologies—that is cool,” Zellner says.

And the findings could rewrite history beyond the moon because scientists extrapolate from the moon’s craters to determine surface ages on planets, moons and asteroids throughout the solar system. For example, the recalibration might mean habitable conditions on Mars didn’t last as long as scientists think, Werner says.

Werner and her colleagues want to keep exploring what the recalibration means for our understanding of the moon and the wider solar system. “It’s opening a door,” she says of the new research. “We are not done at all.”

Meghan Bartels is a science journalist based in New York City. She was previously a senior reporter at Scientific American. Before that she spent more than four years as a writer and editor at Space.com, as well as nearly a year as a science reporter at Newsweek, where she focused on space and Earth science. Her writing has also appeared in Audubon, Nautilus, Astronomy and Smithsonian, among other publications. She attended Georgetown University and earned a master’s degree in journalism at New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

More by Meghan Bartels

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