2-Face Moon Tells How It Got That Way

A new analysis says that the asymmetry between the two faces of the moon is due to crust thickness differences that resulted from variable cooling rates after the molten formation of our companion. Karen Hopkin reports

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


The dark side of the moon. It’s remote and mysterious. And not just because we can’t see it from Earth. When viewed from space, the moon’s back side looks totally different from its front. Now, researchers think they have a solution to the mystery, which they share in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. [Arpita Roy, Jason T. Wright, and Steinn Sigurðsson, Earthshine on a Young Moon: Explaining the Lunar Farside Highlands]

You may have wondered about the "man in the moon," that facelike image made by the large flat plains on the lunar surface that faces us. But scientists wonder why the far side doesn’t have comparable features.
 
According to the new analysis, this asymmetry has to do with how the moon was made. Not long after the Earth formed, a Mars-sized hunk of intergalactic debris smacked into our baby planet, flinging off material that then became the moon. The crash left both bodies boiling hot. But the smaller moon cooled down more quickly than the molten Earth… especially the part that faced the other way.
 
The minerals on the moon’s cooler side started to precipitate sooner. That head start gave the far side a thicker crust, which is more resistant to the weathering seen on the familiar side: weathering that gives a face character. Even on the moon.
 
—Karen Hopkin
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe