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
By Karen Hopkin
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
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.]
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
