New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

New Model Aims to Solve Mystery of the Moon's Formation

Scientists propose that the moon could have formed when a Mars-sized object slammed into an Earth covered in magma seas. Christopher Intagliata 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 July 20th, 1969, humankind finally set foot on the surface of the moon. Fifty years later a big mystery remains: how the heck the moon got there in the first place. 

For decades, the thinking has been that four and a half billion years ago a Mars-sized protoplanet smashed into the Earth. When the dust settled, our moon remained, forged from the debris of Earth and the other object. 

Problem is, as scientists have taken more and more precise isotopic measurements of the Moon they've found that it's nearly identical in composition to the Earth—not some other object. 


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.


"A problem I've been advertising as an isotopic crisis." Jay Melosh studies planetary impacts at Purdue University. Now, he says, a new theory in the journal Nature Geoscience may at least point to a way out of that isotopic crisis of the moon’s chemical isotopes so closely resembling Earth’s. [Natsuki Hosono et al., Terrestrial magma ocean origin of the Moon]

Here's the idea. The authors, a team of Japanese scientists, write that maybe in those early days of the solar system the Earth was sloshing with oceans of magma. Then, when the Mars-sized object slammed into those molten seas, their models predict a lot more Earth-derived material got ejected into orbit in the form of scorching vapors. 

"Temperatures of tens of thousands of degrees. And so that expands at speeds that exceed the escape velocity of the earth, and in that way it injects material into orbit around the Earth." 

That material rapidly coalesces, and bingo, you've got a moon. Melosh says there are still a few kinks to work out in the scenario. Still, he says, it's a step forward. 

"Think of it as a major clue in a murder mystery or something like that. It could be a true clue toward the answer or it could be a deception—we don't know yet." So it could be that when astronauts started walking on the moon a half-century ago, they were really leaving footprints on the remains of the primordial Earth. 

—Christopher Intagliata

[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

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe