The Moon - Katelynn Smith

Abstract

The moon and its features are the primary focus of this report. Observations of the moon were made by focusing attention to a few specific maps and images:

·         Sky and Telescope’s Moon Map

·         Google Moon (google.com/moon)

·         The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Map of the Moon (usgs.gov/blogs/fefatures/usgs_top_story/visit-the-moon-without-leaving-your-desk/)

·         USGS (pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3316)

·         NASA (nasa.gov/mission_pages/Apollo/revisited)

These observations were made in order to better understand the distant past and gain a better understanding of how the universe obtained its current characteristics.

Introduction

In this experiment, the moon is observed and the characteristics of it are recorded and analyzed. By looking at the different features of Earth’s largest natural satellite, the history of the moon and other similar objects in the solar system becomes more apparent. Craters, volcanoes, and mountains on the moon give clues of events that likely occurred moon’s past. These are important to our understanding of the universe’s history and may give hints as to what the future may hold for other bodies in space. 

If done correctly, observations of the moon should be compared to known facts about historical events in space to provide the most accurate account of its past events.

Procedures

A)  I studied the moon’s surface using the maps from Google Moon and USGS. My first observation was on the moon’s maria, mountains, and craters, as outlined in the lab procedure. This observation noted where on the moon specific features were located: it explored what types of features, such as craters and mountains, were most commonly found on either the highlands or lowlands of the moon. Using this information, I gained a basic understanding of the moon’s landscape.

B)  Next, the craters in the Mare Imbrium and Oceanus Procellarum were examined. These were most prominent on the USGS map therefore that was the primary source for the collected information. The purpose of this was to better understand the ages of specific landscapes on the moon.

C)  Next, I was required to focus on the moon’s highlands specifically and question the origin of those specific craters. Observations of peak heights and crater overlaps were most significant. Again, the high definition image provided by the USGS was most helpful in analyzing these specific features of our moon.

D) The mountain ranges of Apennine, Haemus Caucasus, Carpathian, and Pyrenes were the focus next, with the origin of these ranges being the center of our attention. The mountains were clearly labeled in the lab packet map and therefore much of the related information is from that piece of evidence. Here, I took special note of the shape of the mountain ranges themselves and the elevation of these features in order to analyze the possible origin of the mountain ranges.

E)  Google Moon was the optimal source for information regarding the unseen far side of the moon. I assessed the features most prominent on the near side of the moon to those most prominent on the far side to compare and contrast the opposite faces. This comparison was used to better evaluate the effects of events on the moon facing space versus the events on the moon facing the Earth.

F) Using the picture of Mercury provided in the lab packet, I was able to identify common features between Mercury and the moon. Using these conclusions, I came up with an explanation for the diversity of the two surfaces and made my best guess at why the differences exist.

G) Using Google Maps to discover the lunar landing sites, I drew conclusions on why NASA chose the landing sites that they chose. This required an observation of the similar and dissimilar features between the various sites.

H) After looking at the lunar landing sites, I analyzed the Soviet Union’s unmanned landing crafts’ sites. Again, I studied the general similarities between the landing positions and drew conclusions on why the USSR decided on the landing sites it ultimately selected.

Results and Discussion

Part A:

Maria, mountains, and craters, are found in different quantities in the lunar lowlands and the lunar highlands. In the lunar lowlands, maria are most common. The lunar highlands, on the other hand, most frequently have mountains and craters. Of these three features, maria most frequently act as borders between the lowlands and the highlands. The middle to northwest region of the moon contains most of the maria.

Part B:

After restricting our view of only the craters Plato, Archimedes, Wallace, and Cassini in Mare Imbrium and the craters Flamsteed, Letroone, Marius, Prinz, and Herodotus in Oceanus Procellarum, I determined that the craters most likely came before the mare. I came to this conclusion by evaluating the color of the crater and recognizing that the crater appears to have been filled in with mare that was at one point a liquid. The craters are not hollowed out like we would usually expect to see.

When looking at the craters Kepler and Copernicus in Mare Insularum, it seemed as though these craters were relatively newer than the craters previously mentioned. They were hollowed out and did not show signs of a substance later filling in their bowls.

Other craters that appear to be filled in with mare are Eddington and Herodotus. Conversely, Gassendi and Aristarchus are probably newer craters that were formed after the mare.

The lava flows likely happened after most of the moon’s craters, as many of them appear to be filled in with the substances that flowed from the old volcanoes. Some of the craters, however, happened after the flow of mare stopped and are therefore newer than the craters that formed previous to the lava flow.

Part C:

Most of the moon’s larger craters seem to have large central peaks, while the smaller craters do not. When overlapping occurs between craters, the smaller craters seem to be younger. This is because their edges are more apparent and are over top of the larger craters. Evidence of newer, smaller craters shows that as time passed, the moon collided with a greater number of small objects, rather the same number of large collisions that it had previously had.

Part D:

When looking at the moon’s mountains, Mons Huygens appears to be the highest mountain, standing at about 4.7 km in height.

Studying the Apennine, Haemus Caucasus, Carpathian, and Pyrenes mountains on the moon provided evidence showing that the moon’s mountains are more likely from giant collisions rather than plate tectonics on the moon’s surface. This is evident because the mountain ranges follow a curved path that resembles the outer edge of a very large crater. In addition, the moon does not show other evidence that plate tectonics exist, as most of the features can be explained by collisions with other space objects.

Part E:

Using Google Moon to address the far side of the moon, it seems obvious that the moon facing the Earth with the same face at all times has caused the two faces to go through different events throughout time. The part of the moon facing away from us has relatively less mare and more craters. The far surface is likely older than the nearer surface. The biggest similarity I observed is that the entire surface is not mare nor craters and varies from place to place. The far side of the moon’s most prominent feature, in my opinion, is the abundance of old impact craters. These probably formed when a variety of asteroids hit the surface, as that side is always facing the rest of the universe, rather than Earth’s surface.

The far side of the moon definitely has more craters and the maria is much less prominent. The craters on the near side of the moon are less detailed because they are filled in with the material from the volcanoes that were once active on the moon’s surface.o

Part F:

A close evaluation of the moon’s surface compared to Mercury’s shows that the two are similar in that they are both fairly flat with craters sprinkled across their surfaces, though the moon certainly has more prominent craters. The craters visible on Mercury, however, do not seem to be filled in with as much maria as the moon’s craters. Because Mercury’s surface is mostly smooth and it is near the hot sun, I think that it likely has more volcanic action than the moon does. The craters on Mercury’s surface are likely too new to have been filled in with maria already, whereas the moon does not currently have erupting volcanoes.

Part G:

Between 1969 and 1971, the six Apollo missions from the United States landed on a few different surfaces on the moon. Looking at the sky and telescope moon map, we can see where these missions landed. Of these landings, three were on maria, one was on a mountain range, and another two were in craters. Landing on the maria and craters likely gave scientists the opportunity to compare the ages of the surfaces as well as the chemical composition of them. The chemical composition will tell approximately when the craters formed and the volcanoes erupted. This information from the maria will also tell what the inside of the moon might be made of, as the volcanic material flowed from the inner portion of the moon, rather from the surface itself.

Part H:

The Soviet Union sent unmanned crafts to the moon that also returned lunar samples to Earth. All three of the missions mentioned in the lab report, being Luna 16, Luna 17, and Luna 21, landed in regions of mare. These positions were likely chosen to study the materials of the inner moon’s surface, just as some of the Apollo missions probably did the same.

Conclusion

Using the data and photographs gathered by NASA and other sources allows us to better understand the history of the universe and make predictions about its future. Knowing about the Earth’s moon and comparing it to information about other planets such as Mercury helps us better understand a galaxy that we, as individuals, will likely never visit or some close to.