READ

What made the Moon?

The giant-impact hypothesis makes sense, but how can we possibly know?
Tom Gurn
Tom Gurn
Freelance Writer
What made the Moon?

Our Moon – or la Luna – has inspired humankind for millennia.  

It’s largely agreed that the Moon was created around 4.5 billion years ago when a protoplanet collided with the early molten Earth, smashing off a chunk large enough to form the Moon.

This Mars-sized protoplanet is often called Theia.

The unique collision with Theia set in motion a butterfly effect, impacting almost every facet of Earth’s history and modern life. 

Without the Moon, we’d have no tides, and it’s possible our aquatic ancestors would never have made it to dry land. 

Moon-ique

Our solid, rocky Moon is rare. 

Of the three planets closest to the Sun, we’re the only one with a moon. 

It’s also massive, with a diameter about a quarter of the Earth’s – another rarity in our Solar System.

Most moons start as discs, like Saturn’s rings. These gradually merge into larger and larger globs, eventually forming one big orb. Either that, or moons start as asteroids and are captured by gravity as they zoom by. 

Caption: Ancient astronomers thought the Moon was a deity, or flat – until Anaxagoras came along.
Credit: Eduard Lebiedzki – Public domain/Wikimedia Commons

They did the maths

Once considered controversial, mathematical modelling supports the giant-impact theory.

Dr Jacob Kegerreis is an astrophysicist at Imperial College London. He uses supercomputer simulations to study giant impacts.

These simulations model the early Solar System. Through repetition and trial and error, they explore what could have occurred aeons ago. 

Jacob describes our ancient Solar System as a “huge cloud of gas and ice and dust” around the Sun that was slowly collapsing and clumping together under its own gravity. 

Early on, planets like Jupiter grew giant, and the increased gravity pulled in matter around it.

Terrestrial planets like Earth and Venus formed differently.

“Those are made up of tens of smaller protoplanets,” says Jacob. “Small, rocky bodies that were forming themselves and then collided together.”

Caption: Astronomers have long thought our Solar System started as a dense, gradually collapsing cloud of gas. Modern telescopes have captured images of this process elsewhere. This is HL Tauri, currently a protoplanetary disc.
Credit: ALMA CC BY 4.0/Wikimedia Commons

From little things big things grow

Previously, it was suggested the Moon was an asteroid captured by Earth’s orbit or was a part of Earth that split off due to the force of our rotation.

Jacob says these theories are unlikely.

“It is very hard to come up with a good way to get that much mass, that much material, that much energy and angular momentum out into orbit to make something like the Moon without a giant impact,” says Jacob.

“The fact that the Earth and Moon are so similar makes it appealing to say that’s because they came from the same stuff.

“The fact that they are so similar is also a real challenge … because with many simulations that we run of giant impacts, you don’t get an equal mix of the impactor and the proto-Earth that collide. 

“We don’t yet have a complete explanation of why the signatures are so identical now.”

Caption: A rudimentary recreation of giant impact theory.
Credit: Marvel, CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Lunar lengths

The Moon drifts a tiny bit further from Earth each year. This can support the giant-impact hypothesis, as researchers can chart the historical course of the Moon and cross-reference that with modelling data.

“How the Moon’s orbit has evolved and how long it would have taken for the Moon to move away from the Earth helps to constrain how fast the Earth would have been spinning after the impact,” says Jacob.

“One of the reasons scientists can learn so much from studying the Moon is how comparatively pristine the Moon is as a celestial body that formed in the early Solar System.”

Unlike the Earth, which is a constantly churning mass of weather and plate tectonics.

A huge puzzle

Jacob’s simulations use a technique called smooth particle hydrodynamics.

“All you are doing is describing the system and modelling the system with millions or even billions of particles that are representing this material,” says Jacob.

Second by second, the computer calculates how each little particle moves and interacts with gravity and pressure.

“We design codes to use these impressive supercomputing machines to try to do this as efficiently and rapidly as possible,” says Jacob.

“It’s solving these pretty standard equations that we can individually test to then predict what happens in an extremely complicated entire system.”

Without a time machine, it’s extremely difficult to determine precisely what happened 3.5 billion years ago.

Caption: A full Sturgeon Moon rises over the Mt Hamilton in California.
Credit: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu/Getty Images

That said, dated lunar rock samples collected on the Apollo missions also support the theory that the Earth and Moon were once one. 

Confirming the giant impact with Theia is a massive undertaking. Jacob believes it requires the continued improvement of modelling technology while learning as much as possible about the Earth-Moon system.

“It’s a huge puzzle with many different pieces,” he says. 

“It’s about answering lots of other interconnected questions as well as the specific origin of the Moon.”

Tom Gurn
About the author
Tom Gurn
Tom Gurn is a freelance writer from Kaurna Yerta (Adelaide), South Australia
View articles
Tom Gurn is a freelance writer from Kaurna Yerta (Adelaide), South Australia
View articles

NEXT ARTICLE

We've got chemistry, let's take it to the next level!

Get the latest WA science news delivered to your inbox, every fortnight.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Republish

Creative Commons Logo

Republishing our content

We want our stories to be shared and seen by as many people as possible.

Therefore, unless it says otherwise, copyright on the stories on Particle belongs to Scitech and they are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This allows you to republish our articles online or in print for free. You just need to credit us and link to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately.

Using the ‘republish’ button on our website is the easiest way to meet our guidelines.

Guidelines

You cannot edit the article.

When republishing, you have to credit our authors, ideally in the byline. You have to credit Particle with a link back to the original publication on Particle.

If you’re republishing online, you must use our pageview counter, link to us and include links from our story. Our page view counter is a small pixel-ping (invisible to the eye) that allows us to know when our content is republished. It’s a condition of our guidelines that you include our counter. If you use the ‘republish’ then you’ll capture our page counter.

If you’re republishing in print, please email us to let us so we know about it (we get very proud to see our work republished) and you must include the Particle logo next to the credits. Download logo here.

If you wish to republish all our stories, please contact us directly to discuss this opportunity.

Images

Most of the images used on Particle are copyright of the photographer who made them.

It is your responsibility to confirm that you’re licensed to republish images in our articles.

Video

All Particle videos can be accessed through YouTube under the Standard YouTube Licence.

The Standard YouTube licence

  1. This licence is ‘All Rights Reserved’, granting provisions for YouTube to display the content, and YouTube’s visitors to stream the content. This means that the content may be streamed from YouTube but specifically forbids downloading, adaptation, and redistribution, except where otherwise licensed. When uploading your content to YouTube it will automatically use the Standard YouTube licence. You can check this by clicking on Advanced Settings and looking at the dropdown box ‘License and rights ownership’.
  2. When a user is uploading a video he has license options that he can choose from. The first option is “standard YouTube License” which means that you grant the broadcasting rights to YouTube. This essentially means that your video can only be accessed from YouTube for watching purpose and cannot be reproduced or distributed in any other form without your consent.

Contact

For more information about using our content, email us: particle@scitech.org.au

Copy this HTML into your CMS
Press Ctrl+C to copy