Earth's Moon Origin: Is a Meteor Plausible?

  • Thread starter HeadScratcher
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Moon Origin
In summary, the impact hypothesis suggests that a planet-sized object collided with the Earth shortly after the formation of the solar system, ejecting a significant amount of surface material which eventually formed the Moon. The details of the orbits and elements involved are still being studied and debated, but the majority of experts view this as the most plausible explanation for the formation of the Moon.
  • #1
HeadScratcher
4
0
I have been reading and listening to discussions on origins and again today heard a scientist advance the idea that a meteor collided with the Earth and the collision resulted in the Moon being ejected and finding its way to its current orbit.

Is this plausible?

Would it not be the same as a simple ballistic trajectory and quickly just return back to the earth?

Manmade satellites typically have an initial propulsion and later have another "burn" in order to insert it into its orbit.

Any help explaining this would be appreciated.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
HeadScratcher said:
I have been reading and listening to discussions on origins and again today heard a scientist advance the idea that a meteor collided with the Earth and the collision resulted in the Moon being ejected and finding its way to its current orbit.
This is a fairly well established theory, and in my experience people have a lot of confidence in the theory---while some of the details are fuzzy (continued below).

HeadScratcher said:
Is this plausible?
Would it not be the same as a simple ballistic trajectory and quickly just return back to the earth?
Its a very difficult problem to simulate, at least to get the exact "right" (that is: consistent) results. The overall picture is that a large impact (a body within an order of magnitude the size of the earth) collided with the earth, ejected a significant amount of surface material which conglomerated into the moon. I might actually remember something about the ejected material re-colliding with the earth, and the second round of ejecta forming the moon (but I might be making that up). In any case, the ejecta consolidated into the moon at a much much closer distance (at least a factor of 10), and it has progressively moved further away.

HeadScratcher said:
Manmade satellites typically have an initial propulsion and later have another "burn" in order to insert it into its orbit.
The details of stability of an orbit depend greatly on the specific features of the situation. Most man-made satellites require additional attention because they're in such close orbits (e.g. low-earth orbits) which dissipate orbital energy via friction with the atmosphere. An object as large and far away as the moon doesn't have this problem.
 
  • #3
Do you know what postulated Earth orbital elements have been suggested or used in calculations, prior to the impact; what the elements for the meteor were prior to the impact and if one looks at the resultant Earth moon pair with their respective orbital elements afterward, is it possible to "connect the dots"?

zhermes said:
This is a fairly well established theory, and in my experience people have a lot of confidence in the theory---while some of the details are fuzzy (continued below).

Its a very difficult problem to simulate, at least to get the exact "right" (that is: consistent) results. The overall picture is that a large impact (a body within an order of magnitude the size of the earth) collided with the earth, ejected a significant amount of surface material which conglomerated into the moon. I might actually remember something about the ejected material re-colliding with the earth, and the second round of ejecta forming the moon (but I might be making that up). In any case, the ejecta consolidated into the moon at a much much closer distance (at least a factor of 10), and it has progressively moved further away.


The details of stability of an orbit depend greatly on the specific features of the situation. Most man-made satellites require additional attention because they're in such close orbits (e.g. low-earth orbits) which dissipate orbital energy via friction with the atmosphere. An object as large and far away as the moon doesn't have this problem.
 
  • #4
About when would this collision possibly have occured? I have seen dating information on moon rocks of about 3.5 bya. Presumably the moon would have been formed prior to the formation of its rocks??
 
  • #5
HeadScratcher said:
Do you know what postulated Earth orbital elements have been suggested or used in calculations, prior to the impact; what the elements for the meteor were prior to the impact and if one looks at the resultant Earth moon pair with their respective orbital elements afterward, is it possible to "connect the dots"?
I can guarantee that the orbital elements of the impactor (which was more likely a planetoid) are unknown; as far as the Earth before vs. after I'm really not sure---but a literature search would tell you. Try searching the arxiv, I think planetary science people are good about posting their stuff their.
HeadScratcher said:
About when would this collision possibly have occured? I have seen dating information on moon rocks of about 3.5 bya. Presumably the moon would have been formed prior to the formation of its rocks??
Again, your best bet would be to check the literature. I'm certain its between 3.5 and 4.5 byr, and my guess would be right in the middle.Edit: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
 
  • #6
Could we stop referring to the impactor as a meteor. It was a planet approximately the size of Mars. As HeadScratcher suspected a substantial proportion of the ejected material fell back to Earth. Some was ejected into further orbits and a small amount coalesced to form the moon.

The impact occurred shortly after the formation of the proto-Earth, probably less than 50 million years after the formation of the solar system. The debris ring created by the impact probably took less than 100,000 years to collect together to form the moon.

The hypothesis is not wholly accepted, but the majority of planetologists would view it as the most plausible explanation. Most early objections realting to details of orbits and orientations have been addressed by more detailed FEA simulations.
 

Related to Earth's Moon Origin: Is a Meteor Plausible?

1. What is the leading theory for the origin of Earth's Moon?

The leading theory for the origin of Earth's Moon is the Giant Impact Hypothesis. This theory suggests that a Mars-sized object collided with Earth during its early formation, causing debris to be ejected into space which eventually formed into the Moon.

2. Is there any evidence to support the Giant Impact Hypothesis?

Yes, there is significant evidence to support the Giant Impact Hypothesis. Samples from the Moon brought back by Apollo missions have similar chemical composition to Earth's mantle, suggesting a common origin. Additionally, computer simulations have shown that a collision of this magnitude could result in the formation of the Moon.

3. Could a meteor have caused the formation of the Moon?

While it is possible that a meteor could have played a role in the formation of the Moon, it is not a widely accepted theory. The Giant Impact Hypothesis better explains the similarities between the Moon and Earth, as well as the Moon's large size compared to typical meteors.

4. How long ago did the collision that formed the Moon occur?

The Giant Impact Hypothesis suggests that the collision occurred approximately 4.5 billion years ago, shortly after the formation of the Earth. This aligns with the age of the oldest rocks found on the Moon and the estimated age of the Earth.

5. Are there any alternative theories for the origin of the Moon?

Yes, there are alternative theories for the origin of the Moon, such as the Co-Formation Hypothesis and the Capture Hypothesis. However, these theories do not have as much evidence to support them as the Giant Impact Hypothesis, making it the most widely accepted explanation for the Moon's origin.

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
23
Views
335
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
1
Views
995
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
868
Back
Top