Newly detected series of narrow linear troughs are known as graben, and they formed in highland materials on the lunar farside. These graben are located on a topographic rise with several hundred meters of relief revealed in topography derived from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) stereo images (blues are lower elevations and reds are higher elevations). Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University/Smithsonian Institution

Recent Geologic Activity on the Moon?

20 Feb , 2012 by

[/caption]
Recent images from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera provide evidence that the lunar crust may be pulling apart in certain areas. The images reveal small trenches less than a kilometer in length, and less than a few hundred meters wide. Only a small number of these features, known as graben, have been discovered on the lunar surface.

There are several clues in the high-resolution images that provide evidence for recent geologic activity on the Moon.

The LROC team detected signs of contraction on the lunar surface as early as August of 2010. The contractions were in the form of lobe-shaped ridges known as lobate scarps. Based on the data, the team suggests the widely-distributed scarps indicate the Moon shrank in diameter, and may be continuing to shrink. Interestingly enough, the new image data featuring graben presents a contradiction, as they indicate lunar crust being pulled apart and theorize that the process that created the graben may have occurred within the past 50 million years.

“We think the Moon is in a general state of global contraction due to cooling of a still hot interior, said thomas Watters from the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies. “The graben tell us that forces acting to shrink the Moon were overcome in places by forces acting to pull it apart. This means the contractional forces shrinking the Moon cannot be large, or the small graben might never form.”

Based on the size of the graben, the forces responsible for contraction of the lunar surface are assumed to be fairly weak. It is further theorized that, unlike the early terrestrial planets, the Moon was not completely molten during its early history.

“It was a big surprise when I spotted graben in the farside highlands,” said Mark Robinson, LROC Principal Investigator at Arizona State University. “I immediately targeted the area for high resolution stereo images so we could create a 3-dimensional view of the graben. It’s exciting when you discover something totally unexpected. Only about half the lunar surface has been imaged in high resolution. There is much more of the Moon to be explored.”

If you’d like to learn more about the recently discovered graben on the moon, you can watch a short video by Thomas Watters below:

To learn more about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, visit: http://www.lroc.asu.edu/

Source: Arizona State University News

,



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Aqua4U
Member
February 21, 2012 12:07 AM

“It is further theorized that, unlike the early terrestrial planets, the Moon was not completely molten during its early history.”

What does this do to the theory that the moon coalesced from the debris of a collision between Earth and another primordial planet? Doesn’t that theory imply that the collisional body would be entirely molten by the impact?

Sam
Guest
Sam
February 21, 2012 12:54 AM

The mars sized body would have collided with the early Earth with a velocity around 11km/s which would have raised the temperature of the earliest rocks to around 13000K which most definitely would have made everything completely molten.

Jon Souter
Guest
Jon Souter
February 21, 2012 10:05 AM

But there’s a lot of other variables at play than speed and mass – such as trajectory (e.g. was it a glancing impact, or one that was more full-on) that affect the outcome.

Stating without any qualification that the earliest rocks reached a very specific temperature is mis-leading at best.

John Miller
Guest
February 21, 2012 4:17 AM

It does nothing to that theory. As was stated, “the Moon was not completely molten”. But it would have to have been at least partially molten. That is how the maria were formed.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 21, 2012 10:55 AM

My 2 p above. Perfect melting seems less certain IMO, give or take the recent results.

I don’t think there was ever a consensus on this, at least the textbooks I have leave it as an open question as I remember them.

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
February 21, 2012 3:48 PM
If a Mars mass body collided with Earth and all of that energy was converted to thermal energy I would probably agree with you. The impact is thought to have spun off lots of matter which eventually coalesced into the moon. Hence a lot of that kinetic energy was preserved as kinetic energy in the spallation of the proto-Earth and this Mars massed planet. So it could be this material was not all melted and coalesced in a manner so the entire moon was not melted at once. I am a bit out of my element here, so one would have to research the literature and see what the primary researchers are thinking. There is a lot of… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 21, 2012 10:04 AM
The Moon is an interesting body. My own interest comes from what it can tell us of early Earth history. As Universe Today readers may remember, the Moon rocks dating the Earth-Moon impactor may be younger than earlier thought, maybe dating as late as 4.36 Ga bp (billion years before present). The latest dating of the solar system is 4.5672 +/- 0.0005 Ga bp, making the Moon originating at most ~ 210 My after system formation (asf). However, that last reference has an interesting update on Earth formation, which may tie into the current find. Earlier it was believed for good reason that when the Earth formed, the incoming impactors melted fully and made the mantle composition uniform.… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 21, 2012 10:15 AM
Btw, Mars has been rocked by recent geological activity too: “Gerald Roberts, an earthquake geologist with Birkbeck, an institution of the University of London, who led the study, said that the images of Mars included boulders that ranged from two to 20 meters (6.5 to 65 feet) in diameter, which had fallen in avalanches from cliffs. The size and number of boulders decreased over a radius of 100 kilometers (62 miles) centered at a point along the Cerberus Fossae faults. “This is consistent with the hypothesis that boulders had been mobilized by ground-shaking, and that the severity of the ground-shaking decreased away from the epicenters of marsquakes,” Roberts said.” “Because the area of displaced boulders in the marsscape… Read more »
Ashar Azhar
Guest
Ashar Azhar
February 21, 2012 12:48 PM

the Quran has already stated about this event 1500 years ago!!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_split.htm

^please visit above website^

squidgeny
Member
squidgeny
February 21, 2012 12:58 PM

Yes but the Quran is full of rubbish, like every other holy book.

Really20
Guest
Really20
February 22, 2012 12:21 AM

You, sir, are a very intelligent and understanding person who thinks that all religion is in perpetual and necessary conflict with science, and with no respect for views beside your own. I applaud your wisdom.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 22, 2012 10:12 AM

Indeed, it is the very basis of empirical derived wisdom to not respect any view, of course including your own. Eternal criticism and vigilance against the tendency to fool oneself (science) or others (religion) is the only way forward.

I applaud you misdirected criticism.

Really20
Guest
Really20
February 23, 2012 1:01 AM

I consider science and religion to be entirely different realms. At least in my belief, they do not conflict because there is no playing field on which they must conflict.

Surak
Member
Surak
February 23, 2012 5:22 AM
What you describe as your belief … your ability to hold two conflicting views (religion and science) in your head at the same time without apparent mental discomfort, is what the rest of us feel as real mental and even physical discomfort known as Cognitive Dissonance. If you think the realms don’t overlap and therefore can’t conflict, you haven’t given it much thought. Apparently Ignorance really is bliss to you. Any real claim made by religion (real as in affecting the universe in an observable way), for example the claim that a great global flood occurred as stated in Genesis in the Christian bible, or the claim made by some creationists that the Earth is only 6,000 years… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 23, 2012 10:48 AM

Again, what is your _data_ to shore up your unwarranted belief? Claiming that there is no conflict is not the same as showing that there is no conflict (as described above).

Really20
Guest
Really20
February 24, 2012 12:47 AM

Religion is philosophical in nature, and cannot be reduced to mere data. You think that ALL religion is in necessary conflict with science. By that logic, only atheists can be “true scientists” who do not “pollute their data.”

What you are saying is no better than religious extremism. I’m not in denial that religious texts are often filled with hate and rubbish, but you think that I hold a completely irrational belief because it differs from your own.

magnus.nyborg
Guest
magnus.nyborg
February 29, 2012 11:10 AM

Religion is in conflict with REALITY, as has been demonstrated numerous times.

Really20
Guest
Really20
March 1, 2012 2:30 AM

Only if you are extremely socially conservative and do not know the difference between religion and science.

magnus.nyborg
Guest
magnus.nyborg
March 1, 2012 1:01 PM

Society is not a religous concept, and there the demonstrable factors for societal wellfare that indicates that relgion lowers the wellbeing of society (statistically significant studies)

Really20
Guest
Really20
February 24, 2012 12:49 AM

I use religion in the sense of personal morality and decency and the underlying purpose to our universe while I look to science for directly observable phenomena. Therefore science and religion are not in conflict. I feel that if it crosses the previously mentioned line, religion is not religion, it’s pseudoscience.

squidgeny
Member
squidgeny
February 22, 2012 3:28 PM

I didn’t say that religion conflicts with science. I said that holy books are full of rubbish. I’ll grant you that those claims are related and overlap somewhat, but they’re not the same.

Raja Ikram
Guest
Raja Ikram
February 29, 2012 10:45 AM

it seems you have no religion. so thats why you dont consider any of the book as a “not important”…Quran taught the scientists how to explore things…Quran gave hints to the universe… by all the way the term “science” have been started and explored and by muslims first…. so if you dont have knowledge about any thing dont come around these plaecs.. because you are creating anxiety among religion.

squidgeny
Member
squidgeny
February 29, 2012 1:26 PM

I do read the articles of great scientists and have never once need the Quran quoted or referenced in any way. Care to cite?

wpDiscuz