![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I had this discussion the other day, one of the discussers proposed that the Lunar Rover was visible from Earth with a consumer-grade (Questar?) telescope. Are any man-made objects, left on the Moon, visible from Earth? Can anyone report a first-person sighting? With what equipment?
Grateful for any comments. Rainbow-five ( talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article mention him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.191.206 ( talk) 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally come across numbers over 999 that use a no-break space rather than a comma to separate the thousands, as in 1 000 (actually appears as 1 000 in an article) rather than 1,000. In an article such as this one, where mostly commas are used to separate the thousands, I'm tempted to replace the no-break spaces with commas in each case for the sake of consistency. It occurred to me, though, that the no-break space might keep the number from breaking in two if it falls at the end of a line. My assumption was that the Wiki software does not have the ability to sense the difference between a comma followed by a number and a comma followed by a (normal) space. So I tested this, and the software does have this ability. Whenever a comma is followed by a number, it behaves in the same manner as a no-break space. Therefore I will remove the no-break spaces and replace them with commas when consistency-within-an-article demands. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The final paragraph reads:
"The most recent lunar eclipse was on February 20, 2008. It was a total eclipse. The entire event was visible from South America and most of North America (on Feb. 20), as well as Western Europe, Africa, and western Asia (on Feb. 21). The most recent solar eclipse took place on September 11, 2007, visible from southern South America and parts of Antarctica. The last total solar eclipse, on August 1, 2008, had a path of totality beginning in northern Canada and passed through Russia and China."
.`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"36 years, 112 days have now passed since Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, as part of the mission Apollo 17, left the surface of the Moon on December 14, 1972 (Cernan being the last to enter the LM) and no one has set foot on it since." (the 36yrs, 112dys is as of 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
This is impressive. Somebody who (like me) thinks that it's been far too long since the last manned exploration of the Moon actually devised a bot to emphasize the point? Wow! .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The JAXA SELENE Earthrise link in the External links section is broken as of this date. I found another link to the Earthrise movie and replaced the broken link. In case the old link is only broken temporarily, I am preserving it with a comment on the article page, and also here...
.`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
To remove the redundant "the" and the unnecessary "that", please replace the first sentence in this section with: "The Moon is in synchronous rotation, which means it rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth."
Thanks
Apachegila (
talk)
10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
According to QI Earth has five natural satellites, not one - as according to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggydude ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the title be "Moon" or "Earth's Moon". I prefer Earth's Moon to make it clear that we are not talking about Moons in general. You could argue that "Moon" is clear enough, but why not make it clearer, you could argue that "Earth's Moon" looks weird, but so what, and it would be easier to make moon a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It is common to drop "The" in encyclopaedic entries. e.g. the article on The Atlantic Ocean is just Atlantic Ocean. Martin451 ( talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Similarly for "the Milky Way", our article is at Milky Way. Emmette, yes, we aim for clarity in article titles but also for simplicity. We only start adding extra words when it's necessary to disambiguate between topics. For instance, we don't title the article "Milky Way galaxy" - that's what I meant earlier when I said we don't use titles to explain things. Now if there was some other major usage for Milky Way, we would then have Milky Way (galaxy) and Milky Way (dairy) or such-like, but only to distinguish between the two. You can read about article naming at WP:TITLE, WP:NCASTRO and WP:DAB. Franamax ( talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I have seen encyclopedias use "The Moon" more then "Moon" as article titles, but my memories of this are vague, so I could be wrong. I think we have pretty much exhausted all the arguments we can make.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Moving this page would entail changing thousands of links and redirects, and would not improve the encyclopedia in a way at all commensurate to the work involved. Unless it is somehow clear that actual readers are unable to find their way to the appropriate article... I see no reason to change something that works. No one is less well-informed due to the current set-up. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor removed the "barycenter" description from the lead. I reverted the edit per WP:STATUSQUO, and would like to find out why that editor considers the description of the barycenter unimportant in that article position? While I do not agree with nor support this edit, it might be a good edit, or not; however, since this article is a Featured Article, it is important to closely scrutinize such edits so as not to lower the quality of the article. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template at the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it". .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, folks, think of the results before uploading yet more moon pictures!
There's a risk of cluttering up this good featured article with pictures that make things less clear than they had been before.
For example, I'd be puzzled by the big picture with lots of phases on it if I didn't already know about moon phases. For one thing, it doesn't indicate where the light is coming from!
Best wishes, Terry0051 ( talk) 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one distracted and annoyed by the animated image of light traveling from the earth to the moon? With the high contrast and blinking effect, I half-expected to see "You've Won! Click here!" when I looked closer. Does this image provide value to the article? If so, perhaps there is a way to exhibit the concept in a more subtle animation. Maghnus ( talk) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So we see that it can be done. Since Moon is a Featured Article, before this image replaces the one in the article, it would be best to see if there is a consensus among involved editors to make this change. So...
Hey, ya'll! I now invoke an informal Request for Comment: Would this FA be improved by using this unanimated image in lieu of the animated image that is now in the article ( in this section)? Please note that there is a link to the animated image in the unanimated image's caption. Also, copyright is covered under GFDL for both images. .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 04:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I might have missed it, but does the main article have a paragraph on calculating the specific point on the horizon where the moon rises? Does this location change from month to month, or even day to day? Yes, I understand that sometimes the location of the sun prevents the moonrise from being visible, and sometimes the phase of the moon makes it completely dark to us, but it rises anyway.
So, I looked all over for a simple description of the formula for calculating the point of moonrise (and not the particular minute or hour), and simply can't find it.
I think the main article could be improved if there were an explanation of what the Lunar Ecliptic is, and how it differs from an ordinary ecliptic, which I take to be the apparent range of the sun's motion over the earth. 216.99.219.32 ( talk) 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The current version uses strange, technically incorrect language, and does not use primary sources:
In July 2008, small amounts of water were found in the interior of volcanic pearls from the Moon (brought to Earth by Apollo 15). [1]
I would suggest making the following changes:
In 2007, small concentrations of water (up to 0.005%) were found inside volcanic glass formed by surface eruptions on the Moon (and sampled by Apollo 15). The discoverers of this lunar water also found sulfur, chlorine and fluorine, and argued that the water concentration of these glasses was originally about 0.05%, a possible challenge to the commonly accepted giant impact hypothesis of lunar formation. . [2] [3]
I intended to create this new division to discuss proposed rewording for the "double-planet" hypothesis and I'll supply that on request. I would like to get this solved but I couldn't resist the dang calculator and associated algebra.
I calculated the Moon orbital radius (RM where the graviation force would be balanced between Earth and Sun. This is approx 259,111 km, and please do check my figures. Now Earth-Moon are tidally locked with the result that Moon recedes from Earth, according to our article at 3.8 cm/yr. Plugging in the numbers (again, please check!) and admittedly using only the current figure, this indicates that the Moon entered the "continuous-convex" orbit regime only 3.4 million years ago. Yes, we do wish to report the latest information on-wiki, but 3.4Myr is an eyeblink in geologic/universe time.
This is totally OR but makes me unwilling to propose a new wording. What we need is RS addressing the issue. Asimov, whilst interesting, may have chosen to overlook this in the interest of creating a saleable article. Franamax ( talk) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Shaheenjim has been blocked indefinitely. See his talk page. -- 116.14.26.124 ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article states: The Moon is in synchronous rotation, which means it rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
This is not quite correct: the moon does not rotate about its own axis, but performs just the same as the wooden horse in a merry-go-round as seen from an observer that is standing at the rotating center of the merry-go-round. That horse is actually performing a synchronous rotation, but obviously it does not rotate about its own axis, but the axis of the merry-go-round.
Therefore, the moon also does not rotate about its own axis, but the axis of the Earth.-- Nemowiki-EN ( talk) 08:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea of the synchronous rotation is just a mathematical trick to express the rotational momentum. In that respect it is correct to split the motion of the moon into two rotating movements: one around the earth, the other around itself. You could do the same trick with the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. Of course, this is mathematically (and physically) correct, but you could just as well spilt it into n motions around n axes. But does the explanation of the actual movement improve by splitting it up into n combined movements? I do not think so. It is helpful for mathematic reasons, but detrimental to the understanding of the actual movement. That horse is rotating around an axis that is rotating around an axis that is ... -- Nemowiki-EN ( talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit. The Latin translation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. it breaks up the flow of this critical sentence too much. The etymology section already mentions that the moon's latin name is sometimes used. If it is really critical, this could be mentioned in a sentence in the lead as well, but it should not be inserted in parenthesis in the first sentence. Contrary to Martin451's edit comment, I don't think "Luna" is all that commonly used anyway. "Luna eclipse" is incorrect. The correct English phrase is "lunar eclipse", where "lunar" is the adjective relating to the moon. The adjective is covered, as is usual, in the infobox just to the right of the lead section. I would be amenable to introducing the adjective "lunar" in the lead section as well (but not in the first sentence), as this term may be unfamiliar to some readers.-- Srleffler ( talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the latin translation, but linked the first occurrence of "lunar" to the Wiktionary entry, in case a reader is not familiar with this term and doesn't notice the infobox.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Luna is used as a proper name for this planets moon, not just by science fiction but by scientist working within this field. A good example of this is when comparing our moon with that of other moon, which can quickly become confusing. Luna is largely accepted as the proper name and Moon a common name, just as Felis domesticus is the proper name for the house cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.71.10 ( talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is “Earth I” a valid name of the Earth's natural satellite? -- 88.78.13.178 ( talk) 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please give a reason why, I know it a common feature of sci-fi but that dosn't make it valid. 89.168.56.242 ( talk)
I combined the multiple archives that only had one thread per archive. I also increased the size of the archive and I may have fixed the bug that was creating the many small archives. I do not follow this talk page, so if you need me, drop a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
A good bit was added to the lead today. Is it appropriate to include this new information there or should it be moved down to the "exploration" area. I might should be being bold, but I'm still easing into wikipedia... I did remove a part of a sentence that seems speculative. Cmiych ( talk) 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"The U.S. has committed to return to the moon by 2018." I have removed it because 1) It has no relavance 2) Beyond some PR cash & blarmy, NASA has done nothing that indicates it will happen & 3) So what, it shouldn't be in the introduction anyway. 89.168.56.242 ( talk)
Seems the page is semi-protected, must have missed that so i will leave it to registered users to get rid of that line while i go register. 89.168.56.242 ( talk)
Tempted to pull it out. The refs are all from 2005 articles. I just spent some time looking at internet articles on the recent 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, and found a wide range of opinion on what is up with the "U.S. return to the moon" concept - it seems a bit doubtful if the money is there, etc. Await more info and opinion here. Jusdafax ( talk) 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The mention of certain dates when the moon is full, but the orbit's mileage moves closest to the earth. This happened three times in the last 20 years (on average every 9.5 years) such as the full moons of Dec. 1-2, 1990, Dec. 20/21, 1999 (the first day of northern hemisphere winter with the longest duration of twilight) and Dec. 12/13, 2008. A similar near-approach to earth was Jan. 11, 2009 and Dec. 30/31, 1990 on New Years' eve, thus it can occur twice in a single lunar month or 28.5 days apart. The next full moon in ultra-perigree (or 330,000 to 350,000 km from earth) is in on Christmas night Dec. 26, 2017 or a near-approach on Nov. 25, 2017. Winter full moons happen to be on a higher horizon on the epilpetic in the northern hemisphere, about 23 degrees North (or 20-21' N in the year 2017), and the 1999 Winter solstice full moon was located in 20-21' degrees north. + 71.102.3.86 ( talk) 07:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I konw information on the formation on the moon and would like to place it in "The Moon" file. It tells the way on how the moon formed. --Thunder 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}} --Thunder 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought a section like this would be a good inclusion to the article; as it would show more about how people percieve the moon and the mystery/whatever it "contains" - and just how the moon's depicted as being like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
remove "a few". imaginary quantification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.124.147 ( talk) 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
How about some mention of the other natural orbiting bodies, such as Cruithne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 ( talk) 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How come the 'Moon Rocks' paragraph does not tell "which" minerals are present on the moon? I understand from a recent article ( http://www.starstryder.com/2009/03/24/the-moon-is-made-of-minerals/) that there are plenty of different types of minerals on the moon, not just the 'basalt' described here on Wiki. 132.8.8.45 ( talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The "Diagram illustrating various phases of the Moon in their order of ...", to my best, is not true. The diagram shows the trajectory of the moon to be at times convex and at times concave when it should be always convex. Please see the article "Orbit of the Moon" the section "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun". ( JJCP ( talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCP ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
[From Terry0051] I think JJCP has a point if you look at the image closely enough, because the various 'Earths' seem to be shown as stages on Earth's journey around the Sun shown much too slow relative to the Moon, the Moon looks here as if it is whizzing round at a rate that the geometry would indicate as several tens of months each year, and going retrograde each month, which it doesn't in fact do. It's a very poor and unsuitable image for another reason as well, because it introduces the nearly irrelevant feature of the earth's orbit round the sun, and fails to demonstrate the vital ingredient for moon-phases, which is the angular relation between Moon and Sun as seen from the Earth. The old fashioned circular diagrams with about 8 Moon phases in relation to the direction of the Sun were much clearer in respect of the point to be demonstrated. I'll see if I can find a usable one. Terry0051 ( talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
[From Terry0051] This post is again about a possible better image for demonstrating (more clearly than we have at present) the cause of moon-phases:-- The kind of thing I referred to in last post was rather like File:NSRW_Phases_of_the_Moon.jpg. That image seems clear enough about the relation with the Moon's monthly journey around the Earth, but the drawback I see is that this image contains no explicit indication of the direction of the Sun. Of course in a sense it's obvious that the Sun is way off the top of the image in the upward direction, but I take it that the purpose is to make things clear to a reader who isn't yet oriented to all of that. Is there anything better around? Terry0051 ( talk) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a link it "Metonic cycle" in the "See Also" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.54.38 ( talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If the moon's Radius is about 1/4 that of earth's, it's surface area should be about 1/16th that of earth's (which should correspond to the area of Russia) instead of the posted 1/4 Area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.202.162 ( talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I had this discussion the other day, one of the discussers proposed that the Lunar Rover was visible from Earth with a consumer-grade (Questar?) telescope. Are any man-made objects, left on the Moon, visible from Earth? Can anyone report a first-person sighting? With what equipment?
Grateful for any comments. Rainbow-five ( talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article mention him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.191.206 ( talk) 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally come across numbers over 999 that use a no-break space rather than a comma to separate the thousands, as in 1 000 (actually appears as 1 000 in an article) rather than 1,000. In an article such as this one, where mostly commas are used to separate the thousands, I'm tempted to replace the no-break spaces with commas in each case for the sake of consistency. It occurred to me, though, that the no-break space might keep the number from breaking in two if it falls at the end of a line. My assumption was that the Wiki software does not have the ability to sense the difference between a comma followed by a number and a comma followed by a (normal) space. So I tested this, and the software does have this ability. Whenever a comma is followed by a number, it behaves in the same manner as a no-break space. Therefore I will remove the no-break spaces and replace them with commas when consistency-within-an-article demands. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The final paragraph reads:
"The most recent lunar eclipse was on February 20, 2008. It was a total eclipse. The entire event was visible from South America and most of North America (on Feb. 20), as well as Western Europe, Africa, and western Asia (on Feb. 21). The most recent solar eclipse took place on September 11, 2007, visible from southern South America and parts of Antarctica. The last total solar eclipse, on August 1, 2008, had a path of totality beginning in northern Canada and passed through Russia and China."
.`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"36 years, 112 days have now passed since Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, as part of the mission Apollo 17, left the surface of the Moon on December 14, 1972 (Cernan being the last to enter the LM) and no one has set foot on it since." (the 36yrs, 112dys is as of 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
This is impressive. Somebody who (like me) thinks that it's been far too long since the last manned exploration of the Moon actually devised a bot to emphasize the point? Wow! .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The JAXA SELENE Earthrise link in the External links section is broken as of this date. I found another link to the Earthrise movie and replaced the broken link. In case the old link is only broken temporarily, I am preserving it with a comment on the article page, and also here...
.`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
To remove the redundant "the" and the unnecessary "that", please replace the first sentence in this section with: "The Moon is in synchronous rotation, which means it rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth."
Thanks
Apachegila (
talk)
10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
According to QI Earth has five natural satellites, not one - as according to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggydude ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the title be "Moon" or "Earth's Moon". I prefer Earth's Moon to make it clear that we are not talking about Moons in general. You could argue that "Moon" is clear enough, but why not make it clearer, you could argue that "Earth's Moon" looks weird, but so what, and it would be easier to make moon a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It is common to drop "The" in encyclopaedic entries. e.g. the article on The Atlantic Ocean is just Atlantic Ocean. Martin451 ( talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Similarly for "the Milky Way", our article is at Milky Way. Emmette, yes, we aim for clarity in article titles but also for simplicity. We only start adding extra words when it's necessary to disambiguate between topics. For instance, we don't title the article "Milky Way galaxy" - that's what I meant earlier when I said we don't use titles to explain things. Now if there was some other major usage for Milky Way, we would then have Milky Way (galaxy) and Milky Way (dairy) or such-like, but only to distinguish between the two. You can read about article naming at WP:TITLE, WP:NCASTRO and WP:DAB. Franamax ( talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I have seen encyclopedias use "The Moon" more then "Moon" as article titles, but my memories of this are vague, so I could be wrong. I think we have pretty much exhausted all the arguments we can make.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Moving this page would entail changing thousands of links and redirects, and would not improve the encyclopedia in a way at all commensurate to the work involved. Unless it is somehow clear that actual readers are unable to find their way to the appropriate article... I see no reason to change something that works. No one is less well-informed due to the current set-up. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor removed the "barycenter" description from the lead. I reverted the edit per WP:STATUSQUO, and would like to find out why that editor considers the description of the barycenter unimportant in that article position? While I do not agree with nor support this edit, it might be a good edit, or not; however, since this article is a Featured Article, it is important to closely scrutinize such edits so as not to lower the quality of the article. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template at the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it". .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, folks, think of the results before uploading yet more moon pictures!
There's a risk of cluttering up this good featured article with pictures that make things less clear than they had been before.
For example, I'd be puzzled by the big picture with lots of phases on it if I didn't already know about moon phases. For one thing, it doesn't indicate where the light is coming from!
Best wishes, Terry0051 ( talk) 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one distracted and annoyed by the animated image of light traveling from the earth to the moon? With the high contrast and blinking effect, I half-expected to see "You've Won! Click here!" when I looked closer. Does this image provide value to the article? If so, perhaps there is a way to exhibit the concept in a more subtle animation. Maghnus ( talk) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So we see that it can be done. Since Moon is a Featured Article, before this image replaces the one in the article, it would be best to see if there is a consensus among involved editors to make this change. So...
Hey, ya'll! I now invoke an informal Request for Comment: Would this FA be improved by using this unanimated image in lieu of the animated image that is now in the article ( in this section)? Please note that there is a link to the animated image in the unanimated image's caption. Also, copyright is covered under GFDL for both images. .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 04:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I might have missed it, but does the main article have a paragraph on calculating the specific point on the horizon where the moon rises? Does this location change from month to month, or even day to day? Yes, I understand that sometimes the location of the sun prevents the moonrise from being visible, and sometimes the phase of the moon makes it completely dark to us, but it rises anyway.
So, I looked all over for a simple description of the formula for calculating the point of moonrise (and not the particular minute or hour), and simply can't find it.
I think the main article could be improved if there were an explanation of what the Lunar Ecliptic is, and how it differs from an ordinary ecliptic, which I take to be the apparent range of the sun's motion over the earth. 216.99.219.32 ( talk) 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The current version uses strange, technically incorrect language, and does not use primary sources:
In July 2008, small amounts of water were found in the interior of volcanic pearls from the Moon (brought to Earth by Apollo 15). [1]
I would suggest making the following changes:
In 2007, small concentrations of water (up to 0.005%) were found inside volcanic glass formed by surface eruptions on the Moon (and sampled by Apollo 15). The discoverers of this lunar water also found sulfur, chlorine and fluorine, and argued that the water concentration of these glasses was originally about 0.05%, a possible challenge to the commonly accepted giant impact hypothesis of lunar formation. . [2] [3]
I intended to create this new division to discuss proposed rewording for the "double-planet" hypothesis and I'll supply that on request. I would like to get this solved but I couldn't resist the dang calculator and associated algebra.
I calculated the Moon orbital radius (RM where the graviation force would be balanced between Earth and Sun. This is approx 259,111 km, and please do check my figures. Now Earth-Moon are tidally locked with the result that Moon recedes from Earth, according to our article at 3.8 cm/yr. Plugging in the numbers (again, please check!) and admittedly using only the current figure, this indicates that the Moon entered the "continuous-convex" orbit regime only 3.4 million years ago. Yes, we do wish to report the latest information on-wiki, but 3.4Myr is an eyeblink in geologic/universe time.
This is totally OR but makes me unwilling to propose a new wording. What we need is RS addressing the issue. Asimov, whilst interesting, may have chosen to overlook this in the interest of creating a saleable article. Franamax ( talk) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Shaheenjim has been blocked indefinitely. See his talk page. -- 116.14.26.124 ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article states: The Moon is in synchronous rotation, which means it rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
This is not quite correct: the moon does not rotate about its own axis, but performs just the same as the wooden horse in a merry-go-round as seen from an observer that is standing at the rotating center of the merry-go-round. That horse is actually performing a synchronous rotation, but obviously it does not rotate about its own axis, but the axis of the merry-go-round.
Therefore, the moon also does not rotate about its own axis, but the axis of the Earth.-- Nemowiki-EN ( talk) 08:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea of the synchronous rotation is just a mathematical trick to express the rotational momentum. In that respect it is correct to split the motion of the moon into two rotating movements: one around the earth, the other around itself. You could do the same trick with the wooden horse on the merry-go-round. Of course, this is mathematically (and physically) correct, but you could just as well spilt it into n motions around n axes. But does the explanation of the actual movement improve by splitting it up into n combined movements? I do not think so. It is helpful for mathematic reasons, but detrimental to the understanding of the actual movement. That horse is rotating around an axis that is rotating around an axis that is ... -- Nemowiki-EN ( talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit. The Latin translation does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. it breaks up the flow of this critical sentence too much. The etymology section already mentions that the moon's latin name is sometimes used. If it is really critical, this could be mentioned in a sentence in the lead as well, but it should not be inserted in parenthesis in the first sentence. Contrary to Martin451's edit comment, I don't think "Luna" is all that commonly used anyway. "Luna eclipse" is incorrect. The correct English phrase is "lunar eclipse", where "lunar" is the adjective relating to the moon. The adjective is covered, as is usual, in the infobox just to the right of the lead section. I would be amenable to introducing the adjective "lunar" in the lead section as well (but not in the first sentence), as this term may be unfamiliar to some readers.-- Srleffler ( talk) 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the latin translation, but linked the first occurrence of "lunar" to the Wiktionary entry, in case a reader is not familiar with this term and doesn't notice the infobox.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Luna is used as a proper name for this planets moon, not just by science fiction but by scientist working within this field. A good example of this is when comparing our moon with that of other moon, which can quickly become confusing. Luna is largely accepted as the proper name and Moon a common name, just as Felis domesticus is the proper name for the house cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.71.10 ( talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is “Earth I” a valid name of the Earth's natural satellite? -- 88.78.13.178 ( talk) 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please give a reason why, I know it a common feature of sci-fi but that dosn't make it valid. 89.168.56.242 ( talk)
I combined the multiple archives that only had one thread per archive. I also increased the size of the archive and I may have fixed the bug that was creating the many small archives. I do not follow this talk page, so if you need me, drop a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
A good bit was added to the lead today. Is it appropriate to include this new information there or should it be moved down to the "exploration" area. I might should be being bold, but I'm still easing into wikipedia... I did remove a part of a sentence that seems speculative. Cmiych ( talk) 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"The U.S. has committed to return to the moon by 2018." I have removed it because 1) It has no relavance 2) Beyond some PR cash & blarmy, NASA has done nothing that indicates it will happen & 3) So what, it shouldn't be in the introduction anyway. 89.168.56.242 ( talk)
Seems the page is semi-protected, must have missed that so i will leave it to registered users to get rid of that line while i go register. 89.168.56.242 ( talk)
Tempted to pull it out. The refs are all from 2005 articles. I just spent some time looking at internet articles on the recent 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, and found a wide range of opinion on what is up with the "U.S. return to the moon" concept - it seems a bit doubtful if the money is there, etc. Await more info and opinion here. Jusdafax ( talk) 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The mention of certain dates when the moon is full, but the orbit's mileage moves closest to the earth. This happened three times in the last 20 years (on average every 9.5 years) such as the full moons of Dec. 1-2, 1990, Dec. 20/21, 1999 (the first day of northern hemisphere winter with the longest duration of twilight) and Dec. 12/13, 2008. A similar near-approach to earth was Jan. 11, 2009 and Dec. 30/31, 1990 on New Years' eve, thus it can occur twice in a single lunar month or 28.5 days apart. The next full moon in ultra-perigree (or 330,000 to 350,000 km from earth) is in on Christmas night Dec. 26, 2017 or a near-approach on Nov. 25, 2017. Winter full moons happen to be on a higher horizon on the epilpetic in the northern hemisphere, about 23 degrees North (or 20-21' N in the year 2017), and the 1999 Winter solstice full moon was located in 20-21' degrees north. + 71.102.3.86 ( talk) 07:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I konw information on the formation on the moon and would like to place it in "The Moon" file. It tells the way on how the moon formed. --Thunder 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}} --Thunder 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought a section like this would be a good inclusion to the article; as it would show more about how people percieve the moon and the mystery/whatever it "contains" - and just how the moon's depicted as being like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
remove "a few". imaginary quantification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.124.147 ( talk) 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
How about some mention of the other natural orbiting bodies, such as Cruithne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 ( talk) 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How come the 'Moon Rocks' paragraph does not tell "which" minerals are present on the moon? I understand from a recent article ( http://www.starstryder.com/2009/03/24/the-moon-is-made-of-minerals/) that there are plenty of different types of minerals on the moon, not just the 'basalt' described here on Wiki. 132.8.8.45 ( talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The "Diagram illustrating various phases of the Moon in their order of ...", to my best, is not true. The diagram shows the trajectory of the moon to be at times convex and at times concave when it should be always convex. Please see the article "Orbit of the Moon" the section "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun". ( JJCP ( talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCP ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
[From Terry0051] I think JJCP has a point if you look at the image closely enough, because the various 'Earths' seem to be shown as stages on Earth's journey around the Sun shown much too slow relative to the Moon, the Moon looks here as if it is whizzing round at a rate that the geometry would indicate as several tens of months each year, and going retrograde each month, which it doesn't in fact do. It's a very poor and unsuitable image for another reason as well, because it introduces the nearly irrelevant feature of the earth's orbit round the sun, and fails to demonstrate the vital ingredient for moon-phases, which is the angular relation between Moon and Sun as seen from the Earth. The old fashioned circular diagrams with about 8 Moon phases in relation to the direction of the Sun were much clearer in respect of the point to be demonstrated. I'll see if I can find a usable one. Terry0051 ( talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
[From Terry0051] This post is again about a possible better image for demonstrating (more clearly than we have at present) the cause of moon-phases:-- The kind of thing I referred to in last post was rather like File:NSRW_Phases_of_the_Moon.jpg. That image seems clear enough about the relation with the Moon's monthly journey around the Earth, but the drawback I see is that this image contains no explicit indication of the direction of the Sun. Of course in a sense it's obvious that the Sun is way off the top of the image in the upward direction, but I take it that the purpose is to make things clear to a reader who isn't yet oriented to all of that. Is there anything better around? Terry0051 ( talk) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a link it "Metonic cycle" in the "See Also" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.54.38 ( talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If the moon's Radius is about 1/4 that of earth's, it's surface area should be about 1/16th that of earth's (which should correspond to the area of Russia) instead of the posted 1/4 Area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.202.162 ( talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)