Lably
Skip to content

Giant-impact hypothesis

Hypothesis of the formation of the Moon

  • 19 min read
  • 8 chapters
This artist's concept shows a celestial body about the size of our moon slamming at great speed into a body the size of Mercury . NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope found evidence that a high-speed collis
NASA/JPL-Caltech · Public domain

Related on Lably

Through Hypothesis, Moon and Solar System

Analysis of lunar rocks published in a 2016 report suggests that the impact might have been a direct hit, causing a fragmentation and thorough mixing of both parent bodies.

The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored hypothesis for lunar formation among astronomers. Evidence that supports this hypothesis includes:

  • The Moon's orbit has a similar orientation to Earth's rotation, both of which are at a similar angle to the ecliptic plane of the Solar System.
  • The stable isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
  • The Earth–Moon system contains an anomalously high angular momentum, meaning the momentum contained in Earth's rotation, the Moon's rotation and the Moon's orbit around Earth is significantly higher than those of the other terrestrial planets. A giant impact could supply this excess momentum.
  • Moon samples indicate that the Moon was once molten to a substantial, but unknown, depth. This may have required much more energy than predicted to have been available from the accretion of a celestial body of the Moon's size and mass. An extremely energetic process, such as a giant impact, could provide this energy.
  • The Moon has a relatively small iron core, which gives it a much lower density than Earth. Computer models of a giant impact of a Mars-sized body with Earth indicate the impactor's core would likely penetrate deep into Earth and fuse with its own core. If this occurred, it would leave the Moon, which was formed from coalesced ejectae of lighter crustal and mantle fragments that went far enough beyond the Roche limit and thus were not pulled back by Earth's gravity to re-fuse with Earth, with less remaining metallic iron than other planetary bodies.
  • The Moon is depleted in volatile substances compared to Earth. Vaporizing at comparably lower temperatures, they could be lost in a high-energy event, with the Moon's smaller gravity unable to recapture them while Earth did.
  • There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
  • Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theory of the formation of the Solar System.

However, several questions remain concerning the best current models of the giant-impact hypothesis. The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global magma ocean, and evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle has been documented. However, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant-impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon.

History

In 1898, George Darwin made the suggestion that Earth and the Moon were once a single body. Darwin's hypothesis was that a molten Moon had been spun from Earth because of centrifugal forces, and this became the dominant academic explanation. Using Newtonian mechanics, he calculated that the Moon had orbited much more closely in the past and was drifting away from Earth. This drifting was later confirmed by American and Soviet experiments, using laser ranging targets placed on the Moon.

Nonetheless, Darwin's calculations could not resolve the mechanics required to trace the Moon back to the surface of Earth. In 1946, Reginald Aldworth Daly of Harvard University challenged Darwin's explanation, adjusting it to postulate that the creation of the Moon was caused by an impact rather than centrifugal forces. Little attention was paid to Professor Daly's challenge until a conference on satellites in 1974, during which the idea was reintroduced and later published and discussed in Icarus in 1975 by William K. Hartmann and Donald R. Davis. Their models suggested that, at the end of the planet formation period, several satellite-sized bodies had formed that could collide with the planets or be captured. They proposed that one of these objects might have collided with Earth, ejecting refractory, volatile-poor dust that could coalesce to form the Moon. This collision could potentially explain the unique geological and geochemical properties of the Moon.

A similar approach was taken by Canadian astronomer Alastair G. W. Cameron and American astronomer William R. Ward, who suggested that the Moon was formed by the tangential impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. It is hypothesized that most of the outer silicates of the colliding body would be vaporized, whereas a metallic core would not. Hence, most of the collisional material sent into orbit would consist of silicates, leaving the coalescing Moon deficient in iron. The more volatile materials that were emitted during the collision probably would escape the Solar System, whereas silicates would tend to coalesce.

Eighteen months prior to an October 1984 conference on lunar origins, William K. Hartmann, Roger Phillips, and Jeff Taylor challenged fellow lunar scientists: "You have eighteen months. Go back to your Apollo data, go back to your computer, and do whatever you have to, but make up your mind. Don't come to our conference unless you have something to say about the Moon's birth." At the 1984 conference at Kona, Hawaii, the giant-impact hypothesis emerged as the most favored hypothesis.

Before the conference, there were partisans of the three "traditional" theories, plus a few people who were starting to take the giant impact seriously, and there was a huge apathetic middle who didn't think the debate would ever be resolved. Afterward, there were essentially only two groups: the giant impact camp and the agnostics.

Sign in to keep reading

7 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Astronomy