Birth of the Moon: a Runaway Nuclear Reaction? 355
An anonymous reader writes "How the Moon arose has long stumped scientists. Now Dutch geophysicists argue that it was created not by a massive collision 4.5 billion years ago, but by a runaway nuclear reaction deep inside the young Earth."
Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't there be evidence of this on the surface somewhere? I know the crust has shifted considerably, but that's a *lot* of material to suddenly vacate.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree - The moon has an ungodly amount of angular momentum. I'm having trouble coming up with a method whereby a section of object a leaves object a, and then has enough thrust perpendicular to the direction of object a to get up to it's 1km/s orbital velocity.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Funny)
People like you are what makes arseholes like Bevets cry at night and hold themselves...you with your "science" and "evidence." Bah! A pox on you!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In a molten scenario, center of mass a would have ejected center of mass b, and then the countless fragments would have spent a bunch of time coalescing.
It's been a long time since I have though about it, and I'm no expert, but I think that the Sun could have spent some time pulling on the moon, making the orbit both more in plane with the orbit of the Earth (the Earth is pulling too...), and faster, so not all of the momentum necessarily had to come from the explosion/ejection (tilting the plane of the orb
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Interesting)
The sun's gravity accelerates things near the Earth by 0.006 m/sec^2. Two objects close enough to be meaningfully gravitationally linked while orbiting the sun in the Earth's orbit will have a maximum differential acceleration of maybe a thousandth of that. So to get to 1000m/s takes 5 years.
So this essentially posits that an explosion had enough force to blown the planet apart, and send the pieces into space, but not to escape velocity (11.2 km/s) but instead to a velocity just short of that (11.19 km/s or so), so that the moon goes flying away for 2.5 years but 2.5 years later comes back and settles into a nice, circular orbit.
That would be hard to accomplish on purpose - saying an accident did it is beyond belief.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/earthmoon.html [astronomytoday.com]
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_jupiter_030122-1.html [space.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, without the moon we wouldn't have eclipses. And without eclipses, we wouldn't have superpowered superhumans fighting to save the world. By saving a cheerleader.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've given up reading, but not commenting?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also important to note, the moon is pretty much tidally locked (the same side always faces the earth). It's inconceivable that Earth's gravitational field did not play an extremely key role in the current angular momentum of the moon. For more information, r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Funny)
The article is slashdotted but it is possible that when this happened there was no solid surface yet to leave traces of this.
No, I think the article was slashdotted today.
The server in flames may leave traces on the floor and walls of the server room, but we'll have to wait for a "Best Way For Bright Child To Clean Server Room?" post to Ask Slashdot to confirm.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So when the server melted down from the Slashdot effect, was there a runaway reaction that caused a smaller, satellite server to be ejected?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The pacific ocean is a big, empty space.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what George Darwin said, but no. There's not enough evacuated volume there. Think about it: the Pacific is huge, but not very deep on planetary scales. Volume-wise, you're off by orders of magnitude. (I don't believe Darwin knew the depth of the ocean, so he's off the hook.)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, the European definition of billion is a thousand million, just like in the USA.
You might be thinking of the UK, which used to call that a milliard, but even the UK has been with the program since the 1970s.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe counts more languages than one, and "milliard" or something similar to it means a "thousand million" in all but one, which itself is influenced by the US bastardisation of the term and is closer to being the 51st state than a part of Europe, really.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, the European definition of billion is a thousand million, just like in the USA.
Huh? Where?! In German, French, Spanish and Italian, the word "billion" (resp. the words similiar to it) always means 10e12.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whichever God Wins... We Lose (Score:3, Funny)
In fact, the UK is the only European country to do it differently (why doesn't that surprise me, the bloody bastards still drive on the wrong side of the road too).
Yeah, well that's why you were occupied by the Germans during WWII and we weren't. It's damn hard to steer a left-hand-drive tank on the wrong side of the road.
;)
Although perhaps the 22 miles of water helped as well
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, well that's why you were occupied by the Germans during WWII and we weren't. It's damn hard to steer a left-hand-drive tank on the wrong side of the road.
You don't. You steer it wherever you please, and everyone else moves the hell out of your way. :p
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Informative)
Correct, the total volume of the oceans is ~1.3*10^6 km^3 [hypertextbook.com], the volume of the moon is ~2.2*10^10 km^3 [wikipedia.org] so it's not even close.
Not to mention, according to the Giant Impact Hypothesis [wikipedia.org], the iron core of the mars-size body that struck the earth sunk down and was mostly absorbed into the earth's core. The moon has far less iron in its core than most other bodies in the solar system. Consider also that tectonic plates [wikipedia.org] have been moving for billions of years and have formed more than a dozen different "super-continents" [wikipedia.org] over time in various configurations. There's no way the Pacific ocean is a gouge from the moon-making.
Re: (Score:2)
Pangea post-dates the Earth's accretion by (literally) billions of years. It has nothing to do with the accretion process in any way you can map sensibly. Right after accretion, there were no continents at all since the continents are composed of re-processed rock. It takes billions of years to build up all this larger-generation material until the effects of plate tectonics.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Moon formed from a thin layer of crust skimmed from the earth's surface.
That's exactly my point: the Moon is more than a surface scar, it would require a deep, deep gouge. That said, see my comment to th
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. But even then, you have to consider that over 4.5 billion years, that crust will have been recycled and erased.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind too, that the continental crust material is made up of significantly YOUNGER and lighter rock than the deeper crust. Most of the continents are made of (comparatively) light granite, limestone, sandstone, shale and loose aggregates of all stones. However, the lower crust and the deep ocean crust are made primarily from heavy Basalt.
So the idea that continents formed in the way they did due to the ejection of moon material is incorrect. Not only was the earth likely still a molten ball at that point, but the continents are made from material that did not even exist on earth until well AFTER the earth had solidified.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Others mentioned the Earth being molten, but even as it is now, the Earth is plastic enough that if you removed a big enough chunk, the rest of the planet would flow and deform until it was spherical again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd take anything in Cosmos magazine with a healthy dose of skepticism. Since the article is slashdotted these points may already be addressed but anyway...
There is growing evidence based on analysis of ancient crust and zircon crystals that cratons (continental cores) formed much earlier than thought and that the earth was only molten for a very short period, if at all.
I would say there should be evidence of a massive mineral anomaly in the earth's crust. No massive nuclear eruption big enough to put the
How Big the Earth, How Thin the Crust (Score:5, Interesting)
Example: imagine a model of the earth where 1 mm = 1 mile. (or you can use 1mm = 1 km, if you like)
The earth is 7926.28 miles (12756.1 km) in diameter.
At this scale, you can make out significant mountain ranges, etc. The Atmosphere would be 4 or 5 inches deep. The crust is an inch or 2 thick.
And the Earth itself is more than 8 yards across. That inch or two of crust is sitting on a chewy molten insides. (check volcano flows, etc.)
The Earth is really a molten droplet spinning in space with the thinnest external layer where life has happened to accumulate, like the layer of tarnish on a coin.
Re:How Big the Earth, How Thin the Crust (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the mathematical term for its shape is a "prolate sphereoid."
Oblate spheroid.
Still, both you and the OP have the right idea, the earth would 'quickly' reform into a near spherical shape. It is the largest of the non-gas planets and would probably reform the fastest as opposed to smaller bodies like Mercury, or Pluto.
A good example would be Mimas. It had an impact so massive that the crater looks to be about 20% of the side facing us. I'd wager that an impact like that scaled up and applied to the Earth would quickly be erased (by non environmental factors) on a scale of 1 billion years. Smaller craters would likely be visible for far longer than those that would actually crack the planet to the mantle.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oblate spheroid."
Just to descend completely into pedantry: "Geoid". Which is a total cop out of a term, but you're allowed to cop out and make up new terms if your name is Gauss.
A Spherical estimation is good enough for most purposes. Elipsoid or oblate spheroid estimations are better, but as soon as you're looking at scales where they're better, you note that the flattening of the earth is not symetrical; the South pole is signific
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Interesting)
A Spherical estimation is good enough for most purposes.
True, at least by the old engineer's rule of thumb that only three places are significant for practical purposes.
But there are some situations where it's not good enough. One is if you're dealing with the orbits of satellites. To the satellites, the Earth is decidedly lumpy, enough so to affect orbits on a time scale of weeks or months.
A fun case I ran across some years ago was a geography trivia question: Name the three "highest points on Earth", and for each, give the definition of "highest point" that it satisfies.
The only answer that most people know is Mount Everest, which is the point that's the highest above the local "geoid" (which is the extension of "sea level" to handle areas far from the closest open ocean).
Some people know another answer: Mauna Kea, which is the point that's the highest above the mean level of the surrounding land. Everest rises some 3,000 m above the surrounding land, the Tibetan Plateau, Mauna Kea rises from the bottom of the central Pacific Ocean, and it's a much taller pile of rock than Everest. Its peak is more than 10 km above its base.
Hardly anyone can even guess the third answer. It turns out to be Mount Chimborazo, which is on the equator in Ecuador, and is the point that's farthest from the Earth's center. It's a good-size volcano that rises some 2,500 m above the surrounding land, but its peak is estimated at 6,384.4 km above the Earth's center, several km higher than the peaks of Everest or Mauna Kea.
All of these "highest point" claims are mentioned in the wikipedia articles about them (which is where I checked the numbers). And you could probably find them reasonably quickly by googling for that phrase, though I haven't tried it. I also wonder if there are other definitions of "highest point" that have different answers.
(And Chimborazo is one of the answers to another trivia question that's fun in "global warming" discussions: What are the two places where there are glaciers on the equator? So far, nobody I've asked this one has got either answer right, though some people get close to the other answer. Both places' glaciers are retreating rapidly, and are predicted to disappear in a few decades.)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Informative)
... Kilimanjaro ...
That's how most people get it wrong. Kilimanjaro does have glaciers, but it's two degrees south of the equator. It's Mount Kenya (aka Kirinyaga) that has glaciers right on the equator. Kilimanjaro is the more famous of the two, of course, and that's probably why most people guess that it's the answer. If you want to see the glaciers on either of them, you should probably plan your visit for the next decade or so, because the glaciers are shrinking fast. And wouldn't you love to have a photo of yourself standing on a glacier, right on the equator?
It's funny that when asked where the two glaciers on the equator are found, most people don't even think of South America. But the Andes are the only significant mountain range that crosses the equator. (Unless you consider the Rift Valley in Africa to be a mountain range. ;-)
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
offtopic:
Look at the old Astronomy Picture of the Day from 1995. Like this one for example: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap950629.html [nasa.gov]
The picture is in midget form... a tiny 36 kilobytes! They probably had to make it that small to "squeeze" through the slow 28k modems of the day. The web has really grown in size since then - today's average APOD is 200 kilobytes.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus in those days, a lot of the APODs were GIFs. 256 colors FTW! Also remember that 640x480 and 800x600 screen solutions were prevalent, so those tiny pictures were much bigger.
I did some artwork on my Amiga using that infamous HAM-mode graphics editor whose name escapes me now. There was a video mode that allowed you to cover the "whole screen" as opposed to the normal boundaries, but it was still only 320x240 and change in size. Seeing those images on a PC in 800x600 mode some time later made me real
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who has replied so far makes fair points, but misses the biggest point: the Moon is over 4 billion years old. There are virtually no rocks on the Earth's surface that even approach its age. That means that the ENTIRE Earth's surface has been replaced and reshaped in the interim. Things haven't just "shifted considerably", we've got a totally different surface. Any scar from that period is long, long since erased. And hole as deep as the Moon has long since filled in since the Earth is still very much a fluid over these timescales.
Re: (Score:2)
You sir are very correct and I think it's worth pointing out that part of the modern definition of "planet" is that it should be massive enough that its own gravity overcomes the electrostatic forces of its constituent material and forces it into a rounded shape. Earth certainly qualifies.
Re:Wouldn't there be an empty space? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to super-heat them at all, that's my point. The Earth is a fluid even today. Over timescales of billions of years, any wound would have been erased.
Re: (Score:2)
If the planet was that hard and cool back then how would you explain that the moon got round to? Obviously it wasn't that solid ..
(or friction between pieces has grinded them down and melted them together with time but that sounds less likely I guess.)
There IS a Big Hole (Score:2)
It is called the pacific ocean.
Even the traditional theories suggest that the pacific ocean is a scar created by the impact scraping off the continent and throwing it into orbit (yes I am simplifying).
While this new theory has issues (angular momentum), if it is true, the Pacific Ocean basin is proably the ste it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is the concept that the simplest solution is more likely. The concept of a huge collision from a large object on the earth seems more likely and possible then a Nuclear Reaction of such size.
stupid scientists (Score:5, Funny)
the moon is made of cheese
clearly, the young earth was lactose intolerant, and ejected it for that reason
the problem is all infants can digest lactose, and lose the lactase enzyme ability later in life if they don't have the right genes
but all theories have holes in them
like swiss cheese!
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
big bada BOOM
Runaway Nuclear Reaction... (Score:5, Funny)
Sanitation (Score:5, Funny)
So Earth basically got a bad case of gas, had an accident and now has its own turd in orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
/me thinks of a stupid joke involving 'Klingons around Uranus.'
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just goes to show that some shit follows you forever.
Impactors all the way (Score:4, Insightful)
While it's certainly an interesting idea I can't see it being right (but I've only read the first page, the site seems to have collapsed). My problem with it is simple that the impactor idea seems to fit all the data so well I think it's unlikley to be wrong.
I wonder though if this could perhaps be tested. The huge explosion theory could well have left old rocks away from the explosion site untouched. The impactor would have melted the whole planet. If we find even one rock old than the impact date we have our answer.
Re:Impactors all the way (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Impactors all the way (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Maybe the fissile material in the core was exhausted in the runaway reaction, or in later reactions within the core (perhaps critical T&P exist in the core)... this seems plausible to me if, as with the crust, materials in the core were isolated and concentrated via geologic processes.
It's also possible that the geological processes that occured over the past 4 Bn years have caused the fissile materials to accumulate in the crust instead of the core.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation? Because most fissile material is in the mantle, not the crust.
Re:Impactors all the way (Score:5, Interesting)
My problem with it is simple that the impactor idea seems to fit all the data so well I think it's unlikley to be wrong.
Further on they say that the impactor theory doesn't exactly fit the data. I'd blockquote, but I'm stuck on page three, I think we slashdotted it.
They give several reasons; one is that the object would have had to hit at a precise angle to become the moon and not completely vaporize the earth. Another is that the object would have had to have been formed very near the earth; they calculate from the moon rocks it would have had to be between Venus' and Mars' orbits.
Re:Impactors all the way (Score:5, Informative)
> it would have had to be between Venus' and Mars' orbits.
They quote this as a problem?!
The baseline assumption is that the impactor formed in the Earth's trojans, which fixes this "complaint" perfectly. Unlike Jupiter (for instance), the Earth's trojans are not entirely stable, and any large objects placed in it will drift back and forth. This explains a VERY large number of data points:
1) it explains geological makeup perfectly
2) it explains why the impact angle was grazing
3) it explains why the Moon formed so long after the Earth
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
Maury
Re:Impactors all the way (Score:4, Informative)
For the first point, it's not all that unlikely. (I don't know of any simulations that show that the impact would destroy the Earth, but you do need a specific range of impact angles to blow material off into orbit.) Remember, there were numerous collisions in that epoch, even between fairly large objects.
As to the second point, I call BS. The moon isn't made of the original material of the impactor. If the authors say it is, they're showing that they don't understand the theory that they're deriding. The Moon is made (principally) of the Earth's mantle. That's why the giant impact theory is so appealing, it explains the compositional similarities.
(That said, I seem to recall simulation work from about a decade ago that indicated that ALL the terrestrial planets had more or less the same composition since the planetesimals would be well-mixed in this region.)
Re: (Score:2)
My old high school science teacher used to talk about how the volume of the moon was similar to the volume of the Pacific Ocean. I don't know if he was trying to imply that indicated where such an impact would have taken place, but since the impact is speculated to have happened over 4 billion years ago, and Pangaea existed two and a half million years ago, the one cannot have anything to do with the other, at least not directly.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some theories that Cruithne was Earth's second moon. So maybe the early Earth had two moons?
Collision Theory (Score:3, Funny)
The Moon! (Score:3, Funny)
The Moon is a secret Italian conspiracy to spy on, undermine, infiltrate, and subvert America. That's why it is always in OUR sky -- ever wondered about that? How come Mexicans and Chinese don't get the Moon? Because they are in league with the nefarious Italians against our Great Fatherland.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How come Mexicans [...] don't get the Moon?
If that's no moon (pun intended), then wtf is in the sky then?
A space station!
Not possible (Score:5, Funny)
We all know that if there were a nuclear catastrophe of this magnitude, then the whole planet would be hurled through space at such speed that each week we would encounter a new alien race, group of outcasts, or supernatural being. Seeing as the earth is still in its stable orbit around the sun, we can conclude that this must not have happened.
Re:Not possible (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Space 1999 reference I think. Not that I've ever seen the show.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had hair down there, you might have gotten the reference.
Or maybe (Score:3, Funny)
It was caused by aliens driving 737's and dropping nukes into volcanoes.
Re:Or maybe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's a long but interesting article (Score:5, Informative)
I'm on page three. I had to look up a couple of things of wikipedia so far. I hadn't heard the word Petrology [slashdot.org] before; it's the study of rocks.
The term "georeactor" [wikipedia.org] seemed self-explanatory but I looked it up anyway, and was glad I did.
As Mr. Spock would say, "fascinating." My thanks to the story submitter.
Space 1999 got it wrong... (Score:4, Funny)
From TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
I know you're joking, but
Re: (Score:2)
There is the possibility that the impactor that is theorized to have created the moon formed from the same elemental "soup" as the earth. The planetary disk around the young sun may not have been 100% homogenous in these metals (we know it wasn't homogenous in terms of volatile elements and chemicals). Since the impactor very likely formed in the same region as the earth it should have had a very similar composition. The meteorites we see today are not necessarily representative of all the regions in the
Yucca Mountain will get it right? (Score:4, Funny)
So, as soon Yucca Mountain gets tanked up, the Earth might get another moon?
That would be cool!
Less so, if you live in what used to be Nevada.
Ah, the joys of Space 1999 Physics! Truly worthy of an Ig Nobel!
Explosions? (Score:2)
Teach the hypothetical controversy! (Score:5, Funny)
If the moon were real, it would have been created by God. Clearly a large ball of rock is the sign of an intelligent Creator, if it were there.
Re:Teach the hypothetical controversy! (Score:5, Interesting)
Christian-minded skepticism would sound a lot less idiotic (no offense to those of you who can't stand that), and something like:
Why do we think this might have happened? Because it might be possible. Do we have any proof of it? None whatsoever. Does it seem likely or probable? Not enough data. Could the moon have been spontaneously created by an infinitely powerful being instead? Sure.
Re:Teach the hypothetical controversy! (Score:5, Informative)
We have group #1 that is going to claim the literalist nonsense. These are the folks that built the creationist fantasy tourist trap where children frolick with dinos in the displays.
We have group #2 that is probably going to take the approach you mentioned to various degrees. Some may say it could have been spontaneously created, but that is no reason to not investigate, we don't have a lot of good information yet. The other end will lean towards the idea that we haven't found any information yet and thus it must be spontaneously created. This is the realm of curable ignorance on one side and pseudoscience nonsense on the other.
Then we will have the final group, that thankfully has gained at least some traction. The group that will say "Sure God created it...and a runaway nuclear reaction or massive impact are two possible methods that the universe played out that caused it to be created...let's go figure it out." Despite the common slashdot groupthink on this subject, there are indeed quite a few very intelligent people that also hold religious beliefs and don't let those religious beliefs muddy up the science. Francis Collins [wikipedia.org] and Ken Miller [wikipedia.org] are two examples that jump to mind. (In fact, if you haven't seen Ken Miller's video on the ID/Dover trial business, it's about 2hrs, but it is an amazing lecture.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, there is no way scientifically differentiate between "The universe is billions of years old" and "The universe appears billions of years old because God created it that way"
Not true. You can differentiate between the two. The tool you require is Occam's razor [wikipedia.org].
What you are proposing is nothing more than religion's version to brain in a vat [wikipedia.org].
Nuclear Reactor (Score:5, Interesting)
OH MY GOD WERE ALL GOING TO DIE (Score:2)
LHC (Score:3, Funny)
version 0.9 ?
Loony, totally Loony (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't get to TFA, but it seems mighty unlikely to have that much fissile material just so happen to gather together, and not be poisoned by cadmium, boron, lead, or other neutron absorbers, and have it stay together and not have a negative temperature coefficient slowing it down, and not form bubbles and geysers and other instabilities, and have it push asymmetrically in one direction, for many hours (cf: speed of sound). Wayaaay too many things to believe before breakfast.
and this is why... (Score:2)
Doesn't Make Sense to Me (Score:4, Insightful)
As noted, the site is Slashdotted so I can't read it straight up. That said, this doesn't make sense to me. A large explosion on the Earth's surface wouldn't launch material into Earth orbit unless it were launched at a very precise angle (probably nearly horizontal). The authors (based on previous comments) complain that the Giant Impact hypothesis requires a finely-tuned impact angle, but what about their model? I'd expect an explosion to blow material almost radially outward. To posit that you'd get the finely-tuned launch angle from their model seems much more of a stretch than that an impact should strike a glancing blow (especially when we don't know how many similarly-sized impactors hit with the wrong conditions and were simply absorbed).
Also, note that you need to loft a lot more material than just the Moon's mass to make the Moon. it's not an efficient process, a lot (most?) of the material rains back down on the Earth. It has to, it starts out in an orbit that intersects the Earth after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure if the article addressed this, but another point is that you'd have to assemble the fissionable material very carefully since you need to get it super-critical, but not have any of it blow too early, before you have enough. It's the classic bomb-making problem, only without anyone to supervise it.
That's no moon! (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdotted. Mirror here. (Score:3, Informative)
(Or should that be a runaway Slashdot reaction?)
That's no moon... (Score:5, Funny)
It's the mother of all core dumps!
They already made that movie! (Score:2)
Robert Heinlein, "Blowups Happen" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really not the same at all, but the article did call this story immediately to mind.
"Blowups Happen" is a classic 1940s SF story about a future in which society is total dependent on nuclear power plants. The engineering theory behind them shows that they are intrinsically safe and cannot blow up like a bomb. Then someone discovers that there is a false assumption in the equations and that, in fact they can blow up like bombs.
Meanwhile, an expert in the theory of lunar formation has concluded the lunar craters cannot have been formed by meteor impact, because of the "rays." There had to have been enough energy to "crack an entire planet." The only possible explanation, he says, is that the Moon was once an inhabited planet with an atmosphere and that "Here at Tycho was located their main power plant, and here at Copernicus and Kepler, on islands of the middle of the great oceans, were secondary power stations."
In other words, not only can they blow up like bombs, but that is what reduced the Moon to its present airless, lifeless, cratered and cracked state.
As I say, that's a completely different theory from the one being discussed. Nevertheless, I would bet a nickel that at least one of the authors of that article had read "Blowups Happen."