backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by MicahK.. on Jan 17 at 2:30 PM

Moon rock harvested by Apollo astronauts unveils secret of Moon's magnetism

It has been decades since man has walked on the moon. Scientists have made an important discovery about the moon recently using rocks recovered by astronauts from the Apollo missions of the 1970's.

One of the big questions that have stumped scientists since the early exploration of the moon is why lunar rocks are magnetic. Earth's magnetic field is produced by its rotating, iron core; something that the moon lacks.

Scientists at MIT believe they have finally solved the mystery. The scientists believe that about 4.2 billion years ago the moon had a liquid core that produced a strong magnetic field, similar to what the Earth has today.

Evidence of the molten core theory was found by analyzing the oldest of the moon rocks, which were not subjected to major shocks from impacts on the moon's surface. These later impacts erase all evidence of earlier magnetic fields.

The particular rock used by the researchers is one collected by astronaut Harrison "Jack" Schmitt who is the only geologist to ever walk on the moon. Ben Weiss, one of the MIT researchers, told Space.com, "Many people think that it's the most interesting lunar rock."

Weiss and other team members used a commercial rock magnetometer fitted with a special robotic arm to study the faint traces of magnetism in the rock. The researcher say that the test results allowed them to rule out other possible sources of magnetic traces in the rock, such as the magnetic fields that are briefly generated by the impacts on the moon. The magnetic fields generated by these collisions reportedly generate mini magnetic fields lasting mere seconds up to a full day for very large impacts.

The readings the scientist made show that the rock was in the presence of a magnetic field for millions of years and that the magnetic fields must have come from a magnetic dynamo creating by a rotating core. The magnetic field on the moon is believed to have been about 1/50th of the magnetic field the earth has today.

Space.com says that the findings fit into the theory that the moon was created when a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, blasting much of its crust into space where it clumped together and formed the moon.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

nitpicking, i know. . .
By Fronzbot on 1/16/2009 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 5
. . . but
quote:
It has been decades since man has walked on the moon. Scientists have made an important discovery about the moon recently using rocks recovered by astronauts from the Apollo missions of the 1970's.


Terrible way to open an article.

Perhaps
Although it has been decades since man last stepped foot on the moon, scientists only recently have discovered important facts using the moon rocks recovered during the 1970s Apollo missions.
would be more suiting?
Not perfect, of course, but better.




RE: nitpicking, i know. . .
By L1011 on 1/16/2009 1:55:20 PM , Rating: 5
Don't get me wrong, I like DailyTech a lot, but I find myself skipping the first paragraph or two of almost every article on this site. Too often to get to the point of the headline, you have to start at the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. It's not just you, a lot of the opening paragraphs in DT articles aren't particularly good. Sorry, but it's true.


RE: nitpicking, i know. . .
By foolsgambit11 on 1/16/2009 7:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just DailyTech. Have you ever read USA Today? Only there, it's only the first two paragraphs that are worth reading, and the rest is obvious backstory that anybody who pays even a little attention to the world should know. That space should be used for in depth analysis, but instead it's a rehash of old facts.

For those of us who keep up a little with technological developments, the first two paragraphs tell us stuff that's obvious. But if somebody stumbled upon this site because they were interested in getting into tech news, the backstory at the top of articles can be helpful. And it's no hardship to skim it for the rest of us, is it?


RE: nitpicking, i know. . .
By cludinsk on 1/17/2009 12:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
the real question is, why would you read USA Today?


RE: nitpicking, i know. . .
By ggordonliddy on 1/16/2009 8:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, sir.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki