Hearing you talk about the next person on the moon being a teenager today. I’m 16 years old looking to go to college to study aerospace engineering and work for nasa. That last part of the video got me pumped, Mr plait.
It's pretty late in the series to say this now, but I'll say it anyway. I love the way Phil talks about anything in this series. There's a "childlike wonder" in his face and voice clearly showing that he's passionate about astronomy and what heavenly body is topic to a particular episode. Things like this make me wish I could afford the Patereon subscription.
Which PM? The tea seller? You have to be so stupid to put a tea seller as the prime minister of India and expect the country to develop. Get serious. The country has gone backwards in the past couple of years since you made him a PM. Worse part is most educated people in India cheer him on. Look at the dollar to rupee, look at the high cost of living. Look at the economy grading of India by the rating agencies, you are together with countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh other African countries and you think you have done well? Misplaced priorities.. start building toilets and clean up your cities before even thinking of going to the moon. Also don't ever compare yourselves with China. They are 50 years ahead of you. If I was a voter in India, I would rather vote for a young vibrant educated leader like Raul Gandhi than vote for a tea seller. Why don't you employ a tea seller in your company as management and expect your company to prosper?
TheJaredtheJaredlong You act like scientists are good at naming things. If a colony is every set up on the moon it will probably be called Lunar Base 1 or something like that.
Dragoneye No, even simpler, just "Moon Base" you know, like the World War, then later on when whoever competed with the guys that made the first moon base make their own they will call it "Moon Base 2 and everyone will have to rename the original "Moon Base" in the books into "Moon Base 1".
Dragoneye I don't think that's true at all. NASA has always been good about coming up with cool names. Just look at the Mars rovers: Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity and Sojourner; they _could_ have all been MER1,2,3,4... but that doesn't inspire the average person. And they traditionally use a lot of Greek names: the Gemini and Apollo Programs, the Saturn Rocket, the Atlantis Shuttle. NASA would _never_ get adequate funding it they named something as ambitious as a moon colony "Lunar Base 1" that's so boring; normal military bases don't even have names that boring.
***** Yeah, but the World War wasn't named by scientists. It was named by historians. They're the ones who suck at naming things. Scientists are often hilarious and quirky (or perhaps "quarky") when it comes to naming things.
i'm doing some research on the moon and this is helping. i like his delivery and way of conveying information as well, it's not dry or down-wind. thanks for posting.
Great, concise video with a lot of information and presented very well. Thank you. I vote that we rename Earth's moon, and call it Luna. Calling it "The Moon" is similar to always calling your own child "The Kid", but calling other people's children by their names. Also, if we were to adopt the name "Luna" as the proper name of our moon, then the "face" we see during full moon should be called "The Lady in the Moon", or "The Face of Luna". Also, a "respectable" name of the Moon could be "Lady Luna" ("Lady Luna is rising her full face tonight"). Also, I agree with +TheJaredtheJaredlong , a lunar colony someday on Lady Luna could be called Selenia, that sound great! Right, because the moon's name in Latin is Luna, and in Greek it is Selene. To be more complete, note that the names for the Greek/Roman goddess of the moon were Luna, Artemis Diana, Phoebe, Selene, and Cynthia (I guess they couldn't make up their minds what to call her, lol). My suggestion stands, though, to give the moon the name "Luna", since "lunar" is the adjective we use when referencing the moon. Although, I image this name change will never happen, as people are too accustomed to calling it "the moon"; it would be about as weird and difficult to adopt as changing Earth's name would be.
Really nice videos, maybe for the next series you could do something related to philosophy, talking about different philosophical approaches and the most famous philosophers, for example :)
a moon refers to a satellite hovering over a planet Luna refers to the Earth's Moon Sun and Sol refer to the same thing, our Star imagine if the Sun was simply called Star, that is what it is like calling our moon, Moon, and not Luna
***** Are you for real? Like, you aren't trolling at all? You really don't know what Latin is? I mean, August 2011 is pretty damn old for someone to be using an account for just trolling people, but stranger things have happened.
***** Nope Jonathan is right, luna is just latin for moon, for example in my language we call moons are luas and the Moon is Lua, is the same name just capitalized, now star and sun is other kind of problem, also in the times that this words were created any other object on the nightsky would be wrongly called a star, even if they saw them, so that's why no one would talk about lunas (nor planets), sorry for my English, hope you understand my point.
***** Problem is, in many other languages, the Sun and the Moon have different names, and even if you standardize it as Sol and Luna, Spanish uses luna for every moon, and capitalizes ours. Sol is a bit more rare to call a foreign star, but not unheard of.
I've always loved our moon & I'm actually going to get a tattoo of it on my back / underneath my neck. So learning more about the moon always fascinates me :)
I really liked this episode of Crash Course Astronomy because it really enlightened me about the moon and its origins. As I really like astronomy, I look forward to more videos about the universe. Because of this video, I knew more about the Moon. I really wish that I could go to the moon in the near future when there are colonies there.
Thank you for making this astronomy video, Phil Plate and all the others at _Crash Course_! The Moon is also very interesting, but I do not think our is the most interesting of all the moons in the Universe or even the Solar system. When are you going to talk about other moons? Anyway, thank you for the video!
Joseph Preece I don't think you'd even need to boil it. Boiling is to kill off biological pathogens like bacteria and molds. But I'm not an expert, so don't quote me on that. You should definitely find an expert to ask before you drink any moon water.
When he started talking about the teen, starting to take an interest in science that would later go to the moon, I immediately hoped it was me so bad omg
I'm a Mexican fan of this channel and when a said that will be a astronomy special a was so exited. I have seen all the videos of the playlist astronomy. I wish have study astronomy but was complicated. Anyway, I do my own research, own my teleacope and like to see videos like this. I found something remarkable in this channel. The user CrashCourse and ***** himself read and make commentaries. Realy awesome. There are a lot of Chanels that just upload videos but don't really interact whit the audience. Saludos desde México!!
Mark Young So KSP Dev Blogs on Tuesdays, and Crash Course Astronomy on Thursdays. Weekends are starting to lose some of their lead in "best days of the week" running.
Am I the only one that has wondered what happened to Theia after the impact or is it assumed that Theia was completely destroyed by its impact with earth?
Would have been cool if you explored the Georeactor Theory in this episode. This new theory on the formation of the moon would explain much more than the Giant Impact Theory. If you are wondering, in short what the Georeactor theory is, is that on the boundry between the mantel and outer core, called the D" (D-double prime), alot of fissile material (uruanium and thorium) collected. It just wasnt dense enough to start a nuclear reaction. Then a large comet or asteroid hit the earth causing a compressive shockwave which lead to a giant (and I mean f'ing huge) explosion which flung huge pieces of the mantel and crust into orbit. This explains the isotopic similarities and dissimilarities (some isotopes are more common deep down than in the crust of the earth) between the earth and moon. It is also testable by drilling into the crust of the moon and looking for an isotope of Xeon that forms from the decay of uranium and thorium. It probably isnt THE theory to explain the formation, but the Giant imapct theory has far less going for it in explaining what we find on the moon. If you want some extra information here is a link: www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/science/article/pii/S0009254112006262/pdfft?md5=f85df82e5eddfd7a42ea96c37e570060&pid=1-s2.0-S0009254112006262-main.pdf
It was also Believe that there was a Second moon after The impact of the Marcis planet then the smaller moon hit or Merged into the other bigger moon making the The far side of the Moon sicker!
But I just saw an episode on sci-show that talked about recent findings that made scientists doubt the Thea hypothesis shouldn't have this crashcourse episode briefly discussed other hypotheses of formation of moon.
Aquib Immanuel The timing of our respective episodes is kind of funny. I noticed it while this one was uploading. SO IT GOES! The SciShow Space episode discussed a potential problem with theory, based on fairly recently published research. Also, it didn't concurrently prop up any alternatives. The bigger takeaway, for me at least, is that it's just a great example of how quickly our knowledge and understanding changes, which is super exciting. Science! -Nicole
Aquib Immanuel That's how most scienceisthey praise it and nail it into you like it's cut in stone fact then they find something new... then THAT new thing is the fact wat
Is it possible that the Maria regions on the near side of the moon are shielded by the Earth so they don't get the same bombardment of asteroids as the far side of the moon?
Digs Fossils-n-Knives their composition and morphology suggest impacts, or at least some sort of energetic event(s) that caused the release of lava to form basalt "seas" that didn't happen on the far side. In other words if the earth shielded the moon on the near side there would actually more things that need explaining, instead of less... If on the other hand the moon was simply smoother and less cratered but with the same composition then such a theory would make a lot of sense.
Majdi Alnassrallah Technically it is possible, though not for long. The moon's moon will eventually become the planet's moon because of gravitational forces. :)
thats literally what this is. Theres no phsyical evidence that the moon came froma collision with some outer space object with earth. Otherwise, a quarter of the earths service would be a giant crater. It would literally look like on the map a crater the size of moder day asia. It doesnt make geometrical sense.
The short-short intro isn't a good idea - I love them when they're long, and Phil is very good at carrying a long one right up to the opening credits. Otherwise, incredible video as always.
The Moon _is_ the only one, just like Venus is the only Venus. The Moon is the name of that object in English. Once we discovered that other planets had natural satellites, we decided to call those "moons", making a generic out of what had been a proper noun. Much like calling all facial tissue "kleenex" no matter who makes it. Imagine if we had decided to call all other planets "earths". It would be the same kind of thing.
To expand a bit on what Nolan Thiessen, oceanic crust is young (several hundreds of millions of years), and gets formed and subducted constantly, and based on their rates of motion we know the atlantic ocean didn't exist up to 200 millions years ago (c.f. Pangea) and the pacific ocean plates were part of a huge ocean that covered most of the earth called Panthalassa. But on the time scales of the earth's full history, and the formation of the moon, this is peanuts (about 200 million years vs. 4 billion years...). The current hypothesis is that the Pacific ocean (well, Panthalassa) started to form about 800 million years ago, when Rodinia, the supercontinent that preceded Pangea, started breaking apart. In other words there seems to be a cycle (called the Wilson cycle), where the continental land masses break apart from a supercontinent, drift around the world, and then smoosh together to form a new one, and currently we're in the middle of that cycle where the pacific ocean is the remnant of the previous super ocean and the atlantic ocean is the new one that formed in the middle of Pangea. But this entire multi-billion year tectonic plate process is still younger than the early processes that formed the moon, and only started happening after the earth cooled down. Note that although there's plenty of evidence to support these ideas in general the particular details are not as clear (especially when you try and reconstruct earlier times) and it's still a very active field of research.
Phil mentioned colonization of the moon it would make a great tourist attraction :) the spaceships we design should be able to to build instead of ejecting boosters engineer them so they have a dual purpose that are easily converted to modules if it's possible so every time a spaceship lands on the moon we are able to add to the colony.
Before that happens, the cost to launch things from Earth's surface into orbit must come down drastically! It costs $3000 per kg to get people and cargo into orbit. In order for civilian space travel to be viable and space becomes somewhere most people can go, the cost must fall to about $200 per kg. There's several potential launch systems that could make it happen.
+Nick Gur Kind of? It's complicated. Most astronomers and astrophysicists just call it by whatever word is used in their native language, so we'd still just be calling it the moon. But if it was to have an official universally recognized name, it would likely be Luna, yes.
Yep. Same as how Earth does indeed have a Roman mythology name like all the other major planets: Terra. We rarely use it (except in science-fiction sometimes), but you can see evidence of it in words like "terraform" or "terrestrial". Similarly words like "geology" come from the Greek version, Gaia.
I thought the moon was a giant rock-ball, I didn't know it actually has a hot, solid and liquid core! This could be further evidence that the moon might be very similar to it's original planetary shape before the impact.
Alex Becker Of course there's evidence to support it, no one would really take it serious if it didn't. However, it isn't widely accepted in the scientific community, therefore it's still a hypothesis. Just because there's evidence supporting some aspects of it (you mention isotopes, which I'm assuming relates to the age) doesn't mean there couldn't be inconsistencies in other parts. Scientist are supposed to have high expectations for any idea looking to explain any natural phenomenon or answer any question. If the resounding majority won't accept it, then it isn't a theory. Now it could actually be a theory and i may simply be unaware of it, but if it is I'm sure you'll correct me on it. :)
Luther Paul Because they grow with the fairy tales of god or allah or whatever and unlike other fairy tales like santa or the easter bunny, they can't be disproven so as adults, they cling to their fairy tales because the alternative is too scary to think about for a lot of people.
Next video according to youtube: "UFO DOCUMENTARY :Aliens exist on the moon 2015 Full [ New UFO Sightings ] - Duration: 1:25:55. by UFO Channel 977,407 views" this makes me extremely sad.
I think instead of going to Mars they should focus on the moon, yeah would be difficult to colonize the moon but.... EVEN MORE difficult to colonize MARS!!!!!
@@@unf3z4nt Yes, well, we can discuss who the idiots are when they all die of radiation sickness on the way there. We're not supposed to know this, but radiation is the actual reason why no one has claimed to have sent people beyond LEO since 1972. Look up gamma rays and the come back here and let me know how you propose to shield the crew on a five year voyage to Mars from them. I'll be waiting.
Our moon is actually less important we didn't bother to give it a name. after we discovered there were other moons. It is not like we always knew there were other moons. We are not egotistical just lazy.
***** Luna is a common misconception. Yes, its another way to address the moon. No, its not the proper scientific name for said satellite. Same goes for Sol vs Sun, if I recall.
Traveler Finder It's the opposite, really. The correct term is satellite. Moon is just the name we gave *our* satellite. Calling other satellites "moons" is the lazy part, not calling our satellite by its name.
Good evening, Mr. Plait. Taking astronomy seriously ( as you probably would like all of us to take ) and considering the Giant Impact Hypothesis for the formation of the Moon, it seems to me that would be more accurate to say that, if it was that close to Earth when it formed, it's near side would take longer to cool. So, along with the stronger tidal forces, then, it's surface would have stayed melted longer, covered with lava fields and a lot less solidified impact features. According to that, it would be plausible to say that the Heavy Bombardment would leave a lot more scars on the already solidified side ( the far side ). So, the near side must have stayed melted by then and the far side already solidified. If tidal forces were at play then ( and because fluids are more easier to shape when subjected to tidal forces ), the moon would have had a bulge towards Earth ( the near side ) that solidified slower. Maybe, that would be the reason for the diference on the Moon crust's thickness on it's sides and not, necessarily, that the melted crust on the Moon's near side would have evaporated and condensated on the far side. If that would be the case, why didn't the Earth too? Certainly the Earth was not hotter than the Moon right after Thea's collision... On the other hand, refering to the Moon's double craters, you don't have to have a binary impactor to create a double crater: all you need is an impact over an older one. Of course, double impacts are possible but certainly less frequent. In that sense, there would be ( at least ) two kinds of double craters: those caused by successive impacts around the same spot and those caused by double impactors. My regards.
