A new model, “The Big Splat”, explains the strange asymmetry of the moon

[dnetesn]

http://nautil.us/issue/13/symmetry/when-the-earth-had-two-moons

[Zash]

> Comets may preserve ancient layered splat structures; the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission, now on its way to Comet Churymov-Gerasimenko, will be able to take a look.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/How_...

[EwanG]

Publish date May 2014 - still, glad to see it solves most (but not all) the issues with the known differences between the near and far sides. Another argument for a lunar base so we can safely get some samples to do more hands-on comparisons.

[grogers]

FWIW the best theory we have now is that since the earth was very hot for a while after the moon formed, the radiating heat kept the near side of the moon molten for longer. That means thinner crust on the near side which makes it more likely for early meteor impacts the punch through the crust and cause lava flows.

This seems much more likely than a secondary moon impact that happens to hit the far side. Crucially, this should be testable - which is great!

[titzer]

I'm just gonna burn karma and rant randomly at this kind of narrative style.

<quote>Asphaug was not only annoyed; he was inspired. </quote>

For Science articles, what value does all this narration add? Why do we have to sift through 30 years of background biography material before getting to the new theory and subject matter? Is the state of mind of the researchers important? Do we need to humanize and narrate the proposal of a new model in this way?

[micampe → titzer]

For popular science articles, yes, the narration is useful for the purpose of scientific divulgation and awareness.

If you want pure distilled science this is what you are looking for https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...

[oldmanjay → titzer]

this isn't really a science article. it's sciencish. think of it more like "scientists hate this one weird trick that might explain the moon" maybe?

[semi-extrinsic → oldmanjay]

On science reporting today, C&H said it best IMO: "You don't love science. You're looking at its butt when it walks by."

http://explosm.net/comics/3557/

[DanBC → semi-extrinsic]

See also the excellent rant "You're not a nerd, geeks aren't sexy and you don't "fucking love" science" http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd

[danparsonson → DanBC]

Indeed, IFLS would better be called IFL The Natural World - not quite so catchy though I guess. IFL Nature?

[justifier → titzer]

you are just describing nautil.us's contribution

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature1...

by that logic you could reverse it and rant that arxiv.org lacks sufficient fluff

[jmount → titzer]

I strongly agree.

[titzer → titzer]

Another:

<quote> I remember reading about it as a child, in the dreamy pre-Apollo science books I inherited from my older brothers—books that predated Luna 3 by a few years. </quote>

I like, totally don't give a shit what the author did as a child.

[lscritch → titzer]

<quote>For Science articles, what value does all this narration add? Why do we have to sift through 30 years of background biography material before getting to the new theory and subject matter? Is the state of mind of the researchers important? Do we need to humanize and narrate the proposal of a new model in this way?</quote>

That's what popular science sites/books <em>do</em>. Maybe you should be seeking out the original research article.