Scientists: Moon over the hill at 4.51 billion years old (Update)

January 11, 2017 by Marcia Dunn
In this June 20, 2016 file photo, the full moon rises behind a tree next to the ruins of the ancient marble Temple of Poseidon, built in 444 BC, at Cape Sounion, southeast of Athens, on the eve of the summer solstice. On Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017, a California-led research team reported that the moon formed within 60 million years of the birth of the solar system. Previous estimates ranged within 100 million years, all the way out to 200 million years of the solar system's creation. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

It turns out the moon is older than many scientists suspected: a ripe 4.51 billion years old.

That's the newest estimate, thanks to rocks and soil collected by the Apollo 14 moonwalkers in 1971.

A research team reported Wednesday that the moon formed within 60 million years of the birth of the solar system. Previous estimates ranged within 100 million years, all the way out to 200 million years after the solar system's creation, not quite 4.6 billion years ago.

The scientists conducted uranium-lead dating on fragments of the mineral zircon extracted from Apollo 14 lunar samples. The pieces of zircon were minuscule—no bigger than a grain of sand.

"Size doesn't matter, they record amazing information nonetheless!" lead author Melanie Barboni of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an email.

She noted that the moon holds "so much magic ... the key to understand how our beautiful Earth formed and evolved."

The moon was created from debris knocked off from Earth, which itself is thought to be roughly 4.54 billion years old.

Some of the eight zircon samples were used in a previous study, also conducted at UCLA, that utilized more limited techniques. Barboni said she is studying more zircons from Apollo 14 samples, but doesn't expect it to change her estimate of 4.51 billion years for the moon's age, possibly 4.52 billion years at the most.

Zircon extracted from lunar breccia 14304 collected during the Apollo 14 mission. Credit: Mélanie Barboni

"It would be more a double-checking than anything else," she explained. She and her colleagues—whose work appeared Wednesday in the journal Science Advances—are eager to learn more about the moon's history and, in turn, the evolution of early Earth and the entire solar system.

Apollo 14's Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell collected 92 pounds of rocks and used tubes to dig up soil while exploring the moon's Fra Mauro highlands in February 1971. They conducted two spacewalks, spending nine hours altogether out on the lunar surface.

It's the second major moon study this week.

On Monday, Israeli scientists suggested our Earth's constant companion may actually be a melting pot of many mini-moons. Rather than one giant impact that shaved off a chunk of Earth and formed the moon, a series of smaller collisions may have created multiple moonlets that eventually merged into one, according to the researchers.

Barboni said regardless of how the moon came to be—one big strike at Earth, many smaller ones or even none at all—"you still end up at the end solidifying the moon as we know it today."

In this Feb. 13, 1971 file photo, Apollo 14 astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr. conducts an experiment near a lunar crater, using an instrument from a two-wheeled cart carrying various tools. On Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017, a California-led research team reported that the moon formed within 60 million years of the birth of the solar system. Previous estimates ranged within 100 million years, all the way out to 200 million years of the solar system's creation. (NASA via AP)

The giant impact theory holds that the resulting energy formed a lunar lava ocean that later became solid. It's this solidification age that Barboni and her team have now ascertained.

"We finally pinned down a minimum age for the moon formation," she said, "regardless of how it formed."

Explore further: Study crashes main Moon-formation theory

More information: Early formation of the Moon 4.51 billion years ago Science Advances  11 Jan 2017: Vol. 3, no. 1, e1602365, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1602365 , http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1602365

Press release

Related Stories

Study crashes main Moon-formation theory

January 9, 2017

The Moon, our planet's constant companion for some 4.5 billion years, may have been forged by a rash of smaller bodies smashing into an embryonic Earth, researchers said Monday.

A dash of water on the lunar rocks

July 7, 2016

Ever since Apollo astronauts walked the lunar surface in 1969 and brought rocks back for laboratory analysis, it has been clear that lunar rocks are missing chemical components that boil off at relatively low temperature, ...

Water hidden in the Moon may have proto-Earth origin

September 10, 2013

Water found in ancient Moon rocks might have actually originated from the proto-Earth and even survived the Moon-forming event. Latest research into the amount of water within lunar rocks returned during the Apollo missions ...

SDO witnesses a double eclipse (w/ video)

September 2, 2016

Early in the morning of Sept. 1, 2016, NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, caught both Earth and the moon crossing in front of the sun. SDO keeps a constant eye on the sun, but during SDO's semiannual eclipse seasons, ...

Recommended for you

Three 'super-Earths' orbiting a cool dwarf star discovered

January 23, 2018

Using NASA's prolonged Kepler mission, known as K2, astronomers have found three new "super-Earth" exoplanets. The newly detected alien worlds orbit the cool dwarf star designated LP415-17. The finding is reported January ...

Dust storms linked to gas escape from Martian atmosphere

January 23, 2018

Some Mars experts are eager and optimistic for a dust storm this year to grow so grand it darkens skies around the entire Red Planet. This type of phenomenon in the environment of modern Mars could be examined as never before ...

Scientist proposes new definition of a planet

January 23, 2018

Pluto hogs the spotlight in the continuing scientific debate over what is and what is not a planet, but a less conspicuous argument rages on about the planetary status of massive objects outside our solar system. The dispute ...

5 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GuruShabu
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2017
The second figure, the image of the "zircon" is NOT a zircon!
It appears in the article "Researchers develop novel treatment to prevent graft-versus-host-disease" here at Physorg. (http://medicalxpr...se.html)
Just go and check yourself.
nilbud
Jan 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zzzzzzzz
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2017
guru, that fact doesn't support your assertion that its not a zircon....it simply means that it is the wrong picture for one or both articles. It could indeed be a zircon, used erroneously in the medical article.
del2
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2017
@Zzzzzzzz: they've changed the picture. The original one was definitely not a mineral. It was the wrong image, as GuruShabu says, and now they've put it right.
GuruShabu
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2017
@Zzzzzzzzz: Mate you have no clue about the shape and colour of minerals.
Even though you have a strong posture!
I am a mining engineer and during the university times (long ago) I was the student assistant for mineralogy.
A mineral (mostly when it is microscopic has crystallographic format) like Zircon has a rhombus shape with one axis 3 to 5 times longer than the shorter one.
The shape shown was obviously of an organic substance artificially coloured.
You have just shown you believe in yourself even when you have no clue about what you are saying.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.