APOD: Exaggerated Moon (2024 Jul 24)

[APOD Robot]

Exaggerated Moon

Explanation: Our Moon doesn't really have craters this big. Earth's Moon, Luna, also doesn't naturally show this spikey texture, and its colors are more subtle. But this digital creation is based on reality. The featured image is a digital composite of a good Moon image and surface height data taken from NASA's Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) mission -- and then exaggerated for educational understanding. The digital enhancements, for example, accentuate lunar highlands and show more clearly craters that illustrate the tremendous bombardment our Moon has been through during its 4.6-billion-year history. The dark areas, called maria, have fewer craters and were once seas of molten lava. Additionally, the image colors, although based on the moon's real composition, are changed and exaggerated. Here, a blue hue indicates a region that is iron rich, while orange indicates a slight excess of aluminum. Although the Moon has shown the same side to the Earth for billions of years, modern technology is allowing humanity to learn much more about it -- and how it affects the Earth.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[Ann]

I have only one thing to say about today's APOD - well, make that three things:

Exaggerated Moon.
Credit: NASA, Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter, Ildar Ibatullin

This is probably a relatively realistic picture of the Moon's true colors (except that the Moon is much darker than the pictures makes you believe). Credit: The Galileo spacecraft on its way to Jupiter.

---

Can you spot the red and blue spots on the Moon in the Galileo picture? No?

Here is a picture of the the Moon's south pole:

South pole of the Moon. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

---

Simple Wikipedia wrote:

The lunar south pole is a place on the Moon. It has a special interest because ice seems to be inside the craters.

As the moon orbits, it keeps one face always opposite the Earth. So when the Sun shines on it, it shines obliquely on the poles. Thus it never reaches the ice inside the craters, and the water stays frozen. The same pattern might apply to the Moon's northern pole, but that has fewer craters.

I like this picture that contrasts the far side of the Moon with the face of the Earth:

Earth and the far side of the moon on July 5, 2016. Credit: NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite, about 1.5 million km (930,000 mi) from Earth.

---

Ann

[zendae]

And there is another special interest involving the Moon's South Pole: it may harbor the coldest non-space areas in the entire Solar System. Almost everywhere, on every rocky planet and moon, there are places that receive no direct sunlight, but according to current data, all receive secondary light...except for some areas in craters in the South Pole of our Moon.

Perhaps, since science is an evolving gestalt, if you will, the data on this could change. But for now, our own Moon has the coldest temps in the entire Solar System.

[illexsquid]

Love today's image! Unique processing of real data gives an entirely new perspective. I'd love to see the far side. The South Pole-Aitken basin is apparent but subtle in global images of the far side, once you know it's there. It would be fascinating to see how it affects smaller-scale topography , like this image processing shows.

[Christian G.]

Cool APOD! Especially if you click twice and see up close your favorite craters and features (Mare Crisium looks awesome indeed, Ann!)

[johnnydeep]

And there is another special interest involving the Moon's South Pole: it may harbor the coldest non-space areas in the entire Solar System. Almost everywhere, on every rocky planet and moon, there are places that receive no direct sunlight, but according to current data, all receive secondary light...except for some areas in craters in the South Pole of our Moon.

Perhaps, since science is an evolving gestalt, if you will, the data on this could change. But for now, our own Moon has the coldest temps in the entire Solar System.

Really? Pluto? Sedna? Other dwarf planets? Very long long duration comets?

[johnnydeep]

Can you say "trypophobia"? From https://www.healthline.com/health/trypophobia:

Trypophobia refers to a strong fear of closely packed holes. People typically feel queasy, disgusted, and distressed when looking at surfaces that have small holes gathered close together.

The name trypophobia, first introduced on a web forum in 2005, combines the Greek words “trypa” (punching or drilling holes) and “phobia” (fear or aversion).

[johnwaynewooten@gmail.com]

Does a similar plot exist yet for farside?

[johnnydeep]

Can you spot the red and blue spots on the Moon in the Galileo picture? No?

I only see a few bluish spots. Where are the red one? (I assume the red swath near the top is an artifact.)

[Ann]

And there is another special interest involving the Moon's South Pole: it may harbor the coldest non-space areas in the entire Solar System. Almost everywhere, on every rocky planet and moon, there are places that receive no direct sunlight, but according to current data, all receive secondary light...except for some areas in craters in the South Pole of our Moon.

Perhaps, since science is an evolving gestalt, if you will, the data on this could change. But for now, our own Moon has the coldest temps in the entire Solar System.

Really? Pluto? Sedna? Other dwarf planets? Very long long duration comets?

Okay, I asked Google.

University of Hull wrote:

What is the coldest planet in the Solar System? – Sejal, aged seven, Bangalore, India

The planets in our Solar System are heated by the Sun. Here on Earth, we are about 100 million miles away from the Sun – a distance that provides the perfect temperature for life.

You might think, then, that the coldest planet in the Solar System would be Neptune, as it is the furthest away from the Sun’s warmth. Neptune is an incredible three billion miles away from the Sun.

However, the coldest planet is not Neptune, but Uranus – even though Uranus is a billion miles closer to the Sun than Neptune. Uranus holds the record for the coldest temperature ever measured in the Solar System: a very chilly -224℃. The temperature on Neptune is still very cold, of course – usually around -214℃ – but Uranus beats that.
...
You might also be surprised to learn that the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury, can also be extremely cold. While the side of Mercury facing the Sun is more than 400℃, the side facing away from the Sun is nearly -200℃.

Well, there is nothing here about the temperature of the south pole of the Moon, so I asked Google specifically about that, and this is what it told me:

Adda247 wrote:

The moon’s south pole experiences extreme temperatures due to its location.
Temperatures can drop to as low as -230 degrees Celsius (-382 degrees Fahrenheit) in shadowed regions.
Such frigid conditions are attributed to the prolonged absence of sunlight in certain areas.

So that suggests that the south pole of the Moon is colder than Uranus or Neptune! But I don't believe that is true. There are probably places on Uranus or Neptune that can drop below 230^oC. And if not, then at least Pluto beats the south pole of the Moon when it comes to ultra-freezing temperatures:

Science.nasa.gov wrote:

On average, Pluto’s temperature is -387°F (-232°C), making it too cold to sustain life.

So Pluto might be the Ice Cold Champion of the Solar system! But I would guess that there are other Kuiper Belt objects that are still colder!

Ann

[Ann]

Can you spot the red and blue spots on the Moon in the Galileo picture? No?

I only see a few bluish spots. Where are the red one? (I assume the red swath near the top is an artifact.)

Really, you couldn't spot it? I only marked the two most obvious spots.

The Moon by Galileo.

---

The two most obvious red and blue spots on the Moon.

Compare with the APOD:

Vivid-looking red and blue spots on the Moon in the APOD.

---

But the colors of these two spots are so subtle that it is no wonder at all if you really, really, couldn't spot them.

Ann

[johnnydeep]

Can you spot the red and blue spots on the Moon in the Galileo picture? No?

I only see a few bluish spots. Where are the red one? (I assume the red swath near the top is an artifact.)

Really, you couldn't spot it? I only marked the two most obvious spots.

The Moon by Galileo.

---

The Moon by Galileo red blue annotated.png

The two most obvious red and blue spots on the Moon.

Compare with the APOD:

Vivid-looking red and blue spots on the Moon in the APOD.

---

But the colors of these two spots are so subtle that it is no wonder at all if you really, really, couldn't spot them.

Ann

Thanks. I wasn't looking for something so subtle, at least to my non-color commentator eye.

[Cousin Ricky]

I’d like to know the vertical exaggeration of this render. Apparently, I need to have an Instagram account to view details on the source image.

[Tekija]

Can you say "trypophobia"? From https://www.healthline.com/health/trypophobia:

Trypophobia refers to a strong fear of closely packed holes. People typically feel queasy, disgusted, and distressed when looking at surfaces that have small holes gathered close together.

The name trypophobia, first introduced on a web forum in 2005, combines the Greek words “trypa” (punching or drilling holes) and “phobia” (fear or aversion).

https://www.reddit.com/r/trypophobia/

[illexsquid]

I’d like to know the vertical exaggeration of this render. Apparently, I need to have an Instagram account to view details on the source image.

The Instagram post only says "I have created an image of the Moon with increased relief contrast by several tens of times". An exact factor is not given, but the order of magnitude is probably good enough for conversational purposes.

ETA: The post also says that the image was created in Blender, so it may be that the OP doesn't even know or remember what the relief exaggeration multiple was. I believe it can be a slider, so OP just manipulated it until they got something satisfying-looking.

[johnnydeep]

Can you say "trypophobia"? From https://www.healthline.com/health/trypophobia:

Trypophobia refers to a strong fear of closely packed holes. People typically feel queasy, disgusted, and distressed when looking at surfaces that have small holes gathered close together.

The name trypophobia, first introduced on a web forum in 2005, combines the Greek words “trypa” (punching or drilling holes) and “phobia” (fear or aversion).

https://www.reddit.com/r/trypophobia/

I'll spare you any images of the result of removing the denizens of a dense patch of mango worms on a dog or cat. Google at your own risk!

[zendae]

And there is another special interest involving the Moon's South Pole: it may harbor the coldest non-space areas in the entire Solar System. Almost everywhere, on every rocky planet and moon, there are places that receive no direct sunlight, but according to current data, all receive secondary light...except for some areas in craters in the South Pole of our Moon.

Perhaps, since science is an evolving gestalt, if you will, the data on this could change. But for now, our own Moon has the coldest temps in the entire Solar System.

Really? Pluto? Sedna? Other dwarf planets? Very long long duration comets?

"<iframe width="1389" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nPYEDuNmf0k" title="Sumo - Kinder | Galileo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>"

Okay, I asked Google.

University of Hull wrote:

What is the coldest planet in the Solar System? – Sejal, aged seven, Bangalore, India

The planets in our Solar System are heated by the Sun. Here on Earth, we are about 100 million miles away from the Sun – a distance that provides the perfect temperature for life.

You might think, then, that the coldest planet in the Solar System would be Neptune, as it is the furthest away from the Sun’s warmth. Neptune is an incredible three billion miles away from the Sun.

However, the coldest planet is not Neptune, but Uranus – even though Uranus is a billion miles closer to the Sun than Neptune. Uranus holds the record for the coldest temperature ever measured in the Solar System: a very chilly -224℃. The temperature on Neptune is still very cold, of course – usually around -214℃ – but Uranus beats that.
...
You might also be surprised to learn that the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury, can also be extremely cold. While the side of Mercury facing the Sun is more than 400℃, the side facing away from the Sun is nearly -200℃.

Well, there is nothing here about the temperature of the south pole of the Moon, so I asked Google specifically about that, and this is what it told me:

Adda247 wrote:

The moon’s south pole experiences extreme temperatures due to its location.
Temperatures can drop to as low as -230 degrees Celsius (-382 degrees Fahrenheit) in shadowed regions.
Such frigid conditions are attributed to the prolonged absence of sunlight in certain areas.

So that suggests that the south pole of the Moon is colder than Uranus or Neptune! But I don't believe that is true. There are probably places on Uranus or Neptune that can drop below 230^oC. And if not, then at least Pluto beats the south pole of the Moon when it comes to ultra-freezing temperatures:

Science.nasa.gov wrote:

On average, Pluto’s temperature is -387°F (-232°C), making it too cold to sustain life.

So Pluto might be the Ice Cold Champion of the Solar system! But I would guess that there are other Kuiper Belt objects that are still colder!

Ann

Nope.
"Observed temperatures range from a blistering 127 C (260 F) in equatorial sunlight down to a frosty -238 C (-397 F) in the permanently shadowed regions of the poles. "

https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2 ... ental-moon

[Ann]

Really? Pluto? Sedna? Other dwarf planets? Very long long duration comets?

"<iframe width="1389" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nPYEDuNmf0k" title="Sumo - Kinder | Galileo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>"

Okay, I asked Google.

University of Hull wrote:

What is the coldest planet in the Solar System? – Sejal, aged seven, Bangalore, India

The planets in our Solar System are heated by the Sun. Here on Earth, we are about 100 million miles away from the Sun – a distance that provides the perfect temperature for life.

You might think, then, that the coldest planet in the Solar System would be Neptune, as it is the furthest away from the Sun’s warmth. Neptune is an incredible three billion miles away from the Sun.

However, the coldest planet is not Neptune, but Uranus – even though Uranus is a billion miles closer to the Sun than Neptune. Uranus holds the record for the coldest temperature ever measured in the Solar System: a very chilly -224℃. The temperature on Neptune is still very cold, of course – usually around -214℃ – but Uranus beats that.
...
You might also be surprised to learn that the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury, can also be extremely cold. While the side of Mercury facing the Sun is more than 400℃, the side facing away from the Sun is nearly -200℃.

Well, there is nothing here about the temperature of the south pole of the Moon, so I asked Google specifically about that, and this is what it told me:

Adda247 wrote:

The moon’s south pole experiences extreme temperatures due to its location.
Temperatures can drop to as low as -230 degrees Celsius (-382 degrees Fahrenheit) in shadowed regions.
Such frigid conditions are attributed to the prolonged absence of sunlight in certain areas.

So that suggests that the south pole of the Moon is colder than Uranus or Neptune! But I don't believe that is true. There are probably places on Uranus or Neptune that can drop below 230^oC. And if not, then at least Pluto beats the south pole of the Moon when it comes to ultra-freezing temperatures:

Science.nasa.gov wrote:

On average, Pluto’s temperature is -387°F (-232°C), making it too cold to sustain life.

So Pluto might be the Ice Cold Champion of the Solar system! But I would guess that there are other Kuiper Belt objects that are still colder!

Ann

Nope.
"Observed temperatures range from a blistering 127 C (260 F) in equatorial sunlight down to a frosty -238 C (-397 F) in the permanently shadowed regions of the poles. "

https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2 ... ental-moon

Okay!

But bear in mind that the extreme proximity of the Earth's own moon means that we have great opportunities to observe it. If the temperature of very small spots on the Moon is indeed -238 C, then we are indeed able to confirm it.

When it comes to objects in the Kuiper Belt, we have either few or no chances to actually observe either their mean temperatures or their very coldest spots.

Ann

[zendae]

Agreed, as I implied. But for now, our Moon wins!

[Chris Peterson]

Okay, I asked Google.



Well, there is nothing here about the temperature of the south pole of the Moon, so I asked Google specifically about that, and this is what it told me:



So that suggests that the south pole of the Moon is colder than Uranus or Neptune! But I don't believe that is true. There are probably places on Uranus or Neptune that can drop below 230^oC. And if not, then at least Pluto beats the south pole of the Moon when it comes to ultra-freezing temperatures:



So Pluto might be the Ice Cold Champion of the Solar system! But I would guess that there are other Kuiper Belt objects that are still colder!

Ann

Nope.
"Observed temperatures range from a blistering 127 C (260 F) in equatorial sunlight down to a frosty -238 C (-397 F) in the permanently shadowed regions of the poles. "

https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2 ... ental-moon

Okay!

But bear in mind that the extreme proximity of the Earth's own moon means that we have great opportunities to observe it. If the temperature of very small spots on the Moon is indeed -238 C, then we are indeed able to confirm it.

When it comes to objects in the Kuiper Belt, we have either few or no chances to actually observe either their mean temperatures or their very coldest spots.

Ann

For Kuiper Belt object, though, we don't really need to measure them. We know that they are not tidally locked to the Sun, and therefore have their entire surfaces exposed to sunlight as they rotate. And even at that distance, that's a lot of heating when we're talking about objects sitting at just a few tens of kelvins. So given some reasonable assumptions about the range of emissivity for space weathered bodies (which we have observational evidence to support), reasonable estimates of temperature can be calculated.

[VictorBorun]

For Kuiper Belt object, though, we don't really need to measure them. We know that they are not tidally locked to the Sun, and therefore have their entire surfaces exposed to sunlight as they rotate. And even at that distance, that's a lot of heating when we're talking about objects sitting at just a few tens of kelvins. So given some reasonable assumptions about the range of emissivity for space weathered bodies (which we have observational evidence to support), reasonable estimates of temperature can be calculated.

but what if some Kuiper asteroids are slow enough rotating to cool their night's side and large enough to isolate it thermally from their day's side?

[Chris Peterson]

For Kuiper Belt object, though, we don't really need to measure them. We know that they are not tidally locked to the Sun, and therefore have their entire surfaces exposed to sunlight as they rotate. And even at that distance, that's a lot of heating when we're talking about objects sitting at just a few tens of kelvins. So given some reasonable assumptions about the range of emissivity for space weathered bodies (which we have observational evidence to support), reasonable estimates of temperature can be calculated.

but what if some Kuiper asteroids are slow enough rotating to cool their night's side and large enough to isolate it thermally from their day's side?

Seems unlikely. Slow rotation also means that there's greater, deeper heating of the surface facing the Sun, which will take longer to radiate away when it eventually makes it to the long night.

[Ann]

Nope.
"Observed temperatures range from a blistering 127 C (260 F) in equatorial sunlight down to a frosty -238 C (-397 F) in the permanently shadowed regions of the poles. "

https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2 ... ental-moon

Okay!

But bear in mind that the extreme proximity of the Earth's own moon means that we have great opportunities to observe it. If the temperature of very small spots on the Moon is indeed -238 C, then we are indeed able to confirm it.

When it comes to objects in the Kuiper Belt, we have either few or no chances to actually observe either their mean temperatures or their very coldest spots.

Ann

For Kuiper Belt object, though, we don't really need to measure them. We know that they are not tidally locked to the Sun, and therefore have their entire surfaces exposed to sunlight as they rotate. And even at that distance, that's a lot of heating when we're talking about objects sitting at just a few tens of kelvins. So given some reasonable assumptions about the range of emissivity for space weathered bodies (which we have observational evidence to support), reasonable estimates of temperature can be calculated.

Can't Pluto, like the Moon, have spots that are never exposed to the Sun? Or that doesn't happen, because the orbit of Pluto is not in the same plane as the other planets? What about any other moons in the Solar system?

Ann

[Chris Peterson]

Okay!

But bear in mind that the extreme proximity of the Earth's own moon means that we have great opportunities to observe it. If the temperature of very small spots on the Moon is indeed -238 C, then we are indeed able to confirm it.

When it comes to objects in the Kuiper Belt, we have either few or no chances to actually observe either their mean temperatures or their very coldest spots.

Ann

For Kuiper Belt object, though, we don't really need to measure them. We know that they are not tidally locked to the Sun, and therefore have their entire surfaces exposed to sunlight as they rotate. And even at that distance, that's a lot of heating when we're talking about objects sitting at just a few tens of kelvins. So given some reasonable assumptions about the range of emissivity for space weathered bodies (which we have observational evidence to support), reasonable estimates of temperature can be calculated.

Can't Pluto, like the Moon, have spots that are never exposed to the Sun? Or that doesn't happen, because the orbit of Pluto is not in the same plane as the other planets? What about any other moons in the Solar system?

Ann

I don't know about Pluto. All the other moons, though, are tidally locked to their planets, so one side is heated from the planet, and other from the Sun as they rotate/orbit.

Of course, the cold spots on the Moon are created by relatively shallow craters and specifics of the Moon's orientation. If we allow for deeper holes, it's easier never to see the Sun. So it's easy to believe that there are bodies out there with deep sinkholes or old vents that are very, very cold at their bases.

[Ann]

I don't know about Pluto. All the other moons, though, are tidally locked to their planets, so one side is heated from the planet, and other from the Sun as they rotate/orbit.

Of course, the cold spots on the Moon are created by relatively shallow craters and specifics of the Moon's orientation. If we allow for deeper holes, it's easier never to see the Sun. So it's easy to believe that there are bodies out there with deep sinkholes or old vents that are very, very cold at their bases.

Well, there are caves on Mars (or there appears to be).

A possible cave on Mars. Image credit: NASA / Jet Propulsion Laboratory / University of Arizona

---

If there really are caves on Mars and the caves are deep and never exposed to sunlight near bottom, could they be very cold?

Ann