Question About Tidal Locking

OP here bumping in the hopes a lunatic will come along

Nasa's GRAIL mission gravity maps seem to suggest the near side is heavier

A better question

How did meteors hit the side of the moon facing the earth?

>>8338936
that is a good question

>>8338936
Maybe they were passing by and the moon's magnetic field pulled them in?

>>8338936
well for one thing, the moon wasn't always tidally locked

it happened over time

probably other reasons too

File: earth-moon to scale.jpg (27KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1920x1080px

>>8338936

Planetary Scientist reporting in.

>>8338936
They struck the nearside before the moon was tidally locked, but after the volcanic flooding of the mare basins. Or were the result of small asteroids and debris that missed the earth due to their particular trajectory.

>>8338571
Some current theories suggest that its due to the dense volcanic basalt that covers much of the nearside of the moon.

As far as satellites, they typically have internal gyroscopes that can control their orientation to some degree and can be used to correct rotation.

>>8338955
Moon doesn't have a magnetic field, and its gravitational field is very weak compared to the earth's.

\thread

File: meteor.jpg (467KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 2560x1440px

>>8338936

>>8338571
>How come we see the side we see? Why it oriented the way it is and not some other way?
Chance, maybe slight inequalities in the moons density affected it

>Would one side being heavier mean that side is oriented toward the earth, or away?
Toward, the side facing us actually is heavier, because of tidal locking

>Is the side we see the one with greater mass, closer to the earth because it is being pulled more?
Yes

>When engineers want to lock a satellite in a specific orientation towards a body, what to they do to it to ensure it is in the desired orientation?
Spin it at the appropriate speed

>>8338936
They do at a far lower rate, but they can because there is a shitload of space between the earth and the moon

>>8339304

Elaborating on this: the dense mare basalt would cause a positive gravity anomaly on the nearside, so the gravitational attraction would be greater. Not by much, but enough after a couple billion years.

Also, much denser areas or areas with huge topography (like bulges or huge mountains) will tend to reorient the planet so they lay on the orbital equator.

One example is Mars: the Thrasis Rise (the giant mountain chain containing Olympus Mons, the largest volcano in the solar system) is so huge that it actually dominates the planet's gravity, and has caused Mars to re orientate itself so that the Thrasis Rise is on the equator.

It's actually pretty straightforward. If you have a ball, and a giant, heavy lump set to the side, and make it spin, regardless of how you have it spinning, eventually it'll spin so that the heavy lump is on the outside.

I can also answer planetary questions for people if they have any, I guess.

I've been reading a shitload on Impact Cratering lately, neat shit.

>>8339328
So tidal locking would over time exacerbate a preexisting density disparity? I read that the crust is thinner on the near side and that the heavy core is pulled towards the earth.

>>8339304
Makes sense. Regarding gravitational anomalies, I was with you until your ball/lump scenario... if you're saying the near side of the moon is heavier and a ball with a lump would have it's lump be on the outside after spinning, why is the heavy side of the moon on the inside of its orbit? Am I confusing rotation and orbit?


thank you for your answers!

>>8339489
>So tidal locking would over time exacerbate a preexisting density disparity?
Yes