Premium
S ummary *
Author(s) -
Leerink Swann
Publication year - 1965
Publication title -
annals of the new york academy of sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.712
H-Index - 248
eISSN - 1749-6632
pISSN - 0077-8923
DOI - 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1965.tb57140.x
Subject(s) - annals , citation , closing (real estate) , session (web analytics) , library science , history , computer science , classics , world wide web , law , political science
J. GREEN (North Ameri-can Aviation, Downey, Caiii.) : In this conference an attempt has been made to present first a historical background on which selected aspects of opposing views in lunar geology might be examined. We have heard papers supporting the viewpoint that defluidization may be the dominant mechanism controlled by tidal, tectonic, and radioactive energy sources. We have been presented with evidence that impact could provide some of this energy. We have been exposed to ideas on lunar convection currents, impact magmas, vesiculation processes, and caldera evolution. Some clues to the processes that have shaped the lunar microand macrorelief were followed by discussions of lunar surface changes. Then we returned to earth for contributions on caldera and cryptoexplosion morphology and genesis with specifics on shatter coning. A discussion of tektites highlighted points of agreement and disagreement especially from a geochronological aspect. Finally we returned to the moon for a brief appraisal as to how impact or volcanic processes might help us use the moon for technological purposes. Out of this spectrum of inquiry, it is worthwhile to ask ourselves three questions: (1) What are our objectives in studying the moon? (2) What have we omitted in this symposium? (3) What are some specific recommendations and some general recommendations that might be directed toward the scientific community? E. AZMON (Northrop Space Laboratories, Hawthorne, Calif.) : [Relative to this first point.] it might be worthwhile to ask: "What is it we are trying to prove?" Sometimes after you have spent several hundred years arguing about a subject, you tend to lose the original aim of the proof. It occurred to me that, except for marginal collision between the volcanists and the impact advocates, the argument is about two different problems that are not too much related. Let's ask ourselves, what do we want to know? Do we want to know the origin of the moon? The origin of the solar system? Do we want to know the origin of specific features on the surface of the moon? The answers to these questions would guide us as to what specifics we are looking for. So, let us assume for a moment that what we are interested in is the origin of the moon as a part of the solar system.