The large slit on the moon's surface level?
470385
There is a large "wall" rift along one of the mares.
600600
hi, \n\nas i understand it, jupiter (and all the other gas giants, saturn uranus and neptune) don't really have a clear phase-separated surface, in the sense that earth/mars/moon do.\n\nthe interior structure of the planet is not well known, but it is believed that the atmosphere simply gets denser and denser as you go lower and lower, like fog that gets thicker and thicker until it's essentially liquid.  similarly as you go deeper yet, a smooth boundary between the liquid and solid is encountered.  however this has not really been directly confirmed.\n\nthe galileo mission to jupiter released a small probe, which descended into jupiter for 150 kilometers, until it was crushed by the high pressure of the atmosphere.\n\nhere are some resources that might help you out:\nhttp://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/jupiterpage.html\nhttp://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1989-084E\n\ncheers!
849809
Hi Richie.\n\nI got the Best Answer prize for a very similar question a few dyas ago on here that asked if you can see the American flag from Earth. The answer and the reason is exactly the same - so here it is again,\n\nThe Hubble Space telescope's maximum resolution is such that an entire Apollo landing site and exploration area are only 1/20th of a pixel. Hubble was designed with deep space astronomy in mind.\n\nEven the new OWL telescope (see Link 1) would only resolve the entire site to 2 pixels and would therefore not be enough to see the flag.\n\nIf your question is to prove that man actually walked on the moon then you need look no further than the Laser Reflector Experiment which constantly laser measures the distance between earth and moon. If the astronauts had never made it to the moon, they would not have been able to deploy these reflectors. (see Link 2) \n\nSource(s):\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2116...\n\nhttp://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/apollo11...\n\n\nPlease ignore the last bit - coz thankfully it looks like you are not one of those nutters !
512600
I'd see a waning gibbous moon.\n\nOur sentiments play tricks on us to make us think the moon is rarer than it used to be.  But it's been revolving around the earth for a very long time.
562255
Physical Characteristics\n\nThe study of the moon's surface increased with the invention of the telescope by Galileo in 1610 and culminated in 1969 when the first human actually set foot on the moon's surface. The physical characteristics and surface of the moon thus have been studied telescopically, photographically, and more recently by instruments carried by manned and unmanned spacecraft (see space exploration). The moon's diameter is about 2,160 mi (3,476 km), somewhat more than 1/4 the earth's diameter. The moon has about 1/81 the mass of the earth and is 3/5 as dense. On the moon's surface the force of gravitation is about 1/6 that on earth. It has been established that the moon completely lacks both water and atmosphere. The surface temperature rises above 100°C (212°F) at lunar noon and sinks below −155°C (−247°F) at night. The gross surface features of the moon are visible to the unaided eye and were first studied telescopically in 1610 by Galileo.\n\nSurface Features\n\nThe lunar surface is divided into the mountainous highlands and the large, roughly circular plains called maria (sing. mare; from Lat.,=sea) by early astronomers, who erroneously believed them to be bodies of water. The smooth floors of the maria, varying from flat to gently undulating, are covered by a thin layer of powdered rock that darkens them and accounts for the moon's low albedo (only 7% of the incident sunlight is reflected back, the rest being absorbed). The brighter regions on the moon are the mountainous highlands, where the terrain is rough and strewn with rocky rubble. The lunar mountain ranges, with heights up to 25,000 ft (7800 m), are comparable to the highest mountains on earth but in general are not very steep. The highlands are densely scarred by thousands of craters—shallow circular depressions, usually ringed by well-defined walls and often possessing a central peak. Craters range in diameter from a few feet to many miles, and in some regions there are so many that they overlap or several smaller craters lie within a large crater. Craters are also found on the maria, although there are nowhere near as many as in the lunar highlands. Other prominent surface features include the rilles and rays. Rilles are sinuous, canyonlike clefts found near the edges of mountain ranges. Rays are bright streaks radiating outward from certain craters, such as Tycho.\n\nMare and highland rocks differ in both appearance and chemical content. For example, mare rocks are richer in iron and poorer in aluminum than highland rocks. The maria consist largely of basalt, i.e., igneous rock formed from magma. In the highlands the majority of the rocks are breccias—conglomerates formed from basaltic rock and often studded with small, green, glassy spheres. These spheres probably were formed as the spray of molten rock, originally melted by the heat of meteorite impact, recongealed in midflight. The exposure ages of some rocks (the time their surfaces have been exposed to the action of cosmic rays that produce radioactive isotopes) are as short as 50 million years, much shorter than their crystallization ages. These rocks may have been shifted in position by meteorite impact or seismic activity (moonquakes). However, present lunar seismic activity is very low, corroborating the image of the moon as an essentially static, nonevolving world.\n\nInternal Structure\n\nDiffraction of seismic waves provided the first clear-cut evidence for a lunar crust, mantle, and core analogous to those of the earth. The lunar crust is about 45 mi (70 km) thick, making the moon a rigid solid to a greater depth than the earth. The inner core has a radius of about 600 mi (1,000 km), about 2/3 of the radius of the moon itself. The internal temperature decreases from 830°C (1,530°F) at the center to 170°C (340°F) near the surface. The heat traveling outward near the lunar surface is about half that of the earth but still twice that predicted b
1139401
Due to atmospheric interference, it would not be possible to see any mad made object left on the moon from a telescope on the surface of Earth.\nHowever, there is a very powerful, Earth orbiting, telescope which is free from atmospheric distortions…the Hubble space telescope.  However, even this telescope, as powerful as it is, could not possibly see the flag left on the moon.\n\nUsing a little math and common sense, it would not nearly be possible to see the flag on the moon with the Hubble space telescope.\n\nFirst, let’s get some basic facts straight.\nThe Diameter of the Hubble telescope is 2.4 meters and the distance from the Earth to the moon (on average) is about 3.84 E8 meters.\n\nPretty much the only thing limiting what Hubble can and cannot resolve is diffraction through a circular aperture (i.e. how light waves interact with each other when they get to Hubble's mirror.\nThe minimum angle which a circular aperture can resolve is given by the formula,\nTheta_min = 1.22 Lambda / D\nwhere Theta min is the minimum angle, Lambda is the wavelength of light we are using, and D is the diameter of the opening.\n\nIf we assume we are using light at 500 nm (roughly the middle of the visible spectrum) and we know that Hubble's diameter is 2.4 meters, we can find the minimum angle to be,\nTheta_min = 2.54 E-7 radians.\nThis is quite a small angle by Earthly standards, but will it compare to the angle to the flag on the moon?...we'll see.\n\nHere is where I have to make an assumption, but it is a very reasonable assumption and one that will assure us that out answer is correct. Watching the moon landing videos, one can see that the astronauts placed a moderately sized flag on a pole on the moon. Although I don’t know the exact dimensions of the flag, I can assure you, it was definitely no bigger than 10 ft. But for the sake of argument and to make the numbers easier, let’s assume it was 10 feet (~3 meters).\nIf the distance between the flag and Hubble is the same (about) as the distance from the Earth to the moon, then we can calculate the angle between the top of the flag and the bottom of the flag pole as seen by Hubble orbiting Earth. The angle comes out to be about, 7.81 E-9 radians, about 30 times SMALLER than the absolute minimum angle Hubble can resolve...and this is if we assume that the flag is 10 ft, which it obviously is smaller than that in reality.\n\nPlus, Hubble was specifically designed to look at VERY distant object. Although the moon is far away, it might as well be right next to us compared to the stars/galaxies/.. Hubble is supposed to be looking at. Therefore, I don’t know exactly how it will respond looking at such a close and bright object.\n\nOne this is sure through, you could not see the flag, even with one of the best telescopes ever built operating perfectly under ideal conditions using visible light.
455854
Yes, the moon is moving away at a rate of 3.8 centimetres per year. This was discovered by lunar laser ranging. Don't worry though, it's practically nothing.
438648
The Moon has a surface area of 152 million square kilometers.\nThe Earth is 13.5 times larger.
451129
It's all an illusion. The periterrestrial sky has tiny landmarks to make the moon look big. In the higher heaves all you see is sky, which shows the true tiny size of the moon.
1102968
The tidal forces of both the Moon AND the Sun.
710177
Its still a little bit dark and the light from earth when reflected back to the moon enables u 2 see the dark side of the moon but this will only happen when there is not enough light to block your view.
1072716
If you mean the line is level to the surface of the Earth all the way around, then no, it's approximately a big circle.
496457
i don't think so... yah it's true that when a big meteorit hit the earth o pretty big piece was separated and the scientists think the moon is that part, but i think the moon has completely different structure that ours
654103
While I've never heard that, I don't doubt that it was said. But it is false. Rumors like that start all the time. There has never been anything found on the moon. No alien structures, no "glass domes", nothing like that. Maybe they were seeing a weird inactive volcano of something. I don't know what it actually was, because like I said I've never heard that.
500831
http://www.almanac.com/astronomy/moon/index.php\n\nits waxing
826033
If you want additional information you will have better luck looking up formation of the moon rather than "moon split."  \n\nHere is the seminal paper supporting this hypothesis with a robust computer model.\n\nhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-45N4TKM-26&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F1996&_alid=491949780&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6821&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=182356e6b7c7f44dd9327d9e5d126f17\n\nThe publisher insists on keeping even this 10 year old publication for sale only.  Still, you can glean a lot from the free abstract.\n\n(P.S. I knew Robin Canup in grad school.  This was her PhD project!)
108945
You see the darkside during a fullmoon since what you see was the darkside two weeks earlier. I guess you mean the far side. That is a little harder but the Apollo program generated alot of pictures of the farside. Also numerous spaceprobes has mapped the entire surface of the moon. Should be plenty of pictures just on NASAs moon site.