What do you think?
Rate this book
The Big Splat, or How Our Moon Came to Be
The first popular book to explain the dramatic theory behind the Moon's genesis This lively science history relates one of the great recent breakthroughs in planetary astronomy-a successful theory of the birth of the Moon. Science journalist Dana Mackenzie traces the evolution of this theory, one little known outside the scientific community: a Mars-sized object collided with Earth some four billion years ago, and the remains of this colossal explosion-the Big Splat-came together to form the Moon. Beginning with notions of the Moon in ancient cosmologies, Mackenzie relates the fascinating history of lunar speculation, moving from Galileo and Kepler to George Darwin (son of Charles) and the Apollo astronauts, whose trips to the lunar surface helped solve one of the most enigmatic mysteries of the night sky: who hung the Moon? Dana Mackenzie (Santa Cruz, CA) is a freelance science journalist. His articles have appeared in such magazines as Science, Discover, American Scientist, The Sciences, and New Scientist.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2003
20 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
About the author
Dana Mackenzie
27 books53 followers"Think of what you wanted to do when you were a child, and try to make that happen."
In 1996, I was facing the inevitability of a career change. My teaching appointment at a liberal arts college was running out, and the job market was dismal. One of my contacts gave me the advice above, and as corny as it sounds, it really did put things into perspective for me.
When I was a child, the only thing I wanted to be was a writer. I wrote my first book, "The Littlest Inchwarm" (sic), at age five. In fourth grade, when each student had to write two reports during the year, I wrote 101 (making liberal use of the Encyclopedia Britannica). Yes, I caught the writing bug early.
But how to make it happen? Well, fortunately, I found out about the Science Communication Program at UC Santa Cruz, which provided me the training and, more importantly, the attitude adjustment necessary to make the leap from academia to journalism. After a year as a SciCommie in 1996-97, I was ready to hang out my shingle as a freelance writer, and that has been my career ever since.
Most of my writing has been for popular science magazines (New Scientist, Science, Discover). Recently, I have started to do quite a bit of contract work (National Academy of Sciences, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics). And as you can see from this web page, I also write books.
Because my academic specialty was math, I tend to write about topics that involve mathematics in some way. (But not always! My first book, The Big Splat, or How Our Moon Came to Be, has very little math in it.) I especially like to find what veteran Los Angeles Times journalist K.C. Cole calls "stealth math" -- mathematics hidden in ordinary life, or in other parts of science. I try to break down the barriers that block many people from understanding and appreciating mathematics. My latest book, The Universe in Zero Words, was definitely written with these goals in mind.
I have a wealth of interests besides math and writing. I play chess and write a chess blog (dana blogs chess). I started hula dancing several years ago, a great way of learning about the Hawaiian culture. Also, my wife Kay and I volunteer at the local animal shelter and take foster care of kittens who are too young to adopt. One of them, a big and beautiful and gentle and hug-loving tuxedo cat named Max, stayed with us for keeps.
Sometimes, as I watch deadlines slipping away, I think I should cut back on all these "extracurricular activities," but most of the time I think they help keep me sane. Also, going to the beach (one mile from where I live in Santa Cruz) and watching the waves has a similar effect.
Please visit my home page, http://danamackenzie.com, for more information about me, or go to Max's channel on YouTube if you just want to watch cute kittie videos!
In 1996, I was facing the inevitability of a career change. My teaching appointment at a liberal arts college was running out, and the job market was dismal. One of my contacts gave me the advice above, and as corny as it sounds, it really did put things into perspective for me.
When I was a child, the only thing I wanted to be was a writer. I wrote my first book, "The Littlest Inchwarm" (sic), at age five. In fourth grade, when each student had to write two reports during the year, I wrote 101 (making liberal use of the Encyclopedia Britannica). Yes, I caught the writing bug early.
But how to make it happen? Well, fortunately, I found out about the Science Communication Program at UC Santa Cruz, which provided me the training and, more importantly, the attitude adjustment necessary to make the leap from academia to journalism. After a year as a SciCommie in 1996-97, I was ready to hang out my shingle as a freelance writer, and that has been my career ever since.
Most of my writing has been for popular science magazines (New Scientist, Science, Discover). Recently, I have started to do quite a bit of contract work (National Academy of Sciences, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics). And as you can see from this web page, I also write books.
Because my academic specialty was math, I tend to write about topics that involve mathematics in some way. (But not always! My first book, The Big Splat, or How Our Moon Came to Be, has very little math in it.) I especially like to find what veteran Los Angeles Times journalist K.C. Cole calls "stealth math" -- mathematics hidden in ordinary life, or in other parts of science. I try to break down the barriers that block many people from understanding and appreciating mathematics. My latest book, The Universe in Zero Words, was definitely written with these goals in mind.
I have a wealth of interests besides math and writing. I play chess and write a chess blog (dana blogs chess). I started hula dancing several years ago, a great way of learning about the Hawaiian culture. Also, my wife Kay and I volunteer at the local animal shelter and take foster care of kittens who are too young to adopt. One of them, a big and beautiful and gentle and hug-loving tuxedo cat named Max, stayed with us for keeps.
Sometimes, as I watch deadlines slipping away, I think I should cut back on all these "extracurricular activities," but most of the time I think they help keep me sane. Also, going to the beach (one mile from where I live in Santa Cruz) and watching the waves has a similar effect.
Please visit my home page, http://danamackenzie.com, for more information about me, or go to Max's channel on YouTube if you just want to watch cute kittie videos!
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 5, 2015
On the surface, this is a book that looks like it's just going to explain how the moon originated and the currently accepted theory that it happened after a massive collision with another astral body nearly the size of Mars. This book is much, much more than just that. Dana Mackenzie takes us ALL the way back to early Greek philosophers and how they viewed the moon and theorized it's existence. He then takes us step-by-step through time and human history to trace all major theories (okay - some minor ones too), scientific players, and general societal views about the moon.
Well over half of the first part of the book deals with the history of the science of the moon. That worked perfectly for me because The History of Science is in the top ten list of things I'm never tired of learning more about. The Big Splat ranks right up there with some of the best history of science books I've read. He talks about many famous scientists that nearly everyone has heard of, and discusses what they had to do with lunar studies and if/how they advanced the field. Some of the big names she hits are Aristotle, Galileo, George Darwin, Newton, and Kepler. Mackenzie also takes time with lesser known scientists and philosophers that have played a part in the story of the moon.
The last portion of the book brings us into the 20th century and our current understanding of lunar origins.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and more importantly, I learned a TON. Ever the magpie collector when it comes to knowledge, this one gave me many new insights, facts, and things to ponder and store away in my head to mull over later.
My Magpie Knowledge Review: With Video!
Well over half of the first part of the book deals with the history of the science of the moon. That worked perfectly for me because The History of Science is in the top ten list of things I'm never tired of learning more about. The Big Splat ranks right up there with some of the best history of science books I've read. He talks about many famous scientists that nearly everyone has heard of, and discusses what they had to do with lunar studies and if/how they advanced the field. Some of the big names she hits are Aristotle, Galileo, George Darwin, Newton, and Kepler. Mackenzie also takes time with lesser known scientists and philosophers that have played a part in the story of the moon.
The last portion of the book brings us into the 20th century and our current understanding of lunar origins.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book and more importantly, I learned a TON. Ever the magpie collector when it comes to knowledge, this one gave me many new insights, facts, and things to ponder and store away in my head to mull over later.
My Magpie Knowledge Review: With Video!
Read
February 27, 2020The Big Splat, or How the Moon Came to Be could have been titled What We Now Believe About How the Moon Came to Be, and What We Used to Believe About the Moon Dating Back to the Beginning of Time. Yes, literally. Back to the time when people in villages used the moon as a light to see by, and a calendar to mark the seasons. And then through the Greek natural philosophers, then Aristotle, then Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.
At first I thought this was kind of silly. Does it really matter what someone in 500 BC thought about the moon? But it is true that every scientific theory is in part an answer to the theories that came before it. Every new discovery changes what we thought before. And if you keep going back and back to compare to what we thought before, where do you stop? Besides, Dana Mackenzie, student of the moon, is also a student of everyone else who has also been fascinated by the moon, studied the moon, loved the moon. He calls these people “looneys,” a certain kind of fraternity.
And Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was one of the first people to base his theories about the moon on something like evidence. When a meteorite fell to earth in Thrace, he took a trip to go check it out. And he came to the conclusion that there were rocks in the sky. That the sun and the moon were really giant rocks. He got exiled from Athens for that one, but it was a step forward.
Fast forward to modern times, there came to be three main theories for how the moon was formed. Mackenzie calls them Daughter Moon, Captive Moon, and Sister Moon.
Daughter moon is the fission theory, that both earth and moon formed at the same time from a common mass. In the process of spinning, the moon pinched off from the earth, or the earth flung the moon off. George Darwin was a famous proponent of this theory. He was the son of Charles Darwin, a renowned scientist in his day and almost forgotten now.
Captive Moon is called the capture theory, the idea that a body was passing by the earth, got too close and got captured into earth’s gravity, and pulled into orbit. Thomas Jefferson Jackson See was a major proponent of this theory, a man who is interesting because he was so arrogant that no one could stand to be around him, and he ended his career being a timekeeper on a remote island.
Sister Moon is the co-accretion theory that the earth and the moon formed at the same time when a giant nebula cooled, and the bits of stuff stuck together into balls. One ball became the earth, and one the moon.
And then we went to the moon, and collected rocks, and got some new evidence. One piece of evidence was that there had been volcanic activity on the moon, and magma oceans. Another piece of evidence was that the things on the moon that looked like impact craters were in fact impact craters.
The moon went through a period called the Late Heavy Bombardment when it was being hit repeatedly. But if the moon was being pummeled, why wasn’t the earth? Turns out it was. Earth also has impact craters, they are just hidden by vegetation, and softened by erosion.
And that led to the theory that Mackenzie calls the Big Splat, and is more commonly called the giant impact theory (proposed more or less simultaneously by the teams of Hartmann and Davis, and Cameron and Ward). Suppose a really big rock, a small planet really, hit the earth, and hit it fast, and hit it hard, and hit it at such an angle that there was an explosion of debris. Some of the bits of debris fell back to earth, and some of it became the moon. The thing that hit came to be called Theia, the “doomed planet,” since after it hit earth it was no more.
When Mackenzie describes each of these theories, he includes a lot more science than I have, and goes into the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. The climax of the story is a 1984 moon scientists convention in Kona, Hawaii. At this conference, many people came in believing the traditional three theories, and many more came in believing it was impossible to know. Bill Hartmann gave a talk about the giant impact theory. All the various theories were compared for how well they could solve the various problems of moon formation (like, for example, how to explain that the earth has lots of iron and the moon has almost none). No theory was perfect, but the giant impact theory was the best fit, and almost overnight it became the scientific consensus.
Mackenzie, who like most people who love science, writes about the discoveries described here with excitement and wonder. But he acknowledges that not everyone feels the same way. He ends the book with an appendix, “Did we really go to the moon?” Point by point he rebuts the conspiracy theorists who say the moon landing was faked. Mackenzie asks, “Could all this evidence have been faked?” Spoiler alert: No.
At first I thought this was kind of silly. Does it really matter what someone in 500 BC thought about the moon? But it is true that every scientific theory is in part an answer to the theories that came before it. Every new discovery changes what we thought before. And if you keep going back and back to compare to what we thought before, where do you stop? Besides, Dana Mackenzie, student of the moon, is also a student of everyone else who has also been fascinated by the moon, studied the moon, loved the moon. He calls these people “looneys,” a certain kind of fraternity.
And Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was one of the first people to base his theories about the moon on something like evidence. When a meteorite fell to earth in Thrace, he took a trip to go check it out. And he came to the conclusion that there were rocks in the sky. That the sun and the moon were really giant rocks. He got exiled from Athens for that one, but it was a step forward.
Fast forward to modern times, there came to be three main theories for how the moon was formed. Mackenzie calls them Daughter Moon, Captive Moon, and Sister Moon.
Daughter moon is the fission theory, that both earth and moon formed at the same time from a common mass. In the process of spinning, the moon pinched off from the earth, or the earth flung the moon off. George Darwin was a famous proponent of this theory. He was the son of Charles Darwin, a renowned scientist in his day and almost forgotten now.
Captive Moon is called the capture theory, the idea that a body was passing by the earth, got too close and got captured into earth’s gravity, and pulled into orbit. Thomas Jefferson Jackson See was a major proponent of this theory, a man who is interesting because he was so arrogant that no one could stand to be around him, and he ended his career being a timekeeper on a remote island.
Sister Moon is the co-accretion theory that the earth and the moon formed at the same time when a giant nebula cooled, and the bits of stuff stuck together into balls. One ball became the earth, and one the moon.
And then we went to the moon, and collected rocks, and got some new evidence. One piece of evidence was that there had been volcanic activity on the moon, and magma oceans. Another piece of evidence was that the things on the moon that looked like impact craters were in fact impact craters.
The moon went through a period called the Late Heavy Bombardment when it was being hit repeatedly. But if the moon was being pummeled, why wasn’t the earth? Turns out it was. Earth also has impact craters, they are just hidden by vegetation, and softened by erosion.
And that led to the theory that Mackenzie calls the Big Splat, and is more commonly called the giant impact theory (proposed more or less simultaneously by the teams of Hartmann and Davis, and Cameron and Ward). Suppose a really big rock, a small planet really, hit the earth, and hit it fast, and hit it hard, and hit it at such an angle that there was an explosion of debris. Some of the bits of debris fell back to earth, and some of it became the moon. The thing that hit came to be called Theia, the “doomed planet,” since after it hit earth it was no more.
When Mackenzie describes each of these theories, he includes a lot more science than I have, and goes into the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. The climax of the story is a 1984 moon scientists convention in Kona, Hawaii. At this conference, many people came in believing the traditional three theories, and many more came in believing it was impossible to know. Bill Hartmann gave a talk about the giant impact theory. All the various theories were compared for how well they could solve the various problems of moon formation (like, for example, how to explain that the earth has lots of iron and the moon has almost none). No theory was perfect, but the giant impact theory was the best fit, and almost overnight it became the scientific consensus.
Mackenzie, who like most people who love science, writes about the discoveries described here with excitement and wonder. But he acknowledges that not everyone feels the same way. He ends the book with an appendix, “Did we really go to the moon?” Point by point he rebuts the conspiracy theorists who say the moon landing was faked. Mackenzie asks, “Could all this evidence have been faked?” Spoiler alert: No.
September 23, 2009
I'm not a humongous fan of reading Non-Fiction for pleasure. Non-Fic is to be studied and used in my own creations via notes etc. (or in the past, studied and tests taken on the subjects). That said, when I saw the author, Dana Mackenzie on the TV Show "The Universe" talking about this 'new' theory (hey, it was new to me) that the moon, our moon, was created by a 'great impact', it intrigued me. I realized that I had never really thought about how the moon came to be. I have no doubt that at some point in school we learned something about it, but for the life of me I can't remember when, or which theory we learned.
The Big Splat is basically split into four sections. One for each theory. Coaccretion, i.e. the Moon and Earth were formed together from one big mess of primordial gas and dust; capture, i.e. the Moon was minding its own business through our solar system and Earth pulled her in; fission, i.e. the proto-Earth started rotating so fast that it flung off some mass and that eventually became the Moon (wicked big sneeze much?); and Great Impact, where two proto-planets (one bigger than the other) whacked together and the two resulting bodies became Earth and our tidally locked moon. As I read through each theory (by the by, Dana Mackenzie is a fairly good and engaging writer who makes what could be deathly boring info lively and interesting), it only emphasized how little I know about the Moon. After all our parents generation has been there and back and for some reason that, for most of my generation's lives, has been enough for the majority of us.
It is slowly changing though, and it's nice to see a book like this that has a pull (really, who could pass by a book called The Big Splat in a book store without taking a look at it). And it's good to know that there are still scientists out there who are still passionate about that thing that appears nearly every night in our sky.
The Big Splat is basically split into four sections. One for each theory. Coaccretion, i.e. the Moon and Earth were formed together from one big mess of primordial gas and dust; capture, i.e. the Moon was minding its own business through our solar system and Earth pulled her in; fission, i.e. the proto-Earth started rotating so fast that it flung off some mass and that eventually became the Moon (wicked big sneeze much?); and Great Impact, where two proto-planets (one bigger than the other) whacked together and the two resulting bodies became Earth and our tidally locked moon. As I read through each theory (by the by, Dana Mackenzie is a fairly good and engaging writer who makes what could be deathly boring info lively and interesting), it only emphasized how little I know about the Moon. After all our parents generation has been there and back and for some reason that, for most of my generation's lives, has been enough for the majority of us.
It is slowly changing though, and it's nice to see a book like this that has a pull (really, who could pass by a book called The Big Splat in a book store without taking a look at it). And it's good to know that there are still scientists out there who are still passionate about that thing that appears nearly every night in our sky.
February 23, 2021
This is an informative and compelling book about the origins of our moon, yet it can stand on its own as a work on science. Its ability to offer the big picture as well as technical questions is probably what makes it so interesting to laymen like myself. But it has a distinctive stamp when compared to a great work that has become the gold standard in popular astronomy, Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Overall, the two books probably have more in common than not. And "The Big Splat" does share Sagan's great theme of science as a self-correcting project with a long history, one characterized both by truth and errors. But science is painted a little differently here. In Carl Sagan's works, unmanned exploration of space comes across as the chief scientific success of the space program, and Sagan himself was a critic of manned space flights. In "The Big Splat," it is the Apollo landing on the moon that shines as the pinnacle of scientific gain. The moon rocks returned to Earth, culled on the lunar surface by astronauts trained in what to look for, told scientists that old theories about the moon's formation were untenable, and provided the key to the new and widely accepted theory. The rocks did something very similar for theories about the origin of craters.
Moreover, the sheer size and visibility of the Apollo program revived lunar science when it had fallen out of favor with the scientific mainstream and was ebbing.
If the philosophy behind "Cosmos" has become the new, mainstream view of science, "The Big Splat" differs from it in at least one more important way. It does not rely greatly on the common theme of science-versus-religion (though that theme does appear). Science is presented as having its own fashions and dogmas, such as the onetime disinclination to take lunar science seriously, and the widespread prejudice against theories proposing large-scale impacts. The chief prejudice is one against lifeless planets: in the author's words, scientists as well as laymen had always proposed that there was life on the moon because "it was just too hard for the human intellect to grasp a place that was utterly devoid of life."
In Carl Sagan's works, the greatest challenge to the human mind, and the largest opportunity to extend human knowledge, is said to be the possible discovery, by science, of extraterrestrial life. In this book, what is hardest for the human intellect to comprehend is not extraterrestrial life but instead lifelessness: the discovery by Apollo that the moon was and always had been a lifeless body.
Moreover, the sheer size and visibility of the Apollo program revived lunar science when it had fallen out of favor with the scientific mainstream and was ebbing.
If the philosophy behind "Cosmos" has become the new, mainstream view of science, "The Big Splat" differs from it in at least one more important way. It does not rely greatly on the common theme of science-versus-religion (though that theme does appear). Science is presented as having its own fashions and dogmas, such as the onetime disinclination to take lunar science seriously, and the widespread prejudice against theories proposing large-scale impacts. The chief prejudice is one against lifeless planets: in the author's words, scientists as well as laymen had always proposed that there was life on the moon because "it was just too hard for the human intellect to grasp a place that was utterly devoid of life."
In Carl Sagan's works, the greatest challenge to the human mind, and the largest opportunity to extend human knowledge, is said to be the possible discovery, by science, of extraterrestrial life. In this book, what is hardest for the human intellect to comprehend is not extraterrestrial life but instead lifelessness: the discovery by Apollo that the moon was and always had been a lifeless body.
July 27, 2019
I've always been fascinated by our closest cosmic neighbor. This book is written with the layman in mind and is a fun and fascinating read. It highlights the importance of the Apollo missions and how they contributed to our current understanding of how the Moon formed. I really enjoyed the end of the book where the author briefly took on the conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landings were faked. I wish all science books were this understandable.
March 23, 2019
I especially liked learning more about Gene Shoemaker and Bill Hartmann (whose Traveler's Guide to Mars I have and love). Also warmed my heart to read about anybody doing crater counts (something I did in college).
July 18, 2023
Approachable science on the theories on the origins of the moon. Very well done.
September 9, 2016
This was a really well-written science book capturing not only the knowledge we have about the moon, but the centuries-long quest to get that knowledge, from Kepler's observations and calculations about orbits to the hundreds of pounds of rock samples retrieved by the Apollo missions which are still being analyzed by geologists today. I also appreciated the view of the Apollo program as a geological scientific success, not just a political maneuver and feat of engineering.
The narrative transverses hundreds of years of scientific debate about the moon's origins, and those of the earth and the rest of the solar system, and introduces many lesser known scientists and their work.
The narrative transverses hundreds of years of scientific debate about the moon's origins, and those of the earth and the rest of the solar system, and introduces many lesser known scientists and their work.
January 28, 2011
Interesting book about the origins of the Moon and the many theories that were tried then found wanting. Evidently a very large planet - the size of Mars - hit the Earth and sent material into space. The material came together and created the Moon. At times tedious but overall an interesting book.
November 8, 2012
Mackenzie does a decent job discussing some of the early theories of the Moon (capture, fission, etc.) but when it comes to the theory pertinent to the book, there's not much. The topic is raced through and there's little detail. Finally, there is a very odd appendix concerned with conspiracy theorists. A good start, but it needed work.
April 8, 2008
This book contains much background material found in other books, for instance Moon Lore. The meat of the science can be found in the May 2008 issue of Astronomy magazine, though the narrative is a bit more involved and extensively documented. A good read.
August 26, 2015
Great book. Most astro-physics books are about the beginning of the universe
This a good look about the origins of our moon specifically. Very informative from both a scientific and historical view point.
This a good look about the origins of our moon specifically. Very informative from both a scientific and historical view point.
May 29, 2009
Breezy style and personal. Fun quick read.
July 13, 2014
An excellent book on The Moon...I'm re-reading it.
February 13, 2015
I think that this is a very well written book about the origins of our moon. I learned a number of things that I did not know. I'd read this again.
December 30, 2009
A must read to understand the science controvery about the moon and the earth!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews