The idea of our moon being hollow has been kicked around for a while now. There are people, well regarded scientists in some cases, who think it possible and others who do not. For a long time, I was in the “do not” category. I simply didn’t think hollow moons were a real possibility.
After all, our moon is there in our sky, has an effect on our tides here on Earth and so has mass, and we have even landed on the moon and found its surface quite solid. So again, the idea of moons, any moons being hollow for that matter, just didn’t seem a real possibility to me. That is, until I researched the subject in more depth and detail, and found some interesting, even tantalizing information and evidence that corroborates the idea of hollow moons being real. Moreover, such data wasn’t just in regard to our own moon. There was another, as well….
Why is this important, the possibility of more than one moon in our solar system being hollow? Well, if we have evidence for such a thing from more than one source, and regarding more than one possible hollow moon, then it acts as further evidence that our moon, may indeed be hollow, too.
After all, if one moon can be proven to be hollow, then why not others? Moreover, how and why are such moons hollow if this is so? Are they natural, just formed that way through some process as yet unknown? Or, as some scientists have thought, are they artificial? If they are artificial, then the next questions are who or what made them, and who put them there?
Let’s start with our Moon first. The Moon is considered to be extremely unusual by any astronomer’s or cosmologist’s standards. There are a lot of oddities about it and some seem to imply the moon, in fact, actually may be hollow. Let’s concentrate on those specific oddities. These are not a complete list, since there simply isn’t room in this article for so much information, but these are some of the main points:
- According to the latest theory of the Moon’s origin, the Impact Theory (and this theory, like all the others before it, has problems and still unanswered questions…), the Earth was hit by a planet about the size of Mars or perhaps a little smaller, a planet some scientists now call Theia. If this is how our Moon formed, from the remnants of that massive collision, then the Moon should be made up of debris from that collision, debris from both worlds. This is easily determined by the isotopic signatures of each body. However, rocks brought back from the Moon show this just doesn’t seem to be the case. Hundreds of pounds of rocks from various locations on the Moon’s surface were brought back by the Apollo missions and the oxygen isotopic ratio of those rocks seems to be identical to Earth’s mantle. There seems to be no evidence for any material having a different isotopic ratio as in coming from Theia.
The likelihood that the impacting planet, Theia, had exactly the same isotopic ratio as Earth is vanishingly small. We determine where a meteorite originates, whether the Moon, Mars, or wherever, by its distinctive isotopic signature. In other words, no two different origins of meteorites have the same such signatures. So if the Moon is made up of debris from Theia and Earth, it should have material from both worlds there, with distinctly different oxygen isotopic ratios.
What does this mean? Well, either the Moon formed much later on than our dating of lunar material would seem to indicate, or there was no sea of molten magma involved in its formation. This last seems even more unlikely than the first. The lunar rocks are so depleted of hydrates that this shows they underwent a great heat and so must have melted to liquid magma at some point.
Estimates are that during the collision of the two planets, Theia crashing into the Earth, temperatures could have been as high as 18,000° Centigrade in the resulting explosion. This would vaporize any volatile constituents of the rocks. Certainly, the surface of the Moon should have been all magma, hot liquid rock at one point, as a consequence of such a catastrophic collision and its own formation. Yet, although low in volatile hydrates (constituents of the rocks that vaporize easily), the Moon’s hydrate level is a good deal higher than the Impact Theory says it should be. Virtually all water in the rocks should have vaporized and been released, for instance, yet there is still some left. Too much. So if the Moon defies the Impact Theory in this regard, and others as well, is the Impact Theory even correct, or is the origin of our Moon still shrouded in mystery? How did the Moon come to be?
- Oddity of no volcanoes. The maria on the Moon, those large dark “seas” of lunar material we see when we gaze up at the Moon are supposed to be from now-frozen magma, molten rock. Yet, there seem to be no active volcanoes on the Moon. There should be at least long-extinct ones if the Moon ever had a molten core. How could there have been these vast fields of lava (magma) upwelling from a molten interior, but not a single volcano anywhere on the Moon as a side effect of such vast geologic upheaval, as well? And to date, no volcanoes have been discovered on the Moon. This is a major oddity and a very strange one. Magma came from the Moon’s interior, but there doesn’t seem to be a compelling explanation as to how this happened. What caused this phenomenon?
- Another oddity. This isn’t a small one, either. There is the oddity of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth. It is almost perfectly circular. Why is this strange? Well, almost all orbits of planets are elliptical, being sort of a slightly squashed circle in shape. Even planets found orbiting other star systems, and we have found at least four thousand of those so far, have elliptical orbits. So in other words, the Moon is not only in a strange orbit by our solar system’s standards, but it’s even strange for any other solar system, as well, apparently.
- The oddity of the Moon’s convenient diameter and the solar eclipse. Peculiarly, and highly coincidentally, the Moon’s diameter, combined with its distance from Earth allows our sister world to perfectly blot out the sun during a solar eclipse. This is just another one of those “oddities,” it seems, because no other planet in our solar system has a moon that will do this anywhere nearly so perfectly and there are hundreds of such moons. Even Isaac Asimov made the comment:
“There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”
Blessed, indeed; an odd choice of words for Isaac Asimov, a scientist and author, to have used. It implies this is just short of being a miracle. And this “blessing” is for the one planet in the system with intelligent life that can use such a “blessing” to such great advantage, to learn things about our universe around us. Just another coincidence?
- The truly bizarre oddity of the bell effect. There is something else very weird about the Moon. It was first recognized with the lunar Lander, and once having done its job, having been allowed to crash back onto the surface of the Moon. The result of these crashes was a phenomenon known as “resonance.”
In simpler words and wholly unexpectedly, the Moon rang like the proverbial “bell.” (And bells are hollow.) Actually, some resonance is to be expected. Even when solid rock is struck, it tends to vibrate, but not like this or nearly this long!
This “resonance” or ringing went on for a very long time. On November 20, 1969, which was the first time, the Moon “rang” for over an hour! Subsequently, when a portion of the Apollo 13 rocket, the third stage, struck the lunar surface, the Moon rang again, this time for over three hours! A ringing bell, indeed. One NASA scientist recently said the Moon didn’t actually “ring like a bell.” He was right. Instead, it resonated like a bell…. So what’s the difference?
- The vibrations went as deep as 25 miles. Lunar seismographs left on the Moon to record seismographic events, such as possible moonquakes, recorded this. This vibrating implies there could well be no lunar core at all, since the vibrations didn’t pass through the center of the Moon. One scientist at NASA stated that this “raises the alarming” idea that our “Moon may be hollow.”
- Another oddity and a very compelling one, as well, is the problem of the Moon’s density. The Moon isn’t dense enough. The average mean density of our nearest neighbor is 3.34 grams per cubic centimeter. This is low, very low, and only about three and a third times the density of water! How can this be?
Unlike the Moon, the average mean density of the Earth works out to about 5.5 times that of water, so its density is considerably higher than our neighbor’s. This, despite the fact the Moon is supposed to be composed of material from Earth and so should have the same density? What can account for this major inconsistency? And where is the missing mass that should be there?
This presents scientists with a major problem, this disparity in densities between us and our sister world. Furthermore, there are very few ways the Moon could be as large as it is, and have such a low density. Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winning chemist, made the observation that the disparity in densities between our two worlds, meaning the much lower density of the Moon compared to the Earth, might be accounted for by the Moon having “simply a cavity.” Hollow Moon?
Another noted scientist, Dr. Farouk El Baz, went even further in his statements and implications, when he said:
“There are many undiscovered caverns suspected to exist beneath the surface of the Moon. Several experiments have been flown to the Moon to see if there actually were such caverns.”
Red flag! If the moon has caverns of enough size to change its overall density to such a degree, so that it is far less than Earth’s density, those caverns must be of truly massive proportions, e.g., a hollow Moon, basically?
- Finally, so convincing are all these oddities (and again, there are many more that we simply don’t have room for here in this article) that two scientists came up with their own theory regarding the Moon. This is called the Spaceship Moon Theory. It is probably the first, or at least one of the first real theories where the idea is discussed that the Moon may not be what it seems to be, that it may, in fact, be hollow. This theory, which is often also referred to as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, postulates the Moon may not actually be a satellite of Earth, at least not a natural one. Messrs. Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov were members in good standing of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. They first proposed this idea in Is the Moon the Creation of Intelligence, an article they wrote in July of 1970.
They developed the theory the Moon was an unnatural thing. They said it could well be a worldlet that had been hollowed out by aliens, ones obviously having a far superior technology to ours. They went on to say the aliens may well have used such technologies to make the center of the Moon molten and then removed this liquid magma by ejecting it onto the surface of the Moon.
The result? The Moon would be a hollow shell, with a rocky and natural-looking exterior, except for those large areas of solidified magma, which we see as maria today. They further proposed the inner shell would be made of metal alloy of some type, for added structural support and is probably buried about 25 miles below the surface. At some point after this was done, our Moon was then moved into such a nearly perfect, circular orbit around the Earth at just the right distance for reasons unknown.
Besides citing the maria as the exudate of the liquefied interior of the Moon, they also pointed to the craters on the Moon, particularly the larger ones, as another indication of their Spaceship Moon Theory. You see, despite some of the Moon’s craters being truly massive in area, they are all very shallow, at least the larger ones are. If formed from meteors and asteroids colliding with the Moon, these scientists argued this would not be the case. The craters should be much deeper, as they are on Earth.
Instead, again, they’re shallow and relatively flat in their centers. In some cases, the bottoms of the craters are even convex in shape, bulging slightly upward. They use this as further evidence the craters could not have been formed as thought by meteor impacts in the way believed by most astronomers.
Is this a credible idea? Well, it does seem on the Moon the smaller craters do have depths proportionately deep to their diameters. However, as the two scientists argued, this doesn’t seem to be true of larger craters on the Moon. Why? How does one account for this disturbing discrepancy? Well, the authors say this is so because the smaller craters were actually created by meteor impacts, which burrow their way into the surface of the Moon.
The larger impact craters, which should have impacted more deeply, were stopped by the inner hull, the metal one supposedly manufactured by the aliens. This, the two scientists say, would account for the shallowness of the larger craters. Despite the size of the striking object, it’s speed, and force, the inner “hull” of the Moon deflected it back out, thus causing the results we see only with the larger craters in the form of flat and shallow centers. So although they are the results of impacts, they weren’t “allowed” to penetrate as deeply as they normally should. Thus they would have the shallow interiors of the larger craters, with some of the material, sometimes, even rebounding so hard that it caused a bulge in the crater’s floor.
Also part of their theory is the thickness of the inner “steel” hull. They say that below the rocky outer layer of the Moon, the metal one might then be as much as 20 miles thick. Inside of this would be an open space, which could be used for any purpose or purposes. They also say it might well contain an atmosphere.
Furthermore, both men used the evidence of the composition of the material on the surface of the Moon. They pointed out that Titanium, Zirconium and Chromium make up a larger part of that material than on Earth, which makes it considerably different in detail from the materials on the crust of the Earth. So as much alike as the isotopic ratio and makeup of the Moon’s material to the Earth’s mantle material is, there are significant differences still.
As a final note on this idea of the Moon being hollow, scientists have recently discovered a mass buried near the south lunar pole about “the size of Hawaii” that, based on its density, appears to be metallic in nature. Theories have been advanced that this may have been a very large metallic asteroid that struck the Moon, but the problem there is the consequences should have been much greater, if so. There is a large crater at the South Pole of the Moon, but if something the size of Hawaii impacted the Moon, a much bigger crater should have been formed than even that one. In fact, the Moon might even have been partially shattered by such a huge impact. This is because (1) the vast size the asteroid, as large as an American state, and (2) the high density of a metallic asteroid, and finally, (3) the speed of the impacting asteroid and resulting release of kinetic energy in the form of heat and blast effects.
Crater at South Pole, Credit,
The Sun Newspaper
Now, as compelling as this idea of our Moon being hollow is, it is not a stand-alone theory, because there is another moon in our solar system that also has an eccentric orbit and which may be hollow, as well. That moon is Phobos, one of the two moons of Mars, the other being Deimos.
Phobos could well be hollow, as well. Why do so many think this? For the following reasons:
- Phobos, has a low density, too low for its size, just as our Moon does. This means it is too large for its apparent amount of mass. Therefore, there is either missing mass or matter to make it so low in density, or it is loosely held together, and as several scientists put it, “hollow.”
- Some statistics about Phobos:
Dimensions of Phobos: 27 × 22 × 18 kilometers.
Mean radius is 11.2667 kilometers.
The surface area of Phobos is 1548.3 kilometers.
Mass of Phobos is 1.0659×1016 kilograms.
Mean density of Phobos is 1.876 g/cm³.
Albedo (reflectivity) of Phobos’ surface is unusually low, being just 0.071±0.012.
- Although many astronomers prefer to theorize Phobos is a loosely held together pile of rubble with a thin crust binding it, this would seem highly questionable because even those scientists can’t account for how this could be, practically speaking. They have no theory as to how a thin crust could do this, hold the moon together, especially a crust that shows a long history of meteorite bombardment, with some of those bombardments apparently being in “chains” across the surface (another very weird oddity), and one huge one, near one of the poles of Phobos.
Such impacts should surely have exploded a loosely held pile of rubble and sent the pieces hurtling out into space in different directions, some never to return. After all, the gravity of Phobos only requires an escape velocity of 41 kilometers per hour. Even a slow car could escape the surface of Phobos for good, let alone something that might have rebounded off the planet at the speed of a bullet or even higher!
- Then there are those “chain craters” we see on the surface of Phobos, not to mention those odd “grooves,” as well. The chains of craters, once thought to be the result of volcanic eruptions along fracture lines on the surface of Phobos, are almost certainly not that. Phobos is far too small to generate enough internal heat of any significance at all. It’s doubtful it could warm a cup of coffee, let alone cause volcanoes to erupt.
Image of Phobos with “Chain Craters,” Credit, NASA
Therefore, the moonlet couldn’t possibly have had volcanic eruptions. Furthermore, neither can scientists explain why the craters are in chains or lines as they are. This means that at this point, scientists simply can’t adequately account for the craters with any existing theory. So what did make them? Well, nobody seems to know, but again, there are theories.
- The “grooves” on Phobos present a similar problem for scientists. Once conjectured as being the result of other small bits of debris hitting Phobos, this now doesn’t seem likely because the grooves perfectly follow the contours of the little moon, and random meteor strikes simply don’t do that. Just look at close-up images of our Moon and the randomness of meteor impacts there is all too apparent. Phobos is not like that.
Hollow Phobos? Now we come to something a bit more incredible. Before the Soviet empire fell, there was an active colonel in the Soviet Air Force. This was Colonel Marina Popovich, later retired. She insisted Phobos was hollow based on information to which she was secretly privy. She informed Steven Greer, the acting International Director of CSETI at the time of the fact that she had been informed of this by certain secret sources (Russian ones, presumably…). These sources had emphatically told her the moon, Phobos, was indeed hollow.
The implication is that Phobos isn’t just “naturally hollow,” but that someone hollowed it out, and the moon could well have been moved at some point to its present location. It does have a very odd orbit, being incredibly close to Mars and appearing at times to actually orbit in a “retrograde” fashion around Mars. No matter how one looks at it, Phobos is an oddity. Some scientists at first thought Phobos and Deimos were captured asteroids. After all, Mars is relatively near the asteroid belt. However, their orbits preclude this from being a likely possibility.
Some argue the chains of craters are actually where reaction rockets were planted and set off. The idea is similar to that of the 1950’s concept of the Orion nuclear spaceship, where a series of small atomic explosions propel the ship (moonlet, in this case) to velocities and distances our current chemical rockets can’t dream of reaching. Setting these off on Phobos (wherever it might have been located originally), these explosions would have been done in a series making these chains of craters. This would have been in order to reposition Phobos nearer to Mars and would allow for the trajectory of the moon to be altered at will this way.
As mentioned earlier, Phobos does have an odd orbit, one that as one astronomer once put it, seems to make it “speed up and then slow down.” Moreover, the orbit of Phobos isn’t stable. The orbit is decaying and Phobos is destined to die in the not-too-distant future, although timing on this varies from anywhere from a couple of million years to more than 20 million. So it’s orbit may well be an artificial one and this could be the reason it is decaying over time so quickly. Finally, some researchers estimate that Phobos may be up to one-third hollow! Phobos, it seems, is an extremely odd little moon…too odd, perhaps?
Conclusion: Although again, we do not have a “smoking gun,” we are building a case for just how mysterious some moons can be. Furthermore, it is a fact that the density of Phobos is just way too low. Either the moon is a loose pile of rubble held together (unlikely, it seems), or alternatively, it is indeed hollow. There seem to be no other choices there.
Our Moon, too, has density problems, as well as a plethora of others, including its orbit, as well, and just as Phobos has an odd orbit. Furthermore, both these moons orbit planets that have much in common with regard to one thing…either life, or the possibility of life. Earth has life, and it now seems that Mars once did, and may still harbor at least microscopic forms of it, and perhaps even more advanced forms of life, possibly hidden ones? The coincidence of two sister worlds, each either harboring life or having harbored life in the past and both having possibly hollow moons circling them is just a bit too strange and a little too coincidental one would have to think….
Short Excerpts, For The Moon Is Hollow And Aliens Rule The Sky, Rob Shelsky
Short Excerpts, The Mystery That Is Mars, Rob Shelsky