Talk:South Pole–Aitken basin

Titanium distribution/artificial moon
It is pointless using an encylopedia which refuses to acknowledge the facts.

I had edited this entry with vital current information from a reliable source only to find it was removed in order to preserve the misconceptions which are prevalent regarding the moon.

It is sad that people do not have the maturity to face reality as it is.

Observe the titanium distribution of the moon as shown in this scientific graph from one of the worlds leading educational astrophysical institutions. They have numerous PhD's on staff. This is valid data from Clementine, yet the data I posted here, which is of critical importance to the understanding of the nature of the moon, has been removed.

Judge for yourself why that might have been done.

Upon looking at the below graph, notice that the albedo graph is complete and not missing data in areas, and neither is the titanium graph missing data. The areas shown in black merely have little titanium. The only titanium in the black areas is spotty and more concentrated.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/clem2nd/slide_26.html

Please examine their credibility before you remove data from this public encyclopedia. Thankyou. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/sci_staff.shtml


 * (In reply to User:24.68.204.74 who posted the above) The data you posted certainly seems valid. How does this lend weight to the idea that the Moon is artificial however?? EddEdmondson 16:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Examine, the geometric position, of the concentrations (in red, and lighter blue as per the graphing) of titanium.

Please see the hi res link, at the bottom of that page, for a better more concise view.


 * There's no evidence there of the Moon being artificial. This is why the content will be removed from the page. You'll need to make a very convincing case of this for it to survive on Wikipedia as your interpretation of the data you've posted goes against the general scientific consensus on the matter. Edit - I should of course be pointing out NPOV policies as below, as there could be a place on Wikipedia for these ideas if that place is chosen carefully. EddEdmondson 17:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I invite you to examine the credibility of the institution, and ask yourself what the current scientific concensus might be. If you select to ignore the data which is before your eyes that is your perogative. Denial is prevalent in this field of study. However, if you wish to explain your reasoning, and explain in detail, the red concentrated portions of titanium or the light blue less concentrated portions of titanium which are clearly set in an unnatural distribution, then please do support your assertion.


 * I don't dispute the credibility of the institution, or the credibility of the data. I dispute the credibility of your interpretation of the data (that the Moon is artificial) and I can assure you few if any planetary scientists believe the Moon is anything other than natural. If you wish to include your ideas on Wikipedia then you'll have to be very careful how you go about it as many will remove it if it fails to go along with the guidelines in Neutral point of view (NPOV). Finally to deal with your most recent edit to the above comment you need to demonstrate that the titanium distribution is a) unnatural and if so b) that it indicates the Moon is artificial.
 * Lastly I'll say that I won't continue to watch this page or discuss it. Other Wikipedians will no doubt take care of making sure that your ideas can be included in an appropriate NPOV way. (Edit: I will quickly add that Face on Mars is a good example of how to properly discuss a contentious issue like this!) EddEdmondson 17:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to let the data speak for itself. But removing the data, as was done, which I have now been forced to replace in a less conspicuous manner so as to get around the censorship of the data, speaks volumes, in and of itself. I can appreciate your viewpoint, but you are merely putting forward a viewpoint, and have thus far put forward no scientific basis for your viewpoint, other than mere assertion. And bringing such things as the Face on Mars into this discussion is ludicrous.

Examine the titanium distribution graph (bottom right) link above. Observe the black circular area Observe surrounding the black circular area, are short light blue lines. Examine the graph legend What are the light blue lines? How much is in bacon bits? How much is in salsa? What are the three laws of robotics? What are the light blue lines? What is the Prime Directive? Twinkle Twinkle Uncle Floyd. lol

What about Hellas?
A minor point here, but the article mentions that the Chryse Basin of Mars is "the only impact basin close to it in size". However, Chryse isn't the largest such structure on it's own planet. Further confusing the situation (and potential readers) is the fact that the Wikipedia entry on Hellas Planitia makes mention of the fact that it is the largest impact basin on Mars.


 * Also, what about Valhalla (crater) on Callisto? It's 3800 km in diameter according to its entry. Orcoteuthis (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Valhalla isn't really 3800 km in diameter. That's the radius of the most distant confirmed ring (a structure external to the crater proper).  This value is listed because it's not immediately clear where the actual crater is at Valhalla.  Most of SPA's rings have now degraded, so the diameter listed is actually the diameter of the crater proper.  So yes, SPA is bigger than Valhalla.Rppeabody (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Borealis Basin?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/mars-basin-0625.html "The giant basin that covers about 40 percent of the surface of Mars, sometimes called the Borealis Basin, is actually the remains of a colossal impact very early in the solar system's formation, the new analysis shows. The basin, 8,500 km across and 10,600 km long, is larger than the combined area of Asia, Europe and Australia, and about four times wider than the next-biggest impact basins known, the Hellas basin on Mars and the South Pole-Aitken basin on the moon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.224.74 (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Size of the meteor?
Anyone have information on how large the meteor that cause this crater was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M00npirate (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been over 6 years since this was asked, but it's still relevant and could do with being answered Fig (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows. An estimate, based on hypothesis that magnetic anomalies on the north of the basin are result of impactor's iron, it was iron-rich asteroid 160–200 km in size, and other estimates (1, 2, 3), based on basin's morphology, say about 500–800-km low-density body. Stas (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

2nd biggest?
According to the Mars wikipedia entry, the impact in its northern hemisphere hasn't been validated. should this situation be described in this article when it's stated that the moons impact is the second biggest in the solar system?--neolandes (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-Meteoric Origin?
I don't believe the Aitken Crater was formed by a meteor at all. It is, rather, a gravity driven depression in response to the major impacts on the other side of the moon.

For a start, the basin shows no central uplift. According to the Wiki page for complex craters, "The collapse of the transient cavity is driven by gravity, and involves both the uplift of the central region and the inward collapse of the rim. "

The lack of central uplift is fairly compelling evidence that the Aitken Basin is not of meteoric origin. Current theory says there is uplift, but only in the mantle.

Stripe 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on South Pole–Aitken basin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/potter/publications/Potteretal2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Naming
This basin may be named Oceanus Glaciem (ocean of Ice), as many names of lunar maria associate with water; basin is comparatively bright (as is ice) and South Pole of Moon may contain ice. Thus, on Moon will be two oceans. --Jugydmort (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe South Pole Aitken basin should be named Oceanum Desiderii or something like... AFAIK, it yet to be officially named. Not sure, are basins recognized IAU features? Ultima Thulean (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Pole–Aitken basin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209095723/http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/ to http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Depth?
The article states the depth is 13km, and refers to this citation https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JE002182

But this citation says "The basin is approximately 2500 km in diameter and is between 6.2 and 8.2 km deep."

Where does the 13km figure come from?80.194.4.6 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the author has misread "6.2 and 8.2 km" as "6.2 and 8.2 miles", then converted the upper range into km and rounded to 0 decimal places. Please let me know if I'm mistaken, I've updated the article. 80.194.4.6 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)