Cited by 1,094Astro and Planetary SciencePlanetary Science and ExplorationHistory and Developments in Astronomy

Origin of the Moon in a giant impact near the end of the Earth's formation

Canup, Robin M., Asphaug, Erik·2001·Nature

Abstract

The Moon is generally believed to have formed from debris ejected by a large off-centre collision with the early Earth. The impact orientation and size are constrained by the angular momentum contained in both the Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit, a quantity that has been nearly conserved over the past 4.5 billion years. Simulations of potential moon-forming impacts now achieve resolutions sufficient to study the production of bound debris. However, identifying impacts capable of yielding the Earth-Moon system has proved difficult. Previous works found that forming the Moon with an appropriate impact angular momentum required the impact to occur when the Earth was only about half formed, a more restrictive and problematic model than that originally envisaged. Here we report a class of impacts that yield an iron-poor Moon, as well as the current masses and angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. This class of impacts involves a smaller-and thus more likely-object than previously considered viable, and suggests that the Moon formed near the very end of Earth's accumulation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/35089010

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to the most widely accepted hypothesis, a Mars-sized object collided with young Earth and led to the formation of the Moon.

    “According to the most widely accepted hypothesis, this is when young Earth collided with a Mars-sized object, which led to the formation of the Moon (Canup and Asphaug, 2001).”

    From The Astrobiology Primer v2.0 (2016) · cites this paper as Canup and Asphaug, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Canup, R. M., & Asphaug, E.
Affiliations
  • Southwest Research Institute (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Corresponding author
Canup, Robin M.
Venue
Nature
Published
2001-08
Volume
412
Issue
6848
Pages
708-712
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2043818941
Cited by
1,094
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 43
FWCI
13.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Southwest Research Institute
  • Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Planetary Science and Exploration
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › History and Developments in Astronomy
Keywords
Moon formation, giant impacts, Earth formation, Earth-Moon system, impact ejecta, Earth accretion, impactor size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review