Encyclopedia of Lunar Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Brian Cudnik

Lunar Transient Phenomena

  • Anthony CookEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05546-6_5-1

Keywords

Solar Wind Lunar Surface Luminous Efficiency Lunar Prospector Dust Plume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Definition

A transient lunar phenomenon (or TLP) is a short-term change on, or above, the lunar surface and can take the form of a colored glow, a brightness variability, an obscuration of detail, gray components to a shadow, or flashes. As far as Earth-based astronomers can tell, no permanent lunar surface changes result, hence why the phenomena are “transient” in nature. In the USA, TLP is sometimes referred to as LTP or lunar transient phenomenon.

Overview

The topic of TLP is controversial for three reasons. Firstly, the Moon is essentially a geologically dead world (Heiken et al. 1991), and so astronomers should not expect to see visibly active kilometer-scale surface activity occurring in this modern era. Secondly, the majority of TLPs were discovered by visual Earth-based telescopes which some critics explain away as terrestrial atmospheric, telescope optical, or even psychological factors (Dobbins and Sheehan 2014). Thirdly, TLPs must be extremely rare (Hynek et al. 1976), which makes them difficult to search for. Nevertheless, among the nearly 3,000 claims of TLP sightings (O’Connell and Cook 2013), there have been a few well-authenticated cases. It is also possible that at least some flashes seen on the Moon, by visual observers in the past, could be attributed to impact events of the same type that we have modern-day video confirmation of (Cudnik 2010). Several plausible theories, explaining the mechanisms behind TLP, have been published and will be outlined below.

History

The majority of TLPs have been catalogued in two NASA publications (Middlehust et al. 1968; Cameron 1978) and one online catalogue extension (Cameron 2006a). Cameron introduces a weighting system for TLP, namely, 1 for a report by an inexperienced observer and up to 5 for a highly authenticated observation of a TLP. While the above are fairly comprehensive catalogues, they do have some typographical errors and probable observational mistakes, and the Cameron catalogues may have over optimistically high weights associated with some of the TLPs (Dobbins and Sheehan 2014). Nevertheless, these catalogues do form a useful starting point for initial studies of this topic. A combined and revised catalogue, with more rigorously assigned weights, is being constructed from the above and also from the archives of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) and the British Astronomical Association (BAA), by the Department of Physics at the University of Aberystwyth (Cook et al. 2010).

The earliest TLP noted was from a naked-eye sighting of a light on the Moon from around 557 AD (Newton 1972), though a better documented and more topical pre-telescopic sighting in 1178 comes from the writings of Gervase of Canterbury; this has been attributed to the formation of the geologically young, bright ray crater, Giordano Bruno (Hartung 1976); however, recent age estimates for this crater suggest that it may be too old (Basilevsky and Head 2012). In the telescopic age, there have been a number of famous accounts of TLP. For example, in the eighteenth century, Sir William Herschel described in some of his observations (Klado 1961) what he referred to as lunar volcanoes seen in Earthshine. It has been argued that these may have been misidentifications of bright ray craters, in particular Aristarchus; however, this does not explain the reddish color seen on 1783 May 4. Another topical debate from the eighteenth century was a reported change in appearance of the crater Linne, but this turned out to be due to a combination of earlier descriptive inaccuracies and map errors (Moore 1977). Of the more notable TLPs of modern times, these have included Kozyrev’s spectra of gas emissions from the central peak of Alphonsus in 1958 (Kozyrev 1962; Kalinyak and Kamionko 1962), the pseudopeak effect seen in the crater Herodotus from the 1950s onwards (Cook and Dobbins 2012), bright flashes seen on the Moon in the 1940/50’s era (e.g., Thornton 1947; Stuart 1957), various claimed observations of lunar luminescence (Kopal and Rackham 1963; Link 1972), the Lowell Observatory sighting of red spots in the Aristarchus area in 1963 (Greenacre 1965; O’Connell and Cook 2013), the 1983 Torricelli B event (Cook 2000), and the Langrenus polarized light events of 1992 (Dollfus 2000).

Observing Programs

Several observing programs have spent time looking for TLP. The two NASA-backed ones from the 1960s were Project Moon-Blink (Trident Engineering Associates 1966), organized by Winifred Sawtell Cameron, operating out of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and another team led by Allen Hynek, from Northwestern University, using the Corralitos Observatory (Hynek et al. 1976) in New Mexico. Both projects utilized electronic imaging cameras behind rotating filter wheels. If a colored area was present on the lunar surface, say red, then through a red filter it would be bright on a monochrome cathode ray tube viewing screen and through a blue filter it would be dark, and the net result would be an obvious blink effect on the viewing screen. The Project Moon-Blink system equipment were supplied to 22 observatories with a minimum telescope aperture of 38 cm and detected several TLPs over its lifetime from 1964 to 1966 (Trident Engineering Associates 1966). The Corralitos team detected no TLP, despite putting in over 6,466 h of observing time, between 1966 and 1973 (Hynek et al. 1976). They did however detect very large area “blue clearing” effects on a few occasions, where a UV excess was observed, but this was discounted as a TLP because of the large surface area of the Moon involved and the fact that they noted it would occur close to the full Moon and also when the Moon was at a high altitude above the horizon. However, a full explanation of the “blue clearing effect” was never given.

During the run-up to the Apollo missions, a large number of amateur astronomers participated in two further projects: ARGUS-ASTRONET and LION (Schneider 1970). During this time and subsequently, the lunar sections of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO), the British Astronomical Association (BAA), and the American Lunar Society have continued to monitor the Moon but at a lower level of interest, though there was again some extra support during the Clementine (Buratti et al. 2000) and Lunar Prospector missions (Darling 1998). Mobberley (2013) has questioned the reliability of amateur-based networks, in particular the number of small telescopes used and the problems associated in the influx of inexperienced/overenthusiastic observers. Amateur astronomers still work on TLP projects in 2014 but are more pragmatic, concentrating on disproving past TLPs by reobserving the same sites under similar illumination and where possible similar (topocentric) libration. Their aim is to establish the normal appearance of a lunar formation, and if what was reported for a past TLP repeats, then it was probably not a TLP originally but something like a natural color (McCord 1968), a low-texture area appearing fuzzy (Cook 2013), a sunlit terrain protruding from a shadow (Lena and Cook 2004), etc.

The AEOLUS (atmosphere from Earth, orbit, and lunar surface) project, led by Arlin Crotts, built and operates a dual monitoring telescope system operating at Cerro Tololo, Chile, and Rutherford Observatory, New York, USA. The system captures the whole nearside lunar disk in white light and compares images taken every 20 s. When a change is found in one telescope, it can be checked for on the second telescope, to make sure that it is not a result of some local effect. It was reported (Crotts et al. 2009) that one month’s worth of continuous observation had been made with a sensitivity to changes at the 1–2 % level. A later publication (Crotts 2010) mentions that 200,000 images had been taken and some plausible optical transients found but does not elaborate on what these might be.

TLP Statistics

Middlehurst (1966) was able to show that there was no correlation between TLP and the solar cycle. Chapman (1967) had suggested that there may be a correlation between TLP in Aristarchus and the Earth’s tidal pull, though Cook (2011), using a larger dataset, shows this not to be the case. Middlehurst and Moore (1967) plot the locations of TLP sites and deduce that these tend to be distributed around mare edges, something which is confirmed later by Crotts (2008). Cameron (2006b) investigated many physical parameters which might have been associated with TLP, e.g., magnetopause crossing, perigee, apogee, etc., and deduced that the only one that showed any correlation was that TLPs seem to occur more frequently near the terminator. However, this view is contradicted by Cook et al. (2010) who show after normalizing for observational bias, i.e., where astronomers prefer to look on the Moon, that TLPs occur more frequently toward local noon on the lunar surface.

In another statistical analysis, using TLP reports from the Middlehurst et al. (1968) catalogue, Crotts (2008) attempts to remove observational bias that favors observers concentrating on TLP site craters. He did this by comparing pre-1930 and post-1930 TLP reports. 1930 was picked as a division point in time, to avoid overreporting artifacts when TLPs start to become overly interesting to the astronomical community. He was able to show that seven lunar features (Aristarchus, Plato, Mare Crisium, Tycho, Kepler, and Copernicus) were statistically significant sites for TLPs and also confirmed the Middlehurst and Moore (1967) finding that TLPs were more likely to be located near mare edges than elsewhere.

Theories

Volcanism: Although no longer a tenable theory since the modern era of spaceflight, it was one of the earliest explanations for TLP. This theory became popular after Sir William Herschel reported the presence of lunar volcanoes in Earthshine (Klado 1961). However, with modern hindsight, we know that the last throes of endogenic lunar volcanism were about 1 billion years ago (Ziethe et al. 2009), as determined by crater count age estimates. Interestingly, in the 1960s, Hartman and Harris (1968) suggested that the red glow from a 1963 TLP observation by Greenacre and Barr was due to the incandescent black-body radiation from a fire fountain effect near Aristarchus − though there is no evidence for any resulting annular surface deposit effect seen in modern-era spacecraft images (O’Connell and Cook 2013). Small-scale volcanic flows are still possible on the Moon, via impact melt (Carter et al. 2012); however, with the present low cratering rate, any new craters would be too small to be seen from Earth, and any resulting impact melt incandescent glow is unlikely to be seen either, unless on the nightside of the Moon, and for an impact larger than those observed so far (e.g., Madiedo et al. 2014).

Specular Reflection: is another early TLP theory and makes use of the Sun’s glint off of shiny components to rocks on the lunar surface. A variation on the theory involves internal reflection through volcanic glass beads. The net result is that at a specific viewing and illumination angle (equal in the case of reflection), the surface will appear to brighten as the Sun moves through its angular diameter across the lunar sky. Attempts have been made to test this theory on at least three TLP sites: Aristarchus (Cook et al. 2011), Herodotus (Cook and Dobbins 2012), and Torricelli B (Tost 2001), but in all three instances, there was no repeat occurrence evidence to support the specular reflection theory.

Impacts: are the only instance, so far, of TLP that have been proven (Cudnik 2010). Although all confirmed impact flashes have been seen in Earthshine, one of the brightest (Madiedo et al. 2014) could in theory have been detected against the daylight side of the Moon, and this might explain the Thornton and Stuart flashes (Thornton 1947; Stuart 1957). Unfortunately, impact events do not account for the nonrandom distribution of TLP across the lunar surface (Middlehurst and Moore 1967) nor do the vast majority of impacts account for the typical TLP duration of half an hour (Cameron 2006b).

Luminescence: has been proposed to explain some colored TLPs and the observational measurements on the filling in of absorption lines in reflected solar spectra. Early measurements of the latter inferred lunar surface luminous efficiencies of anywhere between <1 % and 40 % (Potter and Mendell 1984). If TLPs were as a result of luminescence, say from solar proton bombardment, or X-ray/UV, then TLPs should follow the solar cycle; however, a study by Middlehurst (1966) revealed no such correlation. Thermoluminescence has also been considered as variant on the standard models of luminescence (Chanin et al. 1982), but an analysis of the rocks returned by the Apollo missions revealed considerably less luminous efficiency (Geake and Mills 1977) than would be needed to make a visible TLP. The problem of the observed reflected solar absorption line filling was solved eventually by Potter et al. (1984) who suggested that the line filling was most likely caused by inelastic scattering of light resulting in wavelength shifts which in turn filled in narrower absorption lines more than broader ones. This explained at least some of the earlier examples of observations of luminescence. One especially interesting claim of an observation of luminescence though came from a sequence of three narrowband interference pair photographs of the Moon taken by Kopal and Rackham (1963) on 1963 Nov 1/2 from the Pic du Midi Observatory. Each image pair consisted of a red light image at 672.5 nm (FWHM 4.5 nm) and a green light image taken at 545.0 nm (FWHM 9.5 nm). In the first and last pair, an enhancement of up to 85 % through the red filter, in the vicinity of Kepler, was noticed. Ney et al. (1966) criticize this observation though on the grounds that they believed that not all sources of systematic error were accounted for in Kopal and Rackham’s paper. However, an earlier report by Rackham (1964) seem to show that the Manchester University team at Pic du Midi had a good understanding of the sources of error and what was real on their photographs.

Outgassing: has remained a popular explanation for TLP, especially after Nikolai Kozyrev (Kozyrev 1962; Kalinyak and Kamionko 1962) captured spectral emission from the central peak of the Alphonsus crater, which he attributed to molecular carbon, C2. The Swan bands from molecular carbon idea were rejected though in the last published attempt to analyze the spectra by Phillips and Arpigny (1967); however, they were unable to find an alternative identification of the gas involved. Dobbins and Sheehan (2014) even express an opinion that the anomaly on the Kozyrev spectrograph may have been as a result of a spectroscope slit tracking error. The Apollo orbital experiments (Feldman and Morrison 1991), Apollo surface experiments (Hoffman et al. 1974), Lunar Prospector (Lawson et al. 2005), LRO (Cook et al. 2014), and LADEE (Elphic et al. 2014) have identified atomic and molecular species present in the lunar exosphere and can be used to place a limit on their population. The lunar exosphere is a complicated environment to understand though because it can vary by more than an order of magnitude over a lunar day due to hydrogen and helium contributions from the solar wind (Wurz et al. 2007), can be added to close to full Moon from terrestrial magnetotail particles (Poppe et al. 2013), and there is radiogenic outgassing of argon and radon from the surface (Heiken et al. 1991). The lower mass gases have a large-scale height and consequently are more likely to be lost to interactions with the solar wind, whereas heavier gases are more likely to hop around the surface on ballistic trajectories, freezing/absorbed to the nightside, and in the case of argon, can generate a detectable breeze at dawn (Hoffman et al. 1974). Evidence for the concentration of another endogenic gas, radon (Gorenstein et al. 1974), was found around the mare edges and at higher quantities in the vicinity of the crater Aristarchus. Mechanisms for the purging of reservoirs of radiogenic, and other, gases from beneath the surface of the Moon could be as a result of shallow moon quakes (Binder 1980). There are various means by which gas released from the Moon can emit light, for example, Srnka’s (1977) critical velocity explanation. However, any gas optical emission theory must meet two requirements: a) the quantity of emitted gas must not exceed detectable variations of gas as already measured from the lunar surface, or from orbit, and b) the optical emission should be bright enough to be seen visually by Earth-based astronomers against the lunar surface.

Lunar Frosts: Although suggested (a misinterpretation of evidence) originally by Pickering (1916) and images showing frosts have been recorded on the airless moons of Jupiter (Lebofsky 1977), no published evidence has been found for observations of lunar frosts being imaged by Earth-based astronomers. Besides, in order to get a local concentration area of frost that would be visible from Earth (say an area of 1 km2), an underground gas needs to be released from a source on the nightside, and it would have to break through without freezing itself before reaching the surface. If it were possible (e.g., Crotts and Hummels 2009), then it would neatly explain some bright or colored patches that have been seen shortly after sunrise.

Dust: is a common theme for TLP explanations because it can be levitated above the lunar surface in up to three ways: (1) meteorite impacts, (2) outgassing, and (3) electrostatic levitation.
  1. 1.

    Meteoroid Origin: Ejecta from meteorite impacts moves at the speed of the order of a kilometer per second along initial cone-shaped paths similar to what is predicted in models (Richardson 2011). NASA’s LADEE mission has detected the presence of dust plumes (Elphic et al. 2014), the most probable source being from meteoroid impacts against the lunar surface. Although ejecta dust plumes might explain some TLPs that resemble long duration impact flares, they do not account for the nonrandom distribution of majority of TLPs across the lunar surface (Middlehurst and Moore 1967).

     
  2. 2.

    Outgassing: Crotts and Hummel (2009) consider the possibility of occasional subsurface gas eruptions that would kick up a dust cloud. Seen against the low albedo lunar surface and allowing for scattering and absorption of light, this could cause a whole number of effects such as brightness changes, and even color, depending upon the particle size distribution. However, a permanent change at the site of the source would result but perhaps only at very small scales visible to spacecraft. Note that any outgassing must be comparatively small, else it would have contributed significantly to the already tenuous lunar atmosphere whose mass is estimated at around 104 kg Heiken et al. 1991) and this would probably have been detected by numerous lunar spacecraft over the last few decades.

     
  3. 3.

    Electrostatic Levitation: Levitated dust particles (presumably charged) were detected by the Apollo surface LEAM experiments (Berg and Perkins 1979) by a Lunokhod photometer (Severny et al. 1975) and inferred from a horizon glow recorded by Surveyor 7 near the crater Tycho (Criswell 1972). The near-surface dust transport mechanisms are probably due to negative charging on the nightside due to the ion/electron charge separation as the solar wind streams past the terminator creating electric fields (Nitter et al. 1998). Laboratory models (Wang et al. 2007) and computer simulations (Stubbs et al. 2006) both demonstrate how particles can become charged, repel, and levitate. In the case of shadowed areas, the experiments show that the direction of dust motion is from the shadow toward sunlit areas. Interestingly, Mills (1980) suggests that triboelectric discharge may occur between closely spaced charged dust particles if present within a rarefied gas. It has been suggested that the horizon glow effects seen from orbit by the Apollo 17 astronauts (McCoy and Criswell 1974) and by the Clementine star tracker cameras (Glenar et al. 2010) were due to high-altitude dust particles. Smith and Smith (2012) have even proposed that an altitude/size distribution model of dust particles could account for the observed Herschel volcano effect, though if their mechanism were to exist, then frequent sunlight scatter brightening beyond the terminator could be expected also, and this has not been observed (Cook 2013). A dust fountain model was proposed by Stubbs (2006) to explain Apollo 17 and Clementine horizon glow effects seen at several tens of kilometers in altitude; however, it is difficult to see, from the preliminary analysis of LADEE star tracker camera lunar horizon images (Grossman 2014), how the dust fountain model can explain these earlier observations.

     

Electrodynamic Effects: as a mechanism for TLP were suggested by Zitto (1989). He proposed that when rocks occasionally split, during the diurnal day/night thermal cycle, or from tectonic activity, flashes of light could be produced from photoemission from helium and argon freed from rock pores, being excited by energetic electrons released from the fractured rock surfaces. For helium-rich rocks, a pink-violet flash would be seen and from argon-rich rocks, a bluish flash. Energy calculations showed that these could be visible from Earth providing that these occurred from exposed rock outcrops. Although not proposed for the lunar environment yet, quake lights here on Earth have been recorded, but these need a combination of both electric fields set up by tectonic activity and an atmosphere (St-Laurent et al. 2006). Of course, much of the lunar surface is covered in dust and regolith layers (Heiken et al. 1991), but steep slopes, tectonic features, and fresh craters might exhibit the necessary uncovered rock outcrops.

Scattered Light and Earthshine: are both observing environments where unsuspecting observers may be tricked occasionally into thinking that they have seen a TLP. For example, light scattered off a sunlit rim of a shadow-filled bright ray crater can sometimes illuminate the dark floor sufficiently to permit interior detail to be seen (Major 2011) which many observers might not expect to see. However, the effect will always repeat at the same lunar phase, so it is possible to eliminate these as TLP, given enough observing time. Secondly, cloud cover and the color and reflectivity of the Earth’s land and sea will vary with the terrestrial day, with the season, and with the fraction of the Earth’s disk (as seen from the Moon) and this affects Earthshine brightness (Langford et al. 2009). The net result of variable Earth illumination on faint detail within Earthshine is that features just on the limit of detectability can sometimes appear to brighten or fade over a few tens of minutes as the Earth’s rotation brings bright cloud systems into visibility over the terrestrial limb. The appearance of disappearance of ray craters on the limits of detectability may trick observers into thinking that they have seen a TLP. Only by comparing a suspected brightness varying feature, in Earthshine, against other similar size/brightness features, can one be sure about the reality of the apparent change seen (Cook 2014).

Effects on Our Side of the Atmosphere: have been suggested as a probable explanation for many TLPs. This category encompasses human error and misinterpretations (Dobbins and Sheehan 2014; Mobberley 2013), atmospheric spectral dispersion adding color onto contrasty edges (Peach 2012), color tinges on brightness gradients perpendicular to the horizon, atmospheric turbulence causing obscuration of surface detail, telescope chromatic aberration, stray light issues inside the telescope, and scintillation effects in our atmosphere making tiny bright craterlets occasionally flash (Cook 2014). While there may be some instances where the above have been the case with TLP, many archive observational reports mention checks for the above artifacts on other lunar features. Simulations using repeat illumination imagery can be used to test the above hypotheses for specific TLP (O’Connell and Cook 2013).

Summary

The topic of TLP remains controversial because despite there being nearly 3,000 reports (O’Connell and Cook 2013), non-lunar effects could explain some of these (Mobberley 2013; Dobbins and Sheehan 2014). However, there are also several double or multiple confirmed observations of TLP (Greenacre 1965), as well as polarimetric (Dollfus 2000) and spectroscopic evidence (Kozyrev 1962; Kalinyak and Kamionko 1962; Phillips and Arpigny 1967). Unfortunately, our knowledge of lunar surface geology suggests that the Moon should be a geologically quiet place (Heiken et al. 1991) with the exception of lunar impact-related phenomenon. New spacecraft data, such as from LADEE (Elphic et al. 2014; Grossman 2014), will help to constrain, or eliminate, some of the proposed TLP theories. At least, impact flashes, despite being a controversial topic for many years until confirmation in the era of low-cost light-sensitive CCTV cameras, have now become mainstream scientifically useful phenomena to study (Cudnik 2010).

Although TLPs are at present a mystery, it is likely that their reality or at least a limit on their rate of occurrence will either be solved by long-duration monitoring of the type employed by the AEOLUS team (Crotts et al. 2009), by long-term spacecraft exospheric gas/dust population monitoring, or by the examination of temporal imagery, comparing early Apollo era with more recent space mission imagery (Crotts 2011; Speyerer et al. 2014), e.g., LRO.

References

  1. Basilevsky AT, Head JW (2012) Age of Giordano Bruno Crater as deduced from the morphology of its secondaries at the luna 24 landings. Planet Space Sci 73:302–309ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg OE, Perkins D (1979) Response of lunar Ejecta and meteorites experiment (LEAM) to electrostatically charged lunar dust. Space Sci Instrum 4:329–337ADSGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder AB (1980) Shallow moonquakes: Argon release mechanism. Geophys Res Lett 7:1011–1013ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buratti BJ, McConnochie TH, Calkins SB, Hillier JK, Herkenhoff KE (2000) Lunar transient phenomena: what do the Clementine images reveal? Icarus 146:98–117ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron WS (1978) Lunar transient phenomena catalog. NASA-TM-79399Google Scholar
  6. Cameron WS (2006a) Lunar transient phenomena catalog extension. http://users.aber.ac.uk/atc/tlp/cameron2006.pdf
  7. Cameron WS (2006b) Analyses of lunar transient phenomena (LTP) observations from 557–1994 AD. http://users.aber.ac.uk/atc/tlp/cameron.pdf
  8. Carter LM, Neish CD, Bussey DBJ, Spudis PD, Patterson GW, Cahill JT, Raney RK (2012) Initial observations of lunar impact melts and Ejecta flows with the Mini-RF radar. J Geophys Res Planets 117:E00H09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chanin ML, Lepine V, Blamont JE (1982) Thermoluminescence of the lunar surface. Moon Planets 27:142–163ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman WB (1967) Tidal influences on the crater Aristarchus. J Geophys Res 72:6293–6298ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook MC (2000) The strange behaviour of Torricelli ‘B’. J Br Astronom Assoc 110:117–123ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook AC (2011) Tidal influences at the lunar crater Aristarchus and transient lunar phenomena. In: 42nd lunar and planetary science conference. Abstract #2811Google Scholar
  13. Cook AC (2013) The Horned Moon, with one bright star: transient lunar phenomena. Observatory 133:99–101ADSGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook AC (2014) The Hatfield SCT lunar atlas. Springer, New York, p 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook AC, Dobbins T (2012) The pseudo-peak in Herodotus. The moon: notes and records of the lunar section of the british astronomical association 2:22–35Google Scholar
  16. Cook AC, Grande M, Stratton C (2010) A preliminary comparison of the frequency of transient lunar phenomena with routine observations. European Planetary Science Congress 2010, Rome, 20–24 Sept 2010. Abstract #768Google Scholar
  17. Cook AC, Grande M, Lane JA (2011) Are transient lunar phenomena in Aristarchus crater surface optical effects? European Planetary Science Congress – Division of Planetary Sciences joint meeting, Nantes, 2–7 Oct 2011. Abstract 1537Google Scholar
  18. Cook JC, Stern SA, FeldmanPD, Retherford KD, Gladstone GR, GreathouseTK, GravaC, Hurley DM, Davis MW (2014) Possible detection of Argon in the lunar atmosphere as seen by the LAMP instrument on the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. In: 45th lunar and planetary science conference. Abstract #2788Google Scholar
  19. Criswell DR (1972) Lunar dust motion. In: Proceedings of the 3rd lunar science conference, vol 3, pp 2671–2680Google Scholar
  20. Crotts APS (2008) Lunar outgassing, transient phenomena, and the return to the Moon I. Existing DATA. Astrophy J 705:687–692Google Scholar
  21. Crotts A (2010) Several searches for short-term changes in the lunar surface. Annual meeting of the lunar exploration analysis group, Washington, DC, 14–16 Sept 2010. LPI Contribution No. 1595, Abstract #3081Google Scholar
  22. Crotts APS (2011) Search for short-term changes in the lunar surface: permanent alteration over four decades. In: 42nd lunar and planetary science conference. Abstract #2600Google Scholar
  23. Crotts APS, Hummels C (2009) Lunar outgassing, transient phenomena, and the return to the Moon. II. Predictions and tests for outgassing/regolith interactions. Astrophy J 707:1506–1523ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crotts APS, Berger A, Cecil G, Cseresnjes P, Ebel D, Joner M, Pfrommer T, Marka S, Morehead R, Radebaugh J, Schultz P (2009) Status of a program monitoring optical lunar surface transients. In: 40th lunar and planetary science conference, The Woodlands, 23–27 Mar 2009. Abstract #2373Google Scholar
  25. Cudnik B (2010) Lunar meteoroid impacts and how to observe them (Astronomers’ observing guides). Springer, New York, p 256Google Scholar
  26. Darling DO (1998) Lunar prospector mission. Moon glows lunar transient phenomena Newsletter 2, no 3Google Scholar
  27. Dobbins T, Sheehan W (2014) Transient lunacy. Selenol Today 34:4–33Google Scholar
  28. Dolfus A (2000) Langrenus: transient illuminations on the Moon. Icarus 146:430–443ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elphic RC, Hine B, Delory GT, Salute JS, Noble SS, Colaprete A, Horanyi M, Mahaffy P, the LADEE Science Team (2014) The lunar atmospheric and dust environment explorer (LADEE): initial results. In: 45th lunar and planetary science conference. Abstract #2677Google Scholar
  30. Feldman PD, Morrison D (1991) The Apollo 17 ultraviolet spectrometer: lunar atmosphere measurements revisited. Geophys Res Lett 18:2105–2108ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Geake JE, Mills AA (1977) Possible physical processes causing transient lunar events. Phys Earth Planet Inter 14:299–320ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glenar DA, Stubbs T J, HahnJ, Vondrak R (2010) Did clementine observe lunar horizon glow? In: 41st lunar and planetary science conference. Abstract #2735Google Scholar
  33. Gorenstein P, Golub L, Bjorkholm P (1974) Detection of radon emission at the edges of lunar Maria with the Apollo alpha-particle spectrometer. Science 183:411–413ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenacre JC (1965) The 1963 Aristarchus Events. Ann N Y Acad Sci 123:811–816ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grossman L (2014) The LADEE killers: NASA has crashed probe into Moon. New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25445-the-ladee-killers-nasa-has-crashed-probe-into-moon.html#.U8mIGkAjw1I. Accessed 18 Apr 2014
  36. Hartman WK, Harris DH (1968) Lunar volcanic eruptions near Aristarchus. Commun Lunar Planet Lab 7:161–167ADSGoogle Scholar
  37. Hartung JB (1976) Was the formation of a 20-km diameter impact crater on the Moon observed on June 18, 1178? Meteoritics 11:187–194ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heiken GH, Vaniman DT, French BM (1991) Lunar source book. Cambridge University Press, Houston, TX, p 736Google Scholar
  39. Hoffman JH, Hodges Jr RR, Johnson FS (1974) Lunar atmospheric composition results from Apollo 17. In: Proceedings of the 5th lunar conference, Houston, 18–22 Mar 1974, vol 3, pp 2865–2875Google Scholar
  40. Hynek JA, Dunlap JR, Hendry EA (1976) The corralitos observatory program for the detection of lunar transient phenomena, NASA CR-147888. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Kalinyak AA, Kamionko LA (1962) Microphotometric analysis of the emission flare in the region of the Central Peak of the Crater Alphonsus on 3 November 1958. In: 14th International Astronomical Union symposium, pp 273–287Google Scholar
  42. Klado TN (1961) Descriptions of observations of lunar volcanoes in the 18th and Early 19th centuries. NASA TT F-310. From Istoriko-astronomicheskiye Issledovaniya 6:263–278Google Scholar
  43. Kopal ZK, Rackham TW (1963) Excitation of lunar luminescence by solar activity. Icarus 2:481–500ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kozyrev NA (1962) Spectroscopic proofs for the existence of volcanic processes on the Moon. In: 14th International Astronomical Union symposium, pp 263–271Google Scholar
  45. Langford SV, Wyithe J, Stuart B, Turner EL (2009) Photometric variability in earthshine. Astrobiology 9:305–310ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lawson SL, Feldman WC, Lawrence DJ, Moore KR, Elphic RC, Belian RD (2005) Recent outgassing from the lunar surface: the lunar prospector alpha particle spectrometer. J Geophys Res Planets 110:E09009ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lebofsky LA (1977) Identification of water frost on Callisto. Nature 269:785–787ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lena R, Cook AC (2004) Emergence of low relief terrain from shadow: an explanation for some TLP. J Br Astron Assoc 114:136–139ADSGoogle Scholar
  49. Link F (1972) Photometry of the lunar surface. Moon 5:265–285ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Madiedo JM, Ortiz JL, Morales N, Cabrera-Cano J (2014) A large lunar impact blast on 2013 September 11. Mon Not R Astron Soc 439:2364–2369ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Major J (2011) Look inside a crater. Universe today. http://www.universetoday.com/84880/look-inside-a-lunar-crater/. Accessed 15 Apr 2011
  52. McCord TB (1968) Color differences on the lunar surface. PhD thesis, Calfornia Institute of Technology, p 189Google Scholar
  53. McCoy JE, Criswell DR (1974) Evidence for a high altitude distribution of lunar dust. In: Proceedings of the 5th lunar conference, Houston, 18–22 Mar 1974, vol 3, pp 2991–3005Google Scholar
  54. Middlehurst BM (1966) Transient changes on the Moon. Observatory 86:239–242ADSGoogle Scholar
  55. Middlehurst BM, Moore PA (1967) Lunar transient phenomena: topographical distribution. Science 155:449–451ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Middlehust BM, Burley JM, Moore P (1968) Chronological catalog of reported lunar events, vol R-277, NASA TR. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Mills AA (1980) Possible physical processes causing transient lunar events. J Br Astron Assoc 90:219–230ADSGoogle Scholar
  58. Mobberley M (2013) It came from outer space wearing an RAF Blazer! Springer, New York, p 655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moore P (1977) The Linné controversy. J Br Astron Assoc 87:363–368ADSGoogle Scholar
  60. Newton RR (1972) Medieval chronicles and the rotation of the Earth. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, p 690Google Scholar
  61. Ney EP, Woolf NJ, Collins RJ (1966) Mechanisms for lunar luminescence. J Geophys Res 71:1787–1793ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nitter T, Havnes O, Melandsø F (1998) Levitation and dynamics of charged dust in the photoelectron sheath above surfaces in space. J Geophys Res 103:6605–6620ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Connell R, Cook AC (2013) Revisiting the 1963 ‘Aristarchus Events’. J Br Astron Assoc 123:197–208Google Scholar
  64. Peach D (2012) Atmospheric dispersion and its effect on high resolution imaging. J Br Astron Assoc 122:229–231Google Scholar
  65. Phillips JG, Arpigny C (1967) Comments on the identification of the emission feature observed by Kozyrev in the crater alphonsus. Astrophys J 149:275–281ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pickering WH (1916) Meteorology of the Moon. Mon Weather Rev 44:7–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Poppe AR, HalekasJS, Sarantos M, Delory GT (2013) Model-based constraints on the lunar exosphere derived from ARTEMIS pick-up ion observations. In: 44th lunat and planetary science conference. Abstract #1678Google Scholar
  68. Potter AE, Mendell W (1984) Lunar luminescence and the filling-in of Fraunhofer lines in moonlight. J Geophys Res 89:C240–C244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rackham TW (1964) Photographic photometry in the Imbrium/Procellarum region of the Moon. Astronomical Contributions from the University of Manchester, series III, no 146Google Scholar
  70. Richardson JE (2011) Modeling impact Ejecta plume evolution via an extension of the classic Ejecta scaling-laws: a comparison to laboratory studies. J Geophys Res 116:E12004ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schneider LE (1970) Intrim report – the LION project. NASA CR-108478, p 23Google Scholar
  72. Severny AB, Terez EI, Zvereva AM (1975) The measurements of the sky brightness on Lunokhod-2. Moon 14:123–128ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith GJ, Smith AJ (2012) The Horned Moon, with one bright star: transient lunar phenomena. Observatory 132:71–75ADSGoogle Scholar
  74. Speyerer E, Wagner R, Robinson M (2014) Automatic identification of changes on the lunar surface. European geophysical union general assembly, Vienna, 27 Jul–02 May 2014. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 16, EGU2014-12252Google Scholar
  75. Srnika LJ (1977) Critical velocity phenomena and the LTP. Phys Chem Earth 14:321–329Google Scholar
  76. St-Laurent F, Derr JS, Freund T (2006) Earthquake lights and the stress-activation. Phys Chem Earth 31:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stuart LH (1957) A photo-visual observation of an impact of a large meteorite on the moon. Strolling Astronomer 1:6–8Google Scholar
  78. Stubbs TI, Vondrak RR, Farrell WM (2006) A dynamic fountain model for lunar dust. Adv Space Res 37:59–66ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thornton FH (1947) Things do happen on the moon. J Br Astron Assoc 57:143–144Google Scholar
  80. Tost W (2001) Torricelli B, NEWS-Letter 18 Feb 2001. http://www.planetarium-berlin.de/pages/torricelli/E_results02.html
  81. Trident Engineering Associates, Inc (1966) Project Moon-Blink, vol 630, NASA CR. National Aeronautics and Space Administration , Washington DC, p 80Google Scholar
  82. Wang X, Horányi M, Sternovsky Z, Robertson S, Morfill GE (2007) A laboratory model of the lunar surface potential near doundaries between sunlit and shadowed regions. Geophys Res Lett 34:L16104ADSGoogle Scholar
  83. Wurz P, Rohner U, Whitby JA, Kolb C, Lammer H, Dobnikar P, Martin-Fernández JA (2007) The lunar exosphere: the sputtering contribution. Icarus 191:486–496ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ziethe R, Seiferlin K, Hiesinger H (2009) Duration and extent of lunar volcanism: comparison of 3D convection models to mare basalt ages. Planet Space Sci 57:784–796ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zitto RR (1989) A new mechanism for lunar transient phenomena. Icarus 82:419–422ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of AberystwythAberystwyth, CeredigionUK