5
$\begingroup$

I know that the moon has lunar regolith and earth has earth soil, but what is the difference between them?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Soil is a poor description of what is on the surface of the moon. Regolith is a better term. Terran soil is fundamentally organic, whereas there is obviously no organic component to lunar regolith. $\endgroup$
    – bon
    Commented Jan 25, 2017 at 19:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Lunar soil is mostly dead. I'm not sure, but it's possible that it has very small amounts of organic material (possibly delivered by cometary processes). In contrast, Earth's soil is teeming with life, and the products of the decay of this life when it decays. $\endgroup$
    – Gimelist
    Commented Jan 26, 2017 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ It might be better to ask about the differences between lunar regolith and Earthly volcanic ash, as that would exclude the biological components. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Commented Dec 6, 2018 at 18:10

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

The single biggest difference is the lack of chemical weathering in lunar soils which are subject to physical weathering almost exclusively. If you exclude biological processes, terrestrial rocks undergo significant weathering from water and atmosphere, which the moon lacks.

For example, both earth and moon contain feldspar-rich rocks, however, clays, the result of chemically altered feldspars, are not found on the moon. Neither are oxidized minerals, as the moon has no oxygen-rich atmosphere to speak of.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can't exclude biological processes when talking about soils. Organic matter is a fundamental component of what makes a soil. Mars has weathered rocks but doesn't have soils in the same way as Earth because it has no life. $\endgroup$
    – bon
    Commented Jan 26, 2017 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ "You can't exclude biological processes when talking about soils." Yes you can. Please consider that in 4.6 billion years, the earth has had lifeless soils for about 4.1 billion of them. $\endgroup$
    – Knob Scratcher
    Commented Jan 26, 2017 at 15:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And there is the crux, there is a solid divide among scientists about the definition of soil. Many content the presence of biotics is required others do not. Until a universal definition of soil is agreed upon it is just arguing in circles. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Commented Jan 26, 2017 at 15:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.