Talk:Genesis Rock

Why this rock in particular?

I'm hardly a Notability Nazi, but I'm left a little puzzled why this particular lunar sample has an article of its own while none of the other bits of stuff brought back by the Apollos gets one. Is there some special significance that isn't being mentioned? The earliest revision of the article says it was a "prized trophy" of Apollo 15 but doesn't go into detail about why. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

it's the oldest object ever found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was the first super old rock from the moon. There are rocks on earth that are older (4.4 billion years old). Also according to http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/samples/ "Apollo 15's Genesis Rock is important because it is much larger than any previous sample of lunar anorthosite. Apollo 16 later collected an anorthosite sample that is both larger and older than Genesis Rock." Zed Orkin (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken reference

Ref 1 (to http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_sampact.html) now gives a redirect loop. A moments searching found: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ as a possible replacement, but I have not the time or expertise to check if it is the best reference. I reported the loop to webmaster@lpi.usra.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.164.117 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

I flagged this article because it contains some contradictory information regarding the age of the rock. While the research into this rock has changed through the years, and thus the age estimation, this article does not present the changes in estimation well and the reader is presented with two different ages for the rock. NWierschem (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

initially showed that the rock was only 4.1 ± 0.1 billion years old... then later Probing the rock with electron beams, geologists pegged the rock's age at 4.5 billion years. So, the way I read it, the first age date was 4.1 BYA, whereas a later presumably more accurate measurement yielded an age of 4.5 BYA. So, perhaps the wording is fuzzy, but the facts are there. Would need to view the reference listed to check and maybe clarify the apparent confusion. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your inference of the intended meaning, Vsmith.

I checked out the web reference, which actually links to an Apollo 15 overview, rather than to a subpage about the samples. That’s probably an error; both of those web pages are included in the External Links section. However, I didn’t change it. Anyway, the samples page says, “Studies of Genesis Rock indicate an age of about 4 billion years. However, it is believed that this represents a time when the rock experienced a metamorphic alteration and that the rock is actually older than 4 billion years. A norite sample [it’s unclear whether this refers to a sample of the Genesis Rock, or to a different lunar sample entirely], composed primarily of plagioclase and pyroxene, is about 4.5 billion years old, virtually as old as the Moon itself.” So this reference doesn’t provide any information that’s particularly helpful regarding the question here; nor do any of the other links.

Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Physical characteristics

How big? How heavy? Koro Neil (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

+1 to the question. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genesis Rock. 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/20120721151636/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-15/apollo-15.htm to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-15/apollo-15.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientific American, July 2019

Mentioned in Scientific American, July 2019 — but I’m no longer a subscriber so can’t see past the 1st paragraph. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apollos-bounty-the-science-of-the-moon-rocks/ JDAWiseman (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)