No Moon

[allmywires]

I would have put this in the Quickfire Questions, but alas, that is no more, so here we are.

In my fantasy world (the details of which are not really discussed, but I like to get them straight in my own mind) the planet has no moon. I've done some research into what this would mean - lower tides, faster spinning planet which would have to be adjusted internally for 'earth like' conditions without a satellite, more violent plate tectonics which give my world its dramatic mountain ranges and volcanism.

Firstly, is there anything I've missed off there that would be notable and might affect my world building?

My biggest question, however, is how do I get across that they don't have a moon without saying it directly? They don't know what a moon is, so I can't say it in their voice. Or am I simply trying to be too clever and wanting people to appreciate all the thought I put into my world (OK, I think it's a fair bit of the latter).

[Warren_Paul]

The darkness of night comes to mind. Even at night time there is a little bit of light that comes from the moon - not into astronomy but I believe it's the light from the sun being reflected by the moon? Basically night might be pitch black, even out in the open.

The days would also be much, much shorter. I believe the climate would also be hotter too.


With all of these things combined, you can make reference to stars, but never mention the moon, people might catch on, but I doubt all will.

[alchemist]

You could say something like..."That star there, we call it the Big Star, 'cos it's the biggest thing in the night sky."

[pyan]

There'd only be days and years, no months...

[psychotick]

Hi,

Tides. No moon, no tides. And if your WIP is science based, you'll know that tides are a huge thing when it comes to evolution and things crawling out of the sea. Essentially tides give intertidal zones, and its here where creatures with the ability to store oxygen and survive drying out evolved, and eventually became land dwellers.

Cheers, Greg.

[Bowler1]

As per psychotick, the moon keeps your planet spinning on a steady axis which is important to evolution. No moon and the planet will change axis more often, Earth does even with a moon.

I also think tides will have mixed things up a bit and may have been important for life to begin, no moon, no tides.

You would still have seasons as they are mainly driven along by the axis of the planet.

To be honest however, if I were reading a book I don't think a missing moon would bother me too much and the visual difference would be interesting, even after all the above!

[Abernovo]

Planets have different sorts of moons. Ours is believed to have been the result of a collision, the remains of which can be seen in the night sky. Other planets might capture their moons, either as dust and rock that forms into a moon by accretion, or as asteroids that are sucked into a stable orbit.

So, you might have no moon, but you might still see small asteroids reflecting light, or a shiny, or dark, ring of accretion material that might one day in the planet's future be a moon. Your inhabitants might have no knowledge of what it was, but they would probably notice it.

As far as world building on the planet's surface, the absence of the moon would probably contribute to highly chaotic weather systems. No tides would affect the oceanic currents which vary sea temperatures. Combined with the planetary spin producing a faster jet stream, this could result in some spectacular storms.

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by allmywires

In my fantasy world (the details of which are not really discussed, but I like to get them straight in my own mind) the planet has no moon. I've done some research into what this would mean - lower tides, faster spinning planet which would have to be adjusted internally for 'earth like' conditions without a satellite, more violent plate tectonics which give my world its dramatic mountain ranges and volcanism.

I don't think much of this would be able to change. Obviously there won't be tides at all, which creates issues, but the earth's rotation isn't directly linked to the moon (as in, absent the moon, a planet could still spin on it's axis 1 rev per 24hr), and if you changed the rotation speed too much in either direction it wouldn't support life.

Originally Posted by allmywires

Firstly, is there anything I've missed off there that would be notable and might affect my world building?

The most obvious one is a lack of light at night, which would have vast impact on the ecosystem and the type of animals that would evolve and their behaviour.

Originally Posted by allmywires

My biggest question, however, is how do I get across that they don't have a moon without saying it directly? They don't know what a moon is, so I can't say it in their voice. Or am I simply trying to be too clever and wanting people to appreciate all the thought I put into my world (OK, I think it's a fair bit of the latter).

The most obvious is to talk about how dark it is at night, and to elevate the importance of the brightest stars.

[Stephen Palmer]

There was a programme on BBC TV about 6-9 months ago on this subject - 'Do We Need The Moon?' or something similar.

[James Coote]

Assuming there is no light pollution, the stars overall, would probably be quite bright (though not as bright as a full moon). However, that's all the stars put together, rather than one or two particularly bright stars

Then again, this fantasy world may be in a different part of the galaxy. Closer to the centre, which produces a big blob of light, or perhaps having neighbouring stars closer and bigger, even making them visible during the day (?)

[mosaix]

The development of space travel would be interesting. The Moon, for us, has been a staging point for landing on an extra-terrestrial body. When we finally do go to the planets the experience we gained from landing on the Moon will have been invaluable.

[allmywires]

Yes, I have big stars that provide a little more light at night, and yes, the fact that the Moon stabilises the Earth's axial wobble is accounted for. Their climate changes far more rapidly and violently than ours, and it's the subtlest message of the whole series (I sound like a right prat now...)

The tides thing is interesting, because there would still be solar tides, though of course many times smaller (probably unnoticeable) than any lunar ones. Plate tectonics played a big part in evolution as well (the creation of shallow seas to help life step up onto land) so I think I have that covered.

Thank you all for your points, very useful.

[Vertigo]

I'd agree with all that's been said. Except that I did hear recently that they now suspect the moon may not be as stabilising an influence on our axial tilt as had been thought. I believe the rest of the planets have an equally stabilising effect.

How to say there's no moon when they've never seen one? How about there was a moon in antiquity. They have legends describing it and a legend of one of their gods murdering another god (the moon) or stealing it from another god or... well you get the idea!

[Venusian Broon]

Can't add much to what has been written,

I'd suggest that plant and animal life could be dramtically different - with only a weak solar tide and no moonlight. In fact you could have a lot of fun, say have a world with the axis of spin on the side, i.e. Like Uranus in our solar system.

They'd be no tropics with strong, stable exposure to the sun - so your plant life would have different strategies to maximise their exposure and survivability to the different solar annual cycle. Animals may tend to be migratory as they 'chase the summer' across the globe, big herds of herbivores chewing down the new plant growth as they continually move, although hibernation and winter survival adaptations would also be on the cards. Of course land animals migrating on foot, are highly dependent on the land distribution being right. So perhaps a planet of swimming and flying animals (and a few nasty hibernating top carnivores.)

I found a reference to a book: What if the Moon Didn't Exist?: Voyages to Earth's that might have been by Neil F. Comins.

I can't vouch for it, so it may not tell you much and be no good. But it and another book of his made the basis of a New Scientist article, so it must be Kosher Science-wise

[allmywires]

Vertigo - surely the gravitational pull of the other planets is hardly comparable to the Moon's?

Thanks VB, I'll definitely look into that. I will have a root around ScienceDirect and see if I can find any speculative scientific articles there