Customer Reviews

Moon

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a delight to read and it contains much interesting information about the Moon in science, history and culture, as well as anecdotes about lunar observers and scientists. But please don't believe everything you read! The book is so full of factual errors that I have to conclude that the author - apparently a radio astronomer - has no real understanding of lunar science! Starting with the acknowledgments - where the phrase reflection telescope is used rather than reflector - there are too many errors to list, but I will give a flavor of them: Lunar mascons are not due to buried iron projectiles; central peaks first appear in craters about 15 km in diameter, not 40 km; Aristarchus is not the center of a network of rilles; the Rheita Valley is composed of basin secondary craters; Beer and Madler's lunar map was published in 1834-6, not 1878; Gerard Kuiper never worked with Percival Lowell; the magma ocean formed 4.5 billion years ago, not 3.9; Eratosthenian craters postdate - not predate - the formation of mare; etc; etc. With so many errors in the lunar science and history sections, I have to wonder if there are others in the cultural discussions where I am less well informed. So, am I just being unduly negative, critical of details, and missing the value of a readable popular introduction to the Moon? Perhaps. The book does fill a gap and if it encourages readers to learn more about the Moon it will serve an important function. But in a larger sense this book is worrisome. It is like many news reports that tell a good story, but are ignorant or, or actively screw up the real content. I think factual honesty matters - the publisher and author could have cleaned up most of the errors with a competent pre-publication review - apparently they didn't bother.

This is a remarkable book. One of the best science books I have ever read, certainly one of the best astronomy books. It has grandeur, sweep and vision and is inspirational. in places it is poetic.

Charles Wood's nitpicks are unfair and inaccurate. The index reference to reflection telescope and not reflector telescopes is trivial and not inaccurate in itself. Only a pedant would moan about it.

regarding his other points, I think Kuiper worked at the Lowell Observatory. As for the comments about lunar peaks starting at 15 km and not 40 km, that's not what other books say such as Paul Spudis's "The once and future moon." Aristarchus is the focus of a centre of rilles called (unsuprisingly) the Aristarchus Rilles, I've seen them. Whitehouse talks of magma infilling of basins at 3.9 billion years old which is correct and Wood takes him out of context. The crater Erostostenes does not postdate all mare. So I think Wood is being unfair and rubbishing this excellent book to promote his own, as I see he has done to Patrick Moore's fine book about the moon.

You won't regret buying this book. I was sad when it came to the end.

I cannot agree with Charles Wood, some of the errors he points out in the book are simply not there, or are trivial and amplified by Mr Wood who is the author of a rival book. I have read Mr Wood's book and it is not in the same leage as Whitehouse's excellent work and contains a great many errors of its own. What we have here is a competing author trying to prevent others from buying rival and better book - shameful.

Whitehouse's book is the best book about the moon I have ever read. Read it and make up your own mind.

better still read both the books by Whitehouse and Wood and make up your own mind. I did.

The book starts with an interesting overview of the supernatural status of the moon in the older nations, including the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, French and even Africans. The God-status (in many cases Goddess-status) of the moon across the continents, proves the impact that our satellite has had over the ages. Whitehouse argues that the moon has lost its status as a primary object for astronomers. Probably as a result of technological advancements, man has increasingly turned his gaze towards the deeper mysteries of space, seldom sparing even a sidelong glance at the moon. The mid-twentieth century interest in the moon was mainly driven by political and military power play, rather than scientific interest. However, the book describes the history of lunar observation in much detail with specific references to map making and the (sometimes colourful!) characters involved in the development of our current knowledge of the moon. The theories around the origination of the moon and earth were of particular interest.

The book is well-written and although full of facts, it is easy to read and should hold any reader's interest. It also contains myths and mysteries about the moon that balance the facts and science elements well. There are twelve pages with pictures and photographs that enhance the reading experience a lot. The book also has a handy index. The book is not only meant for astronomers or scientists, in fact there might be other more "pure" science books about the moon for such serious reading. Anyone interested in the moon or astronomy should enjoy this book. An optimal way to enjoy the book would be to sit with a map of the moon and a pair of binoculars, to follow the author as he describes the more obvious features of the moon. However, such an approach is not a prerequisite to enjoy the book. People interested in history will also find it a worthwhile read. Young people and students who are starting to explore the universe will also benefit by starting off with an easy read with factual information rather than the challenging pure science reference works. Although I have always had a "soft spot" for our closest extra-terrestrial neighbour, the book inspired me to appreciate the moon even more. It is always a pleasure to read a book written by someone who has an obvious passion for its subject.