At the recent Royal Conference in London Society American planetologist presented perhaps the most extreme theory of the origin of the moon … 
Photo from open sources Mr. Stevenson claims that he himself For a long time he was a supporter of the most supported modern theory: The moon is a part of the Earth torn out of it at the collision of our planet with another large terrestrial planet, at least the size of Mars. Alas, this hypothesis does not answer all the questions. So, analysis lunar materials delivered by ships and automatic spacecraft, showed that the isotopic composition of the lunar crust too close to earthly: it turns out that Theia, hit the Earth, did not contribute to the material of our satellite at all. This problem however, there is an excellent theoretical solution: Teia was very large and hit the Earth at a great angle, causing separated from our house a large amount of its substance, and itself, on the contrary, almost did not suffer, and therefore there were no traces of it in the composition There is no moon. 
Photos from open sources
The moon immediately after its formation 4.5 billion years ago. (Illustration by NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center.) The output is good. to all, except that this hypothesis can be generalized by the phrase “ends in water. “Where is Theia, an object larger than Mars, but apparently not Mars? And not is such a construction an attempt to get away from sharp questions? .. The idea that at a certain stage the Earth is due to an excess of angular moment just lost part of itself, and future lunar material flew into space, even less balanced: then the angular momentum of there were so many early Earths that it’s not at all clear how she could arise and exist. What to do? Dave Stevenson (Dave Stevenson) from California Institute of Technology (USA) offers another option: the Moon is a former satellite of Venus. In the very in fact, he notes, Venus is very similar to Earth in mass and sizes much larger than Mars or Mercury. In fact, this is generally closest to us in both distance and weight and size parameters body in the universe. Why does the Earth have a satellite (and very large), but Venus doesn’t? Here, of course, several questions. To begin with, data on the proximity of the isotopic composition The moon and earth are undeniable. So, if the moon as a satellite at the beginning belonged to Venus, then the isotopic composition of Venus should be almost identical to earthly. But is it? Yes, Mr admits Stevenson, the theory of the capture of the moon from Venus will always suffer because of similarities in the composition of Selena and our planet. However, this question there is another side: we do not know anything about the isotopic composition Venus. Once, before spaceflight, it seemed that isotopic the compositions of the moon and the earth must not coincide. Tell someone in 1968 the year that the isotopes of moon dust and the earth’s crust are essentially identical, he would have been crucified exponentially. But what if the same situation exists with Venus? What if we assume the isotopic composition of its surface only by misunderstanding, but in reality the same surprise awaits us there, what on the moon? Yes, so far there is nothing to answer. Indeed, if future missions will bring from Venus to Earth for detailed research breed with the same isotopic composition, get not good. But the problem is that in the proposed theory arise significant gaps with falsifiability, i.e. opportunity check if her conclusions are correct. Alas, exploratory flight to the moon with back ground delivery for decades after the cold war – an almost unattainable task for all space powers. Space exploration programs are everywhere hungry (compared to defense) soldering: there is no need to prove to the world superiority another superpower, in the end, in the absence of competition, nothing plainly not done. But even if it were done, check such theory would be terribly difficult. The atmosphere of Venus is a hundred times denser ours, and gravity is similar. That is, the rocket must deliver the module to take soil to the surface, then the module must fly up to its engines, and its second stage should be enough for delivery cargo to Earth. This makes the required mass of media easy. titanic – so much so that the project immediately approaches cost and complexity to the American lunar program. Impossible imagine a government that can do that for the sake of testing one of the theories of the origin of the moon. 
Photos from open sources
Venus, photo (artificial colors) from a distance of 36,000 km. (Illustrated by ESA / MPS / DLR / IDA.) And yet there are strong side. Recall Venus rotates in the opposite direction to all other planets of the solar system, and it has apparent loss of torque compared to Earth. Exactly such a loss can also be responsible for the extreme weakness of the magnetic field this planet, considered the main cause of its loss of water. Earlier To explain all this, the idea that once had Venus was a satellite – the current Mercury, which due to some gravitational interactions with the third body (or group of bodies) “lost”. During this process, the orbits of both inner planets The solar system was severely deformed, Venus began to rotate in unnatural direction and almost lost rotational moment. If you put the moon in place of Mercury, the situation with venusian strangeness also becomes significantly more understandable than in the concept that Venus’s moons never It was. Research report presented at London (UK) conference on the origin of the moon. Based on materials from Space.Com.
Venus Water Moon Mars Mercury Solar System
