FWIW, during the time the majority of meaningful impacts were happening in the very early solar system, the Earth and moon would have sheltered each other a little bit better because of the much smaller distance between them.
No need for the quotes - when it comes to rocks/minerals, if it’s sand-sized (1/16 to 2 mm), it is sand, regardless of where in the Universe it is or what its precise composition.
A bit of a tangential question: the majority of known craters on earth and the moon are roughly circular. This means (to me, at least) that the meteor was on a trajectory roughly perpendicular to the surface where impact occurred. Is this the case? And if not… then:
If it came in at a more acute angle, the “crater” would surely have much more debris on one side, and the shape should be more oval.
And if it came in at a very acute angle to the eg, 10˚ to the tangent, (ie, 80˚ to the perpendicular) would it “bounce” and breakup without much trace? Chelyabinsk appeared to be in this category but broke apart before landing. A bigger body might actually hit land.
Not really, an impact at nearly any angle is going to leave a circular crater.
There are of course more in depth treatments of this topic if you are interested.
No. However, at that shallow of an angle, you may actually see a distortion in the crater along the trajectory.
I’ve seen a couple explanations for the asymmetry. The more recent that I saw involved a double collision theory, that after the moon had mostly formed it got hit again. I’m a bit skeptical on that one.
The one that I put more credence in is that the moon was affected by the heat of the Earth. The moon would have spun down and become tidally locked fairly quickly, while the Earth’s surface was still mostly molten and blazing at a few thousand degrees. It was also much closer to the Earth than it is today. So, the side facing the Earth had a big oven in the sky, altering its composition and evolution.
Jury’s still out though, and we learn something (or a bunch of somethings) about the moon everytime we send a new probe.
Once the moon was tidally locked, couldn’t the Earth’s gravity have pulled the liquid magma towards the side facing Earth? Just like the Sun and the Moon pull oceans on Earth towards them?
Scott Manley does excellent videos on rocketry and space exploration topics, and he’s got a great one I just happened to watch the other day about exactly this subject. 11 minutes long, but with detailed explanations and experiment footage to illustrate why only very shallow-angle impacts leave noticeably oblong craters:
Thank you, great explanation.
You note that the tidal bulge on Earth is both on the side facing the moon, and also the side away from it?
Tidal action is less about pulling, and more about squeezing.
Love his channel, would probably have linked to that video if I was at home, rather than work. It’d be much easier to find on my home computer.
But yeah he’s certainly become one of the better science popularizers out there. I originally just started watching for Kerbal Space program. Was looking for tips on how to get my rockets to do what I wanted them to do, and found that I preferred watching him play than playing myself.
Scott Manley: Come for Kerbal, Stay for the Universe. 
No, could you explain please?
I could let an ex-Doper explain…
Since you’re an expert in the field I’m not about to quibble with your terminology. And what follows is not meant as any sort of criticism, just as a vaguely humorous observation …
Obviously any terminology in English is just our semi-arbitrary name for {whatever}, and we need an agreed term to communicate successfully with one another. So far, so ordinary.
But the shear humanity-centric hubris of flatly declaring it to be “sand” everywhere in the Universe struck me funny. I wonder if the jillions of folks on sextillions of other planets in billions of other galaxies agree with that?
It’s simultaneously a humdrum and an outrageous statement. I chuckled. Maybe someone else will too.
Look at section 3 here for an example of a possible "bounce:
Forgive my ignorance, but which ex-Doper is that?
An individual grain of that size can be called sand, but I don’t want to imply that a handful scooped up from the lunar surface would be concidered to be sand overall like sand on a beach. Lunar regolith as a whole is largely unsorted by size in a way most Earth sediments aren’t. Here a chunk of regolith impact-fused into a solid breccia:
Sure, fair enough, but then just use regolith, not “sand” - anyone reading you who is scared of a little technical jargon will just have to deal, IMO.
BadAstronomer
Can you tell me where I can sign up for one of these income asteroids? I can always use some spare cash. *
*You once shamed me for writing de juro when I meant de jure. I now have my revenge. 
It appears that image won’t hotlink, at least not without a membership. I get a 403 Forbidden error.
Touché Good Sir!
The bad part is when the income asteroid impacts your existing nest egg at speed the whole thing is turned into a rapidly expanding cloud of used-to-be gold plasma. Capturing and re-condensing the plasma is a tall order.
Said another way:
There is no free crunch!
The lunar meteorite NWA 11266: