I'm not sure how most people want their moon pictures to look. I think a lot of folks probably want it to look orange, judging from some of the shots I see. Even here, I find some moon pictures too jazzed up in terms of contrast or over-sharpening, for my tastes anyway. We have had threads in which people asked opinions on different versions of their moon pictures, and some people liked more sharpening, and some liked less. I tended to be in the latter category.That's a common misconception. The problem is that the moon is made of rocks, that are less than fully reflective, and which at their brightest, once you have the averaging effect of a zillion kilometers' distance, will only be a mid-tone.
If you want your photo to have mid-tones as the maximum value, then sure, sunny 16 or 11 all night long, baby!
But most people shooting the moon want the brightest parts to be max or near-max exposure, values of 250, say if not 255. Go find some medium grey rocks, stand way back, and try to get high pixel values with sunny-16 (or -11). You can't.
I just looked back at the raw files for some moon pictures I have shot. One of the best-detailed pictures was shot at sunny 16. The moon was almost full. As you say, it is a bunch of rocks, so none of them are pure bright white in real life. There was small enough dynamic range in the moon image itself in the Raw file that I could, if I wanted to, expand it from 0 to 255. I think it would look funny, but I could do it.
I also looked at some shots I took during a total eclipse of the moon. Even at the halfway point, a shot I took at looney 11 was fine if maybe not optimal.