Unmanned landing sites from LRO, Surveyors, Lunas, Lunakhods and impact craters from hardware impacts |
Unmanned landing sites from LRO, Surveyors, Lunas, Lunakhods and impact craters from hardware impacts |
Sep 7 2009, 07:51 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
I figured it was time to begin a thread like this, especially since some of us may still be looking for the Surveyor III retro motor casing (assuming the bright dot to the north of the landing site isn't it).
We ought to be seeing some of the other Surveyors fairly soon, I would think. We know most of their locations pretty accurately. Again, I think there is a lot to be gained, both from scientific and engineering standpoints, from detailed imaging of the Surveyor VII landing site, just to mention one. And I really want to see how visible the Lunakhod tracks are as opposed to the MET and LRV tracks. So... until we begin to see images of other unmanned hardware (or the craters caused by same), we could always discuss comparisons of Surveyor III surface imagery to the new LROC images of its landing site here. I'm especially taken by how you can resolve many of the blocks in Block Crater in the LROC image, which gives you a good feel for the explosive nature of the ejecta and roughly where in the ejecta plume a given block might have come from. Might be interesting/useful to apply this information to the samples taken at that location. -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Apr 11 2010, 07:39 AM
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 555 Joined: 1-May 06 From: Scotland (Ecosse, Escocia) Member No.: 759 |
I agree that Phil's object is Luna 18. Geert's object looks like a rock which is a different shape and substantially smaller than a Luna. Geert, thnanks also for explaining how there are more images available than the system seems to show, which also explains how no-one (to my knowledge) has been able to find Luna 16 in a big context image, although the craft itself has been excised and posted by the LROC people.
If south is to the bottom, the ascent stage might actually have toppled over to the SE, and there is a curious extra shadow on the NE side of the image.. a rock or an arm or antenna of the spacecraft? Better defintion image awaited with interest. |
|
|
Apr 11 2010, 09:43 AM
Post
#92
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 236 Joined: 5-June 08 From: Udon Thani Member No.: 4185 |
I agree that Phil's object is Luna 18. Geert's object looks like a rock which is a different shape and substantially smaller than a Luna. If south is to the bottom, the ascent stage might actually have toppled over to the SE, and there is a curious extra shadow on the NE side of the image.. a rock or an arm or antenna of the spacecraft? Better defintion image awaited with interest. The object I mentioned before was at the coordinates the LROC site gave for Luna 18, so it's no 'Geert's object' I agree that the object Phil shows much better conforms to size and shape of a Luna sample return craft, so I think he has indeed a much better candidate. I tried to find the object Phil mentions in other images of the area, problem is making sure that you have indeed the same thing, but maybe I succeeded in M104147428LE, if I'm correct than the same crater Phil mentions is in this image almost at the bottom of the image. Might this be the same object Phil has found? It certainly looks 'artificial' and indeed as if the ascent stage has broken off, there still seem to be some shadows of antenna.. EDIT: From the latest localizer image Phil posted, it's clear I had the correct crater, but the wrong stone/object ! Still trying to find the correct object in the other images of the area. I'm trying to get the same thing in other images as well, and trying to work out convincingly that we are indeed talking about the same thing, it's hard to puzzle out how pixel-coordinates from one image map into the other, so I might very well be wrong! If I can find the time I'll try to work out a better method of making sure we are talking about the same thing.. |
|
|
||
Apr 11 2010, 10:17 AM
Post
#93
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1441 Joined: 26-July 08 Member No.: 4270 |
I'm not convinced. Looking at the shadow gives you a rough idea of what the shape of the object is along the line of sight. It looks rather bumpy, but then again I don't know if the shadow of the object falling on that (what appears to be) rock is the cause of this.
-------------------- -- Hungry4info (Sirius_Alpha)
|
|
|
Apr 11 2010, 12:15 PM
Post
#94
|
||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10184 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
Here's a finder image for Luna 16 - I just figured it out yesterday. I'm preparing guides like this to all the previously unlocated objects. Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
||
Apr 11 2010, 01:14 PM
Post
#95
|
|||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10184 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
This is where my Luna 18 candidate is:
and here is the same thing at high sun. It doesn't look so convincing in this image. Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
||
|
|||
Apr 11 2010, 03:08 PM
Post
#96
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 236 Joined: 5-June 08 From: Udon Thani Member No.: 4185 |
and here is the same thing at high sun. It doesn't look so convincing in this image. Judging from your latest image, I clearly found the wrong object although possibly in the correct crater. Based on the lat/lon data and the image data, both the "official" luna 18 candidate as probably your candidate, should also be visible in image M104147428LE which seems to have a more favorable sun angle, however as yet I didn't manage to find either. Don't know why they don't include this image on the list at the preliminary Luna 18 position, while it seems to cover the area, maybe they simply haven't managed either to find the object in this image? |
|
|
Apr 11 2010, 08:01 PM
Post
#97
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 555 Joined: 1-May 06 From: Scotland (Ecosse, Escocia) Member No.: 759 |
Here's the new comparison image. (PS I really ought to be doing some work around the house... but who can leave this stuff alone?) Housework indeed ... and bang goes the gardening. I'm looking at Phil's second set of 2 comparison images. Now assuming the landing orientations of the 2 craft are roughly the same, I'm seeing in the case of Luna 18 an extra "lump" at the South East (bottom right) position, which might be the ascent stage toppled off. That might make the funny shadaow top right (North East corner) to be the partially raised drilling arm. |
|
|
Apr 12 2010, 03:16 AM
Post
#98
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 753 Joined: 23-October 04 From: Greensboro, NC USA Member No.: 103 |
Might this be the same object Phil has found? It certainly looks 'artificial' and indeed as if the ascent stage has broken off, there still seem to be some shadows of antenna.. It looks to me like you found "Nomad" from the Star Trek Original Series! -------------------- Jonathan Ward
Manning the LCC at http://www.apollolaunchcontrol.com |
|
|
Apr 12 2010, 03:55 AM
Post
#99
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
Now assuming the landing orientations of the 2 craft are roughly the same, I'd say not. Here's my guess on the relative orientations. The slopes that they are resting on and the different sun angle are likely contributing to the apparent variance in dimensions. When you alter lighting angles on spherical objects (which the Luna craft were rife with) perceptions of size and shape change accordingly. -------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
Apr 12 2010, 08:32 AM
Post
#100
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 555 Joined: 1-May 06 From: Scotland (Ecosse, Escocia) Member No.: 759 |
I'd say not. Here's my guess on the relative orientations. I do see what you mean. That extra object (now in the NE postion) still looks brighter than the rest and could still be a toppled shiny ascent stage. And maybe the dark shadow (now at south, bottom) is a rock it unluckily landed on and it is now straddling, or indeed the drilling arm. The landing sequence of these vehicles was totally automated and Lunas 18 and 20 were the same model (unlike Luna 23, 24) so my guess is that landing orientation would be intended to be identical, so that antennae and landing radar were pointing in predictable ways. But of course things can go wrong...as we know they did with Luna 18. |
|
|
Apr 12 2010, 11:59 AM
Post
#101
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10184 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
-------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Apr 13 2010, 11:27 AM
Post
#102
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 3108 Joined: 21-December 05 From: Canberra, Australia Member No.: 615 |
|
|
|
May 27 2010, 01:56 AM
Post
#103
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 808 Joined: 10-October 06 From: Maynard Mass USA Member No.: 1241 |
Here is a
I found a site that has many VRML models of Russian spaceships. http://vsm.host.ru/e_vrml.htm All I can discern it is run by a guy named 'chernov' (nice site!) I oriented the model (approximately) as seen from above as in the images Cheers -------------------- CLA CLL
|
|
|
||
May 27 2010, 01:18 PM
Post
#104
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10184 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
Interesting!
By the way, only a couple of weeks until the next LROC release - June 15th... Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
May 31 2010, 03:04 AM
Post
#105
|
||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10184 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
This is a possible candidate for the Chang-e-1 impact crater. I have done a comparison of Apollo 15 Metric camera image AS15-M-2003 with LROC M106533362RE, and some nice-looking craters in LROC were already there for Apollo 15. This one is on the verge of detectability in the Apollo frame, but just possibly might be new. I don't have the Apollo panoramic image yet to confirm it.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th June 2024 - 07:33 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |