Chandrayaan-II, All Chandrayaan-II related articles |
Chandrayaan-II, All Chandrayaan-II related articles |
Dec 21 2010, 05:47 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 23-December 08 From: Mumbai Member No.: 4513 |
RussianSpaceWeb has reported that the possible landing sites for Chandrayaan-II called Luna-Resurs by the Russians have been selected. The selection is not final and seems to have been made (or covers only the Russian angle of the story) by Russian space organizations.
There is a detailed account of the selected landing sites for Chandrayaan-II here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/luna_resurs_landing.html Pradeep -------------------- Pradeep Mohandas,
SEDS India. |
|
|
Mar 20 2021, 10:30 AM
Post
#2
|
||
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: 23-July 11 Member No.: 6083 |
Managed to answer my own question, partially at least.
For reasons best known to itself the DTM file was ridiculously exaggerating the vertical extent of the model. I found that my changing the vertical exaggeration in the Qgis2threejs plugin to somewhere around 0.00004 gave sensible results. There is a 'nodata' value of -32768, and I wonder if it's reading that in? The resulting model looks a little 'lumpy', at least in this representation of part of Hadley Rille, and I'm not sure if that's a feature of the DTM itself or the processing its had to go through to get it presentable. |
|
|
||
Mar 22 2021, 03:57 AM
Post
#3
|
||
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 7-October 20 Member No.: 8895 |
Managed to answer my own question, partially at least. For reasons best known to itself the DTM file was ridiculously exaggerating the vertical extent of the model. I found that my changing the vertical exaggeration in the Qgis2threejs plugin to somewhere around 0.00004 gave sensible results. There is a 'nodata' value of -32768, and I wonder if it's reading that in? The resulting model looks a little 'lumpy', at least in this representation of part of Hadley Rille, and I'm not sure if that's a feature of the DTM itself or the processing its had to go through to get it presentable. It seems they had some calibration issues with some instruments onboard..(OHRC was not calibrated first properly which gave blurry images but the images from Feb2020 were good).. I believe that's the case here also..Only ISRO can answer on that.. |
|
|
||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th June 2024 - 02:10 PM |
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. |