Lunar Spacecraft Images, A place for moon panoramas, mosaics etc. |
Lunar Spacecraft Images, A place for moon panoramas, mosaics etc. |
Jun 5 2005, 01:27 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10256 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
As promised in another thread... I thought all the images from Surveyor, Apollo etc. needed another place to go than the Mars Forum.
I will start the thing off with a link, not an image. I occasionally have images in Chuck Wood's Lunar Picture of the Day (LPOD) website, www.lpod.org. This URL: http://www.lpod.org/LPOD-2005-05-25.htm is my latest, a Clementine LWIR mosaic. The text accompanying the image explains how I made it. LWIR images from the PDS look useless but they can be made into very nice image strips. In most areas of the Moon they are the highest resolution images available, since the HIRES camera only functioned well over near-polar latitudes. So image junkies who want to see new scenery emerge from their computers can go wild! 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 PDF: 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) |
|
|
Mar 28 2006, 01:45 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10256 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
The possible Ranger 6 ejecta deposit is dark in thermal IR, meaning it's cool (and by extension, so am I), but in visible light it's bright. This like all fresh crater deposits may just be a texture effect.
We don't have a high res image here. Where we do - Rangers 7, 8, 9, Apollo 13, 14 SIVBs, Apollo 14 LM - the story is more confused. Generally there is a dark ejecta patch in visible, but Ranger 9 is bright and Apollo 14 SIVB has mixed bright and dark rays. It's not clear what is going on. One problem is that the images my comments are based on are very different - Apollo pan and Hasselblad, Lunar Orbiter, Clementine IR. We would really benefit from having systematic coverage of all these sites at very high resolution, with similar illumination, from the same instrument. LRO should help with this. 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 PDF: 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) |
|
|
Mar 28 2006, 02:06 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
Phil:
What about the sizes of the areas disturbed by the impact? I appreciate that high lateral velocity impacts are a case all to themselves, but most of the other impacts will, I'd assume, have been pretty well head-on. The S-IVBs and LM ascent stages may also have had some residual propellants which must have turned to gas on impact and presumably added to the distribution of debris. So how *big* an area of disturbance are we looking at? If a Ranger = half a kilometer, then an SIVB = ? Do you remember the post-impact pictures in the National Geographic articles which covered V2 launches at White Sands? If the V2 nosecone wasn't blown off it came in with little in the way of braking, so it's impact velocity wasn't far off that of something hitting the Moon - and what you got was a 60 foot crater with an engine in it, and confetti. I presume that head-on impacts on the Moon would be like that, but that the grazing impacts by the LM ascent stage might be rather different. Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Mar 28 2006, 02:09 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
And wouldn't the color/shading of the impact area also depend on what kind
of surface material the crashing spacecraft would dig up? A little crude surface science could be done from these old versions of Deep Impact, I presume? -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:42 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. |