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
#31
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10196 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 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) |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Apr 21 2006, 06:40 AM
Post
#32
|
Guests |
Actually, there IS erosion on the Moon, and it is that erosion which has removed its sharp corners -- namely, that same slow but continuous rain of high-speed micrometeoroids which has very gradually but consistently pulverized the surface, as it does on all airless and nonchanging worlds. The lack of sharp corners is due to the Moon's lack of geological activity, for the last several billion years, that might thrust up new surface features or fissure old ones with faults. The place has been literally "ground down" for eons. This is something which in retrospect should have been obvious to everyone from the beginning, but doesn't seem to have struck most scientists until Ranger 7 provided the first close-up views of lunar features and revealed all the Moon's smaller craters to be blunted and eroded.
And, yes, it is virtually colorless -- which is why the patch of "orangish soil", which turned out to be beads of volcanic glass, so startled the Apollo 17 astronauts. |
|
|
Apr 21 2006, 11:19 AM
Post
#33
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
Actually, there IS erosion on the Moon, and it is that erosion which has removed its sharp corners -- namely, that same slow but continuous rain of high-speed micrometeoroids which has very gradually but consistently pulverized the surface, as it does on all airless and nonchanging worlds. The lack of sharp corners is due to the Moon's lack of geological activity, for the last several billion years, that might thrust up new surface features or fissure old ones with faults. The place has been literally "ground down" for eons. This is something which in retrospect should have been obvious to everyone from the beginning, but doesn't seem to have struck most scientists until Ranger 7 provided the first close-up views of lunar features and revealed all the Moon's smaller craters to be blunted and eroded. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey went for the old-fashioned craggy Moon, despite knowing better by then. Arthur C. Clarke wrote about how the Moon's mountains were smooth due to cosmic erosion in his 1964 Time-Life Science book Man and Space, which he did in a moonlighting capacity while working with Stanley Kubrick on developing the film. So they knew, but they went with 1960s pre-Apollo audience expectations of the Moon. A little disappointing considering how often 2001 is touted as being so accurate. They did the same thing with the Discovery spacecraft, choosing aesthetics over accuracy by not having any large vanes on the vessel which would be necessary to remove excess heat from the nuclear engines. It made the ship look like it had wings and that would have reduced the "coolness" factor of its look. So they decided to let Discovery look cool while in reality it would have melted into a radioactive pile of metal slush from all the heat buildup. Or would it have exploded? http://www.palantir.net/2001/ -------------------- "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: 20th June 2024 - 10:43 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. |