Lunar Spacecraft Images, A place for moon panoramas, mosaics etc. Options

[Bob Shaw]

Phil:

Is this image of any use to you? It's one I've been playing with, and I've been thinking of dropping it into your Tycho panorama...

Bob Shaw

(Eeek! 1500 posts! I ought to get out more...)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Phil:

(Eeek! 1500 posts! I ought to get out more...)

Yes, the Internet is making modern society bear a closer and closer resemblance to E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops"...

[Phil Stooke]

Judging by the number of posts, I'm only half the man Bruce is... and just over half a Bob. Just over half a bob - let's say sixpence ha'penny. I can't afford to get out more - I gotta stay here and post-post-post!

Phil

(PS Bob - add a Surveyor to a pan if you like, I'd enjoy it. I have a pic like that somewhere too, I'll look it out.)

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Internet posts are like eating chips out of a bag -- you don't realize how many you've done until it's too late. (I was just harshly reminded of this again this morning, when I got so wrapped up posting at this site and reading others without paying an attention to anything else that I ended up being half an hour later to an appointment.)

[ljk4-1]

Yes, the Internet is making modern society bear a closer and closer resemblance to E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops"...

Which is online thanks to the very same Internet:

http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~prajlich/forster.html

[djellison]

Hmm - pringles.


Doug

[odave]

This is pretty much why I'm skeptical about the whole Singularity concept. Rather than work hard to develop faster and better technology, people will tend to spend more time net surfing, reading fora, chatting, or park themselves on the couch to watch bad reality TV shows.

[ljk4-1]

[quote name= quote in reply - removed
[/quote]

It's the machines - better known as Artilects - that will do all the
real work and benefit the most from the Singularity. Humans may
just have been the midwives in all this.

The Artilects may take care of us, ignore us, or get rid of us.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/

[Bob Shaw]

Today's Space.com post includes an article featuring a chap by the name of Stooke...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0603...ery_monday.html

Bob Shaw

[chris]

[quote name= quote in reply - removed
[/quote]

Very unlikely sounding name. Must be a pseudonym

chris

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I see Phil's LPSC talk on the great Lunar Lander Hunt has made Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0603...ery_monday.html . Personally, the one I'm still most interested in is Surveyor 4.

[Phil Stooke]

I should emphasize I only submitted a "print-only" abstract because I couldn't get to LPSC this year.

Phil

[Bob Shaw]

Phil:

I was intrigued by the (possible) Clementine Ranger impact image which accompanied the Leonard David article. It seemed to show that the dark ejecta blanket (perhaps 'dust blanket' would be a more accurate description) was quite large, of the order of half a kilometer. What are your views on this? And, indeed, going back to some previous comments about the dark tracks near the LM landing sites, why is the disturbed area darker at all (or is that just an IR artefact?)?

Bob Shaw

[Phil Stooke]

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

[Bob Shaw]

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