IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

12 Pages V  « < 10 11 12  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Unmanned landing sites from LRO, Surveyors, Lunas, Lunakhods and impact craters from hardware impacts
nprev
post Mar 28 2018, 03:51 AM
Post #166


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8420
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Hmm. Sounds like a #2 splat is more probable, then. A #4 splat (total, near-simultaneous descent thruster system failure after retro jettison) might also explain it, esp. if they did fire for a bit but cut off prematurely, which would also explain the apparently very good targeting.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post Mar 28 2018, 12:32 PM
Post #167


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1719
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



It would be so cool if some of those private company landings (Lunar Express, etc.) launching soon were targeted to this location to get the ground truth. Since they aren't scientific missions, they could play a part in solving some of these space age mysteries. It's a crash site already, so it's not like landing at the Apollo sites, which raises heritage issues...plus practicing precision landings is always a useful exercise!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Mar 30 2018, 02:30 PM
Post #168


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 8146
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



There are probably more interesting targets! And remember this is only a suggestion, it might not be correct. A bigger splat like a Saturn SIVB stage impact might be more exciting to look at close up. Right now, though, most of the people who want to fly commercial missions are looking at doing science rather than just sightseeing. PTScientists are looking at landing in the Taurus-Littrow valley and inspecting the Apollo 17 rover, but other post-GLXP teams are focussed on science, hoping for a boost for future missions if they can demonstrate their technology works.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jccwrt
post Mar 30 2018, 05:29 PM
Post #169


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 4-October 14
Member No.: 7273



You could make the argument that these splats are worth scientific investigation, because they're likely to expose blocks of "fresher" rock from within the regolith or even solid crust (depending on penetration depth and what not). They're not in-situ, but you're also able to get a look at larger samples without having to grind away on them to get a fresh surface.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PDP8E
post Mar 31 2018, 08:46 PM
Post #170


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 613
Joined: 10-October 06
From: Maynard Mass USA
Member No.: 1241



I saw your post on Surveyor 4 and dug up my old candidate files...
These are NAC images with illumination from West, Small incident, East , and Terminator (west)
The Object is at 0.407N, -1.3493W
It is probably a rock (sigh)
I forget how much I blew them up, but they are all the same scale (3x?)
anyway it's a nice little shadow casting object near the landing point...
here is a GIF ...

Attached Image


--------------------
CLA CLL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kenny
post Dec 8 2019, 11:37 AM
Post #171


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 448
Joined: 1-May 06
From: Scotland (Ecosse, Escocia)
Member No.: 759



Going back a little, to the chat about LM impact images (and Post #384 by dvandorn about seismic detection)... they all came in at low incidence angles, quite unlike the SIVBs, hence the "smear" effect of tumbling debris in multiple dark streaks. Might this not produce a quite different seismic result than direct impacts from the virtually overhead descent of the SIVBs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Liss
post Feb 26 2020, 07:54 PM
Post #172


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-July 05
Member No.: 439



I’d like a possibility to be checked that I’ve found Luna 9 in LRO images.
Expected:
Two objects of different size, namely E6 descent stage and the Luna 9 probe, landed in the vicinity of 7.13 N 64.37 W according to the TASS report of 06 Feb 1966.
Found:
Two bright objects of different brightness, with long shadows, 130 meters apart, at approximately 7.02 N 64.33 W.
Positions:
M132071202LE
Larger one – Line=23370, Sample=1379
Smaller one – Line=23220, Sample=1645
See attached fragment (N at bottom, E at left)
M114376090RE
Larger one – Line=27910, Sample=3828
Smaller one – Line=28056, Sample=4073
M132071202LE
Smaller one – Line=23660, Sample=275
Larger one – off picture but a black scar (?) seen at L=23706, S=66
Cross-posted in Russian at http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum...255/?PAGEN_1=91
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Feb 27 2020, 01:02 AM
Post #173


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 8146
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



It's always interesting to see attempts to find one of the early Luna landers.

In this case, first, can you show with arrows which objects you think are the lander and the descent stage? There is one particularly large object but there are at least two smaller ones. (ADDED later: OK, I see you did that in the post on the Russian forum).

Second, the coordinates given at the time were not very reliable, with an uncertainty of about 30 km (1 degree on the Moon). The landing should be in an area within about 30 km of the stated position, not necessarily right there.

Third point - we don't have to rely only on looking for objects on the surface. Luna 9 took images which include a full 360 degree panorama showing about 200 degrees of the horizon (south, west and north of the lander). That horizon is flat, a point which I have argued for years to imply that the lander is not where the early reports said, near a range of 1000 m high hills, but must be far enough away that the hills are hidden below the local horizon. That local horizon could be a gentle ridge or degraded crater rim, so we can't just use the geometry of a featureless spherical moon to calculate a distance from the suggested point. Your coordinates are at the east end of the range of hills, and the western horizon from that location would not be flat. I personally prefer to look further north, maybe about 7.9 north, 64.2 west. But there is room for a lot of variation in those values.

And since we have images, a rough map of the landing site can be made and the pattern of craters can be compared with the LRO images. Now what we need is an object representing the lander, an object representing the descent stage, AND several craters with sizes and positions matching the lander images.

I will compare lander images and your LRO image in a later post. I do believe the search can be made successfully, but I don't think your identification is correct. I actually think Luna 13 will be easier to find than Luna 9 because the features seen in the distant landscape are clearer. For Luna 9 the distant landscape is down-sun and all washed out.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Feb 27 2020, 01:54 AM
Post #174


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 8146
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



OK, here is a comparison of the suggested features with two versions of maps of the site.

1. The LRO image (rotated north-up) with two identified features, from the link in the previous post.
Attached Image


2. Shaded relief version (by me) of the original Soviet published map (from 'First Panoramas of the Lunar Surface').
Attached Image


3. A different interpretation of surface features, by me, derived from a reprojected panorama.
Attached Image



The differences between the two maps from Luna 9 images show how difficult it is to map the surface from a camera at such a low elevation above the surface.

I don't see any obvious matches.

Since we don't see the descent stage in the lander images, most likely it is east of the lander (or northeast or southeast), excluded from the tilted panorama. It might also lie west of the lander in an area in the foreground which was also not imaged.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Liss
post Feb 27 2020, 12:06 PM
Post #175


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: 18-July 05
Member No.: 439



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Feb 27 2020, 04:54 AM) *
The differences between the two maps from Luna 9 images show how difficult it is to map the surface from a camera at such a low elevation above the surface.
I don't see any obvious matches.


Thank you Phil.
The Luna 9 maps show area some 15 meters in diameter; I'm not sure if these can be matched against LRO photos.
A 1967 description of Luna 9 say it rests in the western slope of a depression of 14-15 meters in diameter, hence the tilt to the east. Such a depression should probably have been visible.
Also, we should expect two fresh craters in the vicinity where two equipment sections crashed after separation at descent brake start.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 10 11 12
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd April 2020 - 12:27 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.