India's Chandrayaan Blasts Off To The Moon!

Originally posted by shearder

Originally posted by contradunce
Another thing that puzzles me is the formation of craters that we can see bang in front with normal telescopes. How did these craters come about. Asteroids generated between the Earth and Moon? This is puzzling because the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. So any craters striking directly and forming a round crater would ideally have been generated between the Earth and Moon or if slightly slanted the asteroid would have shizzed past near the Earth and escaped it's gravity. Unless a uniformly pock marked Moon was later escorted and positioned to circle the Earth?

The moon does rotate.

The moon rotates on an axis at the exact speed it orbits the earth! So the possibility of meteors hitting the side we see is absolutely possible...
...

That argument is fallacious (to explain the question posed by contradunce). Even with rotation, the Near Side still remains "near and dear" to us, so the question remains.

Originally posted by horsegiver
I kid you not, I watched an enormous craft manouevering above the Moon, for about an hour and half one winter's evening, when I first saw it, I thought that it was a Star, but half an hour later when I went out to fetch logs for the fire, it was still in the same relative position, ruling out the possibility. ...

To stir the broth a little more, how can you say it was a craft when initially you could mistake it for a star?

Originally posted by sentinel2107
The moon does rotate.

The moon rotates on an axis at the exact speed it orbits the earth! So the possibility of meteors hitting the side we see is absolutely possible...
...

That argument is fallacious (to explain the question posed by contradunce). Even with rotation, the Near Side still remains "near and dear" to us, so the question remains.

Regardless if we only see one side or not, during it's rotation the near side is, at times, not facing us so is exposed and will be subjected to meteorological impacts. So, again, it doesn't matter how near or dear it is not always "near" or facing us.

reply to post by sentinel2107


The answer is simply, that when I first obseved the object, I was only seeing it through my eyes, when I saw the Craft, I was observing it through a telescope.
Also, it could not have been a star, even without the telescope, because it was moving acrss the sky at the same pace as the Moon, which is why I dragged out the telescope on a cold winter's night.

Regards,

Horsegiver.

ps, keep stirring, it's healthy, we all need answers.

A member of Unmanned Spaceflight.com, Phil Stooke, posted this image that shows the area from the video.

Originally posted by shearder
Regardless if we only see one side or not, during it's rotation the near side is, at times, not facing us so is exposed and will be subjected to meteorological impacts. So, again, it doesn't matter how near or dear it is not always "near" or facing us.

My dear fellow, you need some serious revision on the concept of the near and far sides!

[edit on 18/11/2008 by sentinel2107]

Originally posted by shearder
Regardless if we only see one side or not, during it's rotation the near side is, at times, not facing us so is exposed and will be subjected to meteorological impacts. So, again, it doesn't matter how near or dear it is not always "near" or facing us.

And they made you a document archivist?

The near side does indeed ALWAYS face the Earth because the moon is tidal locked with the Earth, except for a small discrepancy that allows us to see a little more than half. The moon rotates ONCE for every orbit around Earth.

I truly find it amazing how many people here at ATS still have difficulty understanding this and that there is no dark side, yet those same people seem to think they know whats going on out there

I don't suppose it occurred to anyone that the Earth received just as many hits as the near side did in past eons. Its just they are harder to see on Earth because there is more erosion than on the moon?

But I have collected over 200 huge craters on Earth so far... many in desert regions that have not eroded, many that are now filled with water.

reply to post by zorgon


If anyone caught the Nat Geo program Direct from the Moon last night a theory about the differences is presented. The same theory also covers the uneven distribution of mascons on the moon.
National Geographic
Spectacular program, it will be re-broadcast on Sunday. Have a look at what we really got from Kaguya.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Phage]

anyone else think that india is going to be the country to discover the ruins on the moon. I dunno why but i just have a feeling that they are going to be the ones.

Originally posted by zorgon

But I have collected over 200 huge craters on Earth so far... many in desert regions that have not eroded, many that are now filled with water.

And a bunch of smallish ones in Western Australia?

Had to do it.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by horsegiver
The answer is simply, that when I first obseved the object, I was only seeing it through my eyes, when I saw the Craft, I was observing it through a telescope.
Also, it could not have been a star, even without the telescope, because it was moving acrss the sky at the same pace as the Moon, which is why I dragged out the telescope on a cold winter's night.

Interesting!! Can you please describe a little the looks and appearance of this Craft?

[edit on 18/11/2008 by sentinel2107]

Originally posted by Phage
If anyone caught the Nat Geo program Direct from the Moon last night a theory about the differences is presented. The same theory also covers the uneven distribution of mascons on the moon.
National Geographic
Spectacular program, it will be re-broadcast on Sunday. Have a look at what we really got from Kaguya.

Cannot catch the program from here! Is it possible to brief me/us on it succinctly?

Originally posted by ATSGUY
anyone else think that india is going to be the country to discover the ruins on the moon. I dunno why but i just have a feeling that they are going to be the ones.

So does Richard Hoagland
You are in good company!!

Originally posted by shearder
Regardless if we only see one side or not, during it's rotation the near side is, at times, not facing us so is exposed and will be subjected to meteorological impacts. So, again, it doesn't matter how near or dear it is not always "near" or facing us.

The following is a repost of the discussions that we had (pg. 19) related to the Dark Side of the moon. If you follow the red spot on the diagram carefully, the two issues -- that there is always the same Near Side, and that there is no Dark Side -- will get resolved.

BEGIN REPOST: ----------------------------------------

Originally posted by sentinel2107

Originally posted by zorgon

As to the Moon there is NO DARK SIDE...
...
Here is a diagram... notice the direction of sunlight...
...
It just shows how hard it is to break trough that conditioning

To help visualise better that there is NO DARK SIDE, here is a modified version of the diagram posted by Zor, with a red spot on the surface of the moon. Notice that the spot, even though always facing the earth, goes through a complete cycle of lunar day & night in one month as the moon revolves around the earth (and rotates in about the same time)

---------------------------------------- :END REPOST

So what contradunce was effectively asking was explaination for the presence of a crater at, say, the red spot on the lunar surface, when the spot always faces the earth.

[edit on 18/11/2008 by sentinel2107]

Originally posted by sentinel2107

Cannot catch the program from here! Is it possible to brief me/us on it succinctly?

The program or the theory?

The part of the program concerning Kaguya included the video we've already seen (but on a wide screen television it's a lot more impressive). The 3D imaging featured a hi-rez fly-through of Tyco.

The theory concerns the moon being formed by a major primordial impact. The moon was formed through accretion of the debris of the impact. While still hot, elastic, and much closer to Earth, tidal forces caused denser material to migrate to the nearside, resulting in the mascons. Because the hotter, fluid material was concentrated on the nearside, volcanic activity was probably more frequent and continued there longer than on the farside. Thus the larger and more numerous mare (and fewer craters) on the nearside.

(I think I got it right, more or less)

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Phage]

I could finally make a comparison between one of the photos from Chandrayaan 1 and Clementine.

This is a photo from Chandrayaan 1 (click for full size)



This is the same area from Clementine (with a resolution of 100 metres per pixel), with the reddish area showing the above image from Chandrayaan 1. (Click for full size)



Nice resolution.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I could finally make a comparison between one of the photos from Chandrayaan 1 and Clementine.

This is a photo from Chandrayaan 1 (click for full size)



This is the same area from Clementine (with a resolution of 100 metres per pixel), with the reddish area showing the above image from Chandrayaan 1. (Click for full size)



Nice resolution.

Now thats a ground breaking resolution... hmmm I am waiting for SIR's activation from Max-Planck Germany's instrument. I am loving this. Its a rare phenomenon called "Chandrayaan"
Heil the spirit of the little boy

This resolution should shut the mouths of the human rights and poverty concerned jerks.
All heil for the spirit of the little boy !!!

If Radius is 117Kms
Then this pic released by ISRO must be 1/7th or 1/8th of 117 Kms. If I am not wrong
this means 16 Kms or 14.625 Kms Damn! I am obsessed now

The Japanese, the Indians and the Chinese. They're leaving us in the US behind. Or, have we been there already and have kept it quiet?