It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India's Chandrayaan Blasts Off To The Moon!

page: 34
40
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
good post on the lighting reasoning contradunce..

As you said, the area impacted by MIP is slated to be the same area that C-yaan2 should soft-land its Russian(?) rover in 2012. Moreover I think this region will be mapped to even greater detail(1m res?) with NASA's LRO payload
next year.. again to scout in finer detail for landing sites, base locations etc.

So if Russia, India and the US (all with eventual plans for manned missions to the moon) are looking at the same area, it would be stupid not to pool in resources to some level at least.

I see a truly international effort (unfortunately w/o China as of now) to go (back for some) to the moon, and in the same lunar vicinity




posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sentinel2107
 


Yes, thanks. contradunce posted a reply to Phage when I was typing my post.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well the general theory is that the collision did not just 'dent' the Earth with a crater etc. of 'x' kms..

As a result of the impact the Earth was quite certainly 'destroyed' and then gravitational forces put things back together again; put two things together rather..


If the Earth was destroyed into 'bits and pieces', what 'gravitational forces' put things back again? If an object is smashed to smithereens, there is no gravitational force left in each piece, enough for accretion to occur!

It would have either become another asteroid belt around the Sun, or more likely ended up into the sun itself!

Cheers!


[edit on 19-11-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikesingh
 


The collision did not create a hole. It was big, really, really big. It created enough heat to melt the entire planet. The development of our planet essentially went back to GO. Gravity pulled the Earth back into its spherical shape leaving a disc of stuff (yes, a ring) that coalesced into the moon.


Enough heat to melt a planet? And cover a 'hole/depression' at least 500km deep???? Wow!!
So how much heat in Celsius would that be?

Second point: If there was a collision, where is the object that hit the Earth? Is its debris part of the Moon? Where's the remainder? If it was an object as big as Mars, then the remainder portion, much bigger than the size of our Moon, would have been captured by the Sun's gravitational pull. The velocity due to its impact with the Earth would have been reduced to such a degree that its orbit would have been very close to the Sun. So is it Mercury? Venus?

Darn! Have I opened another can of harebrained theories - That Mercury is the possible culprit?


[edit on 19-11-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   


Now we're going into planetary genesis.. which I do not know much about

So that's how the planets got created in the first place.. large chunks in various accretion disc orbit around our Sun coalesced to form planets and moons.

When the moon impact thing happened; I presume the resulting debris, was 'astronomically aligned' to coalesce back into 2 bodies (a bigger one and the rotating accretion disc into the moon).

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
...
Thanks Z for pointing out my shortcomings so eloquently
rather a fool for a day than a lifetime they say i guess... and there is no sarcasm intended.


Very well taken with humility!

I hope you won't might if I later happen to take a leaf out of your book (aka copy-paste
) for responding to Zor when he e-beats me black and blue for any possible fallacious post from my side.
He is a strict master (check out the sword in his avataar -- sharp eh!
), and extrapolating from what MikeS had said a lot many posts back, the star trek Borgs were modeled after him.


[edit on 19/11/2008 by sentinel2107]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
So if Russia, India and the US (all with eventual plans for manned missions to the moon) are looking at the same area, it would be stupid not to pool in resources to some level at least.

I see a truly international effort (unfortunately w/o China as of now) to go (back for some) to the moon, and in the same lunar vicinity


I always get the feeling that the moon is going to stage the next fight for a new frontier, just like it was the case after America was discovered.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

The collision did not create a hole. It was big, really, really big. It created enough heat to melt the entire planet. The development of our planet essentially went back to GO. Gravity pulled the Earth back into its spherical shape leaving a disc of stuff (yes, a ring) that coalesced into the moon.

Enough heat to melt a planet? And cover a 'hole/depression' at least 500km deep???? Wow!!
So how much heat in Celsius would that be?

Second point: If there was a collision, where is the object that hit the Earth? Is its debris part of the Moon? Where's the remainder? If it was an object as big as Mars, then the remainder portion, much bigger than the size of our Moon, would have been captured by the Sun's gravitational pull. The velocity due to its impact with the Earth would have been reduced to such a degree that its orbit would have been very close to the Sun. So is it Mercury? Venus?

Darn! Have I opened another can of harebrained theories - That Mercury is the possible culprit?


What about NASA Scientist Dr. Norman Bergrun's "The Ringmakers of Saturn," in which the moon was purportedly placed in orbit by a ship of the kind around the rings of Saturn. That theory takes care of all problems and bickerings among the contesting ones.


[edit on 19/11/2008 by sentinel2107]



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Here it is, the original Clementine image. (click for full size)




posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


'Harebrained'???

Actually, according to my sources, rabbits are pretty smart....just ask Bugs...

Mike, with all due respect, please step a few steps back and open your mind to the events that prevailed during the EARLY formation of our Solar System.

It was a tumltulous time, that first one or two Billion years....I mean, every couple of million 'years' or so, something would impact with somethinbg else....it is known as 'accretion'...

Let us go farther back --- a nebulous cloud of interstellar gas and dust, likely after some massively large star supernovaed. This 'Nebula' would persist for what WE would call millions of years (even though the basis for our 'year', the Earth's orbital period, had not yet occured).

'Something' might have initiated the eventual coalescing of this 'nebula' into where we live right now. Most likely it was the inexorible force of Gravity....piece by piece, step by step....

BUT! Why are we rotating???? Well, this is like the 'chicken or the egg' question. We are HERE to ask the question, THEREFORE our Solar System developed. Many others likely do not form from the gaseous nebula, but disperse to make others.

Back to why we might be rotating --- perhaps the star that exploded was rotating....thus, its 'pieces' from the explosion would have angular momentum, and gravity would ultimately prevail, over time.

Yes, some matter would be 'flung' well outside our Solar System (ever heard of the Kuiper Belt?) but the core matter, closest near the newborn Star, would tend to accrete, within the dynamics of orbital mechanics....patterns that have been discerned by the likes of Humans such as Newton, and Galileo.

Back to what the Indian probe might learn....perhaps it will confirm what six manned Apollo landings already discovered....perhaps it will provide new discoveries.

As far as I've been reading, the composition of the upper and accesible portions of the Lunar crust show a similarity to certain geological aspects of the Earth's crust. Basically, the lighter stuff 'floats' to the surface...given enough time, as a planet or planetoid cools down from the incredible heat generated form a collision or an impact, while they are partially molten, they will begin to cool.

Could explain the 'mascons' on the Moon....since she lacks plate tectonic activity, as Earth experiences, the 'congealing' of that planetoid might have been inconsistent, and lacking the 'internal engine' that is the hot core of the Earth, the Moon sort of 'froze' as a non-homgenous globe.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


A lot of heat. The kinetic energy release would have been astronomical.

I think you misunderstood (or I was too concise). The heavy cores of both planets melted and merged into one. The lighter stuff, the debris, went into orbit around the Earth and eventually formed the moon. After the collision, there was no second body. The Earth got bigger. There would have been no problem "filling" the hole. The Earth reshaped itself entirely.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
A quick fallout of the success of Chadrayaan - I:

Chandrayaan-II cleared by govt, to be in orbit by 2011-12



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Check out this article from The New York Times. The question is, why is NASA doing this NOW?

The Moon View



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sentinel2107
 


It's not really now. It's an ongoing project that's just coming to fruition.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wolfgang1711
 


Here are some measurements made with Isis 3.



Images from Chandrayaan-1 are not yet on a format that can be used directly by Isis (but they have a program to convert files from Chandrayaan-1's format, I just have to wait for them, patiently, as usual
), so Isis can not show direct measurements, but in pixels this is what it showed.


Comparing the 10.7 km from the Clementine image with the 455 pixels from the Chandrayaan-1 image, it gives a resolution of 23 metres per pixel, so this photo is not yet full resolution, it was probably taken from a higher orbit than the ones that will be used to make the scientific work.


As for the direction of the light, I think it's almost the same, but a little higher than the one on the Clementine image, it shows slightly smaller shadows.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


thanks arMAP. Hmm I am waiting for the Damn German instrument to get activated



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


thanks!!



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Here are some measurements made with Isis 3.

...

As for the direction of the light, I think it's almost the same, but a little higher than the one on the Clementine image, it shows slightly smaller shadows.


Great work, ArMap.


Meanwhile, here's another article from The Hindu:
Chandrayaan-1: imaging moon in 64 colours



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sentinel2107
Meanwhile, here's another article from The Hindu:
Chandrayaan-1: imaging moon in 64 colours


Heck! I wanna see color images from the darn TMC instead of 64 colors from the hyperspectral camera!! TMC is panchromatic. So what's the problem here? Hopefully, at least some of the later images would be in color.


Cheers!



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


As far as I've been reading, the composition of the upper and accesible portions of the Lunar crust show a similarity to certain geological aspects of the Earth's crust. Basically, the lighter stuff 'floats' to the surface...given enough time, as a planet or planetoid cools down from the incredible heat generated form a collision or an impact, while they are partially molten, they will begin to cool.


reply to post by Phage
 


Well, the so called impact theory of lunar origin has some difficulties which have yet to be explained. These difficulties include:

• Ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not consistent with the giant impact hypothesis.
• There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis), and it is likely there exists material which has never been processed by a magma ocean.
• Iron oxide (FeO) content of 13% of the bulk Moon properties rule out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of Earth's mantle.
• If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient of those.

Cheers!



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join