DOCSLIB.ORG

Locations of Anthropogenic Sites on the Moon R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Locations of Anthropogenic Sites on the Moon R Locations of Anthropogenic Sites on the Moon R. V. Wagner1, M. S. Robinson1, E. J. Speyerer1, and J. B. Plescia2 1Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3603; [email protected] 2The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723 Abstract #2259 Introduction Methods and Accuracy Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) Narrow Angle Camera To get the location of each object, we recorded its line and sample in (NAC) images, with resolutions from 0.25-1.5 m/pixel, allow the each image it appears in, and then used USGS ISIS routines to extract identifcation of historical and present-day landers and spacecraft impact latitude and longitude for each point. The true position is calculated to be sites. Repeat observations, along with recent improvements to the the average of the positions from individual images, excluding any extreme spacecraft position model [1] and the camera pointing model [2], allow the outliers. This process used Spacecraft Position Kernels improved by LOLA precise determination of coordinates for those sites. Accurate knowledge of cross-over analysis and the GRAIL gravity model, with an uncertainty of the coordinates of spacecraft and spacecraft impact craters is critical for ±10 meters [1], and a temperature-corrected camera pointing model [2]. placing scientifc and engineering observations into their proper geologic At sites with a retrorefector in the same image as other objects (Apollo and geophysical context as well as completing the historic record of past 11, 14, and 15; Luna 17), we can improve the accuracy signifcantly. Since trips to the Moon. the retrorefector positions are known to meter-level accuracy from Earth- To date, we have identifed almost all of the robotic soft landers that based laser ranging [5], we used ISIS routines to fx the retrorefector pixel landed successfully (Surveyor, Luna, Chang’e 3), including the rovers at its known coordinates before calculating the coordinates for other associated with three of them (Lunokhod 1 and 2, and Chang’e 3 Yutu). We objects. This reduced variance in the calculated hardware locations by a have not yet located the frst two successful lunar landers (Luna 9 and factor of 5. Luna 13, launched by the Soviet Union), which are very small relative to For the Chang’e 3 lander, cross-over corrected kernels are not currently the NAC pixel scale and have poorly-constrained landing coordinates. We available for images that contain the lander and rover, so we used post- have also identifed both GRAIL impact sites, four Ranger and four Apollo landing images to identify the landing position in pre-landing images, and Saturn-IVB impact sites. The locations of crewed Apollo Lunar Module derived the coordinates from the “prior” images. (LM) descent stages, Lunar Roving Vehicles (LRV), and science instruments were also identifed in NAC images. Historical Background Prior identifcations of anthropogenic targets were made from Apollo- era photography, radio tracking, and laser ranging. Historic coordinates for Left: Spread of projected locations many anthropogenic targets were summarized in [3] and were used as for each measured object at the starting points for locating the landing and impact sites in NAC images. Apollo 12 landing site. Each Davies and Colvin [4] refned estimates of Apollo equipment based on colored dot marks the location from laser ranging at three of the six landing sites, radio tracking of ALSEP radio one image; the yellow dots mark signals (interferometry) that gave the distances between the ALSEP central the average locations. Above: Spread of projected stations, and photogrammetry of surface photos to derive the relative and locations for the Luna 17 lander, absolute positions of the LMs and other equipment. Our coordinates are after calibrating with the consistent with those of Davies and Colvin, while refning the accuracy and Map of the locations of all of the anthropogenic features located in this work. Orange indicates retrorefector mounted on the including non-Apollo sites. impactors, blue indicates unmanned landers, and green indicates Apollo landing sites. Lunokhod 1 rover 2.3 km north. Scale matches in both fgures. Impacts Robotic Landers Apollo Landings Ranger Program: The United States' Ranger spacecraft (1961- Surveyor Program: From 1966 to 1968, the United States The United States' Apollo landings (1969- 1965) were designed to image portions of the Moon at high launched seven Surveyor robotic landers as a precursor to 1972) were the frst, and so far only, crewed resolution, which they accomplished by entering a decaying the Apollo manned landings. Five of them landed success- missions to the Moon. At the six landing orbit, and imaging until they hit the surface. This resulted fully, and one, Surveyor 3, was later visited by Apollo astronauts. sites, we recorded the positions of the in spectacular images, as well as spectacular craters. following features: Luna Program: The Soviet Union launched a number of lunar Apollo SIV-Bs: On each of the United States' Apollo missions missions from 1958 to 1976, eight of which were landers that LM: The descent stage of the Landing (1969-1972), the Saturn IV-B booster was used to leave made it to the surface in one piece (although the Luna 23 Module. Earth orbit. On Apollos 13 through 17, the SIV-B was later sample return mission fell over on landing). Two of them ALSEP: The central station of the Apollo maneuvered to impact the Moon, providing a strong signal Luna 17 and 21, carried Lunokhod rovers, both of which Lunar Surface Experiment Package, which for the Apollo seismic network. traversed several kilometers over a few months. handled communication and power distribution for the experiments the GRAIL: The GRAIL mission (2011-2012) consisted of two Chang'e 3: In December 2013, China launched the astronauts left on the surface. orbiters, Ebb and Flow, which mapped the Moon's gravity frst lunar lander in 37 years, which successfully LRRR: Laser Ranging RetroRefector. feld in unprecedented detail. After a successful mission, landed and deployed a small rover, named Yutu. See PSE: Passive Seismic Experiment. Apollo 11 they were commanded to crash into the surface. LROC was poster #304 (abstract #1859) for more about LROC only left an LRRR and seismometer on the able to acquire images of the impact site both before and imaging of Chang’e 3. surface, so the seismometer package housed after the impact, allowing us to locate the 5 meter craters. Calculated Location Standard Deviation (m) Total Spread (m) its own power and communication systems. Lat Lon Radius (m) Lat Lon Lat Lon Images LRV: The fnal parking spots of the Lunar Calculated Location Standard Deviation (m) Total Spread (m) Surveyor 1 -2.4745 316.6602 1,735,511d 6.9 4.8 17.5 13.6 7 Roving Vehicles, on Apollos 15, 16, and 17. Lat Lon Radius (m) Lat Lon Lat Lon Images Surveyor 3 -3.0162 336.5820 1,735,967b 7.2 4.1 40.3 23.4 40 Ranger 6 9.3866 21.4806 1,735,409b 5.7 3.0 16.1 10.6 8 Surveyor 5 1.4550 23.1944 1,735,348d 12.6 4.2 27.8 10.6 5 Ranger 7 -10.6340 339.3229 1,735,609d 6.3 2.9 21.7 7.9 8 Surveyor 6 0.4743 358.5725 1,736,643d 5.5 2.6 13.8 6.9 5 Ranger 8 2.6377 24.7881 1,735,235d 7.9 4.9 25.1 15.2 8 Surveyor 7 -40.9811 348.4873 1,737,481d 3.3 7.9 11.4 30.6 11 Ranger 9 -12.8281 357.6116 1,735,878b 5.2 2.9 15.0 9.9 8 Luna 16 -0.5137 56.3638 1,734,948b 6.1 2.1 19.9 8.0 16 b A13 SIVB -2.5550 332.1126 1,736,244 10.0 4.4 28.2 14.5 11 Luna 17a 38.23763 324.99847 1,734,929b 1.3 1.3 7.0 5.8 29 d A14 SIVB -8.1810 333.9695 1,735,615 7.5 5.2 26.5 18.0 10 Lunokhod 1e 38.3151 324.9919 1,734,929c 9.8 5.9 46.2 23.7 29 A15 SIVB -1.2896 348.1755 1,736,301b 4.4 4.6 15.1 15.3 20 Luna 20 3.7863 56.6242 1,735,620b 8.1 2.7 27.2 9.2 16 A17 SIVB -4.1681 347.6693 1,736,231b 10.1 1.9 35.4 6.1 12 Luna 21 25.9993 30.4077 1,734,720b 13.2 7.9 41.1 21.4 8 Calculated Location Standard Deviation (m) Total Spread (m) GRAIL-A 75.6083 333.4043 1,738,169d 5.1 3.2 15.1 9.0 10 e c Lat Lon Radius (m) Lat Lon Lat Lon Images d Lunokhod 2 25.8323 30.9221 1,734,639 12.0 5.2 48.9 17.0 14 GRAIL-B 75.6504 333.1643 1,738,451 4.6 3.6 14.3 11.5 9 a b Luna 23 12.6669 62.1511 1,733,732b 8.5 2.5 29.5 10.8 26 A11 LM 0.67415 23.47315 1,735,474 0.5 1.2 2.6 7.3 47 a b Table footnotes: aCoordinates adjusted for retrorefector locations. bElevation from NAC Luna 24 12.7145 62.2129 1,733,730b 8.8 2.7 30.2 13.3 24 A11 PSE 0.67321 23.47315 1,735,472 0.7 1.2 4.2 6.9 46 c d e A12 LM -3.0128 336.5781 1,735,978b 6.3 3.5 27.4 15.7 43 DTM.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ice& Stone 2020
    Ice & Stone 2020 WEEK 34: AUGUST 16-22 Presented by The Earthrise Institute # 34 Authored by Alan Hale This week in history AUGUST 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 AUGUST 16, 1898: DeLisle Stewart at Harvard College Observatory’s Boyden Station in Arequipa, Peru, takes photographs on which Saturn’s outer moon Phoebe is discovered, although the images of Phoebe were not noticed until the following March by William Pickering. Phoebe was the first planetary moon to be discovered via photography, and it and other small planetary moons are discussed in last week’s “Special Topics” presentation. AUGUST 16, 2009: A team of scientists led by Jamie Elsila of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland announces that they have detected the presence of the amino acid glycine in coma samples of Comet 81P/ Wild 2 that were returned to Earth by the Stardust mission 3½ years earlier. Glycine is utilized by life here on Earth, and the presence of it and other organic substances in the solar system’s “small bodies” is discussed in this week’s “Special Topics” presentation. AUGUST 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 AUGUST 17, 1877: Asaph Hall at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. discovers Mars’ larger, inner moon, Phobos. Mars’ two moons, and the various small moons of the outer planets, are the subject of last week’s “Special Topics” presentation. AUGUST 17, 1989: In its monthly batch of Minor Planet Circulars (MPCs), the IAU’s Minor Planet Center issues MPC 14938, which formally numbers asteroid (4151), later named “Alanhale.” I have used this asteroid as an illustrative example throughout “Ice and Stone 2020” “Special Topics” presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Touch on the Moon
    commentary China’s touch on the Moon Long Xiao As well as being a milestone in technology, the Chang’e lunar exploration programme establishes China as a contributor to space science. With much still to learn about the Moon, fieldwork beyond Earth’s orbit must be an international effort. hen China’s Chang’e 3 spacecraft geological history of the landing site. touched down on the lunar High-resolution images have shown rocky Wsurface on 14 December 2013, terrain with outcrops of porphyritic basalt, it was the first soft landing on the Moon such as Loong Rock (Fig. 2). Analysis since the Soviet Union’s Luna 24 mission of data collected by the penetrating in 1976. Following on from the decades- Chang’e 3 radar should lead to identification of the old triumphs of the Luna missions and underlying layers of regolith, impact breccia NASA’s Apollo programme, the Chang’e and basalt. lunar exploration programme is leading the China’s robotic field geologist Yutu has charge of a new generation of exploration Basalt outcrop Yutu rover stalled in its traverse of the lunar surface, on the lunar surface. Much like the earlier but plans for the Chang’e 5 sample-return space programmes, the China National mission are moving forward. The primary Space Administration (CNSA) has been objective of the mission will be to return developing its capabilities and technologies 100 m 2 kg of samples from the surface and depths step by step in a series of Chang’e missions UNIVERSITY STATE © NASA/GSFC/ARIZONA of up to 2 m, probably also in the relatively of increasing ambition: orbiting and Figure 1 | The Chinese Chang’e 3 spacecraft and smooth northern Mare Imbrium.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploration of the Moon
    Exploration of the Moon The physical exploration of the Moon began when Luna 2, a space probe launched by the Soviet Union, made an impact on the surface of the Moon on September 14, 1959. Prior to that the only available means of exploration had been observation from Earth. The invention of the optical telescope brought about the first leap in the quality of lunar observations. Galileo Galilei is generally credited as the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes; having made his own telescope in 1609, the mountains and craters on the lunar surface were among his first observations using it. NASA's Apollo program was the first, and to date only, mission to successfully land humans on the Moon, which it did six times. The first landing took place in 1969, when astronauts placed scientific instruments and returnedlunar samples to Earth. Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid prepares to descend towards the surface of the Moon. NASA photo. Contents Early history Space race Recent exploration Plans Past and future lunar missions See also References External links Early history The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former. His non-religious view of the heavens was one cause for his imprisonment and eventual exile.[1] In his little book On the Face in the Moon's Orb, Plutarch suggested that the Moon had deep recesses in which the light of the Sun did not reach and that the spots are nothing but the shadows of rivers or deep chasms.
    [Show full text]
  • An Impacting Descent Probe for Europa and the Other Galilean Moons of Jupiter
    An Impacting Descent Probe for Europa and the other Galilean Moons of Jupiter P. Wurz1,*, D. Lasi1, N. Thomas1, D. Piazza1, A. Galli1, M. Jutzi1, S. Barabash2, M. Wieser2, W. Magnes3, H. Lammer3, U. Auster4, L.I. Gurvits5,6, and W. Hajdas7 1) Physikalisches Institut, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2) Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna, Sweden, 3) Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria, 4) Institut f. Geophysik u. Extraterrestrische Physik, Technische Universität, Braunschweig, Germany, 5) Joint Institute for VLBI ERIC, Dwingelo, The Netherlands, 6) Department of Astrodynamics and Space Missions, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 7) Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. *) Corresponding author, [email protected], Tel.: +41 31 631 44 26, FAX: +41 31 631 44 05 1 Abstract We present a study of an impacting descent probe that increases the science return of spacecraft orbiting or passing an atmosphere-less planetary bodies of the solar system, such as the Galilean moons of Jupiter. The descent probe is a carry-on small spacecraft (< 100 kg), to be deployed by the mother spacecraft, that brings itself onto a collisional trajectory with the targeted planetary body in a simple manner. A possible science payload includes instruments for surface imaging, characterisation of the neutral exosphere, and magnetic field and plasma measurement near the target body down to very low-altitudes (~1 km), during the probe’s fast (~km/s) descent to the surface until impact. The science goals and the concept of operation are discussed with particular reference to Europa, including options for flying through water plumes and after-impact retrieval of very-low altitude science data.
    [Show full text]
  • EDL – Lessons Learned and Recommendations
    ."#!(*"# 0 1(%"##" !)"#!(*"#* 0 1"!#"("#"#(-$" ."!##("""*#!#$*#( "" !#!#0 1%"#"! /!##"*!###"#" #"#!$#!##!("""-"!"##&!%%!%&# $!!# %"##"*!%#'##(#!"##"#!$$# /25-!&""$!)# %"##!""*&""#!$#$! !$# $##"##%#(# ! "#"-! *#"!,021 ""# !"$!+031 !" )!%+041 #!( !"!# #$!"+051 # #$! !%#-" $##"!#""#$#$! %"##"#!#(- IPPW Enabled International Collaborations in EDL – Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Ethiraj Venkatapathy1, Chief Technologist, Entry Systems and Technology Division, NASA ARC, 2 Ali Gülhan , Department Head, Supersonic and Hypersonic Technologies Department, DLR, Cologne, and Michelle Munk3, Principal Technologist, EDL, Space Technology Mission Directorate, NASA. 1 NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA [email protected]. 2 Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), German Aerospace Center, [email protected] 3 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampron, VA. [email protected] Abstract of the Proposed Talk: One of the goals of IPPW has been to bring about international collaboration. Establishing collaboration, especially in the area of EDL, can present numerous frustrating challenges. IPPW presents opportunities to present advances in various technology areas. It allows for opportunity for general discussion. Evaluating collaboration potential requires open dialogue as to the needs of the parties and what critical capabilities each party possesses. Understanding opportunities for collaboration as well as the rules and regulations that govern collaboration are essential. The authors of this proposed talk have explored and established collaboration in multiple areas of interest to IPPW community. The authors will present examples that illustrate the motivations for the partnership, our common goals, and the unique capabilities of each party. The first example involves earth entry of a large asteroid and break-up. NASA Ames is leading an effort for the agency to assess and estimate the threat posed by large asteroids under the Asteroid Threat Assessment Project (ATAP).
    [Show full text]
  • Jjmonl 1603.Pmd
    alactic Observer GJohn J. McCarthy Observatory Volume 9, No. 3 March 2016 GRAIL - On the Trail of the Moon's Missing Mass GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) was a NASA scientific mission in 2011/12 to map the surface of the moon and collect data on gravitational anomalies. The image here is an artist's impres- sion of the twin satellites (Ebb and Flow) orbiting in tandem above a gravitational image of the moon. See inside, page 4 for information on gravitational anomalies (mascons) or visit http://solarsystem. nasa.gov/grail. The John J. McCarthy Observatory Galactic Observer New Milford High School Editorial Committee 388 Danbury Road Managing Editor New Milford, CT 06776 Bill Cloutier Phone/Voice: (860) 210-4117 Production & Design Phone/Fax: (860) 354-1595 www.mccarthyobservatory.org Allan Ostergren Website Development JJMO Staff Marc Polansky It is through their efforts that the McCarthy Observatory Technical Support has established itself as a significant educational and Bob Lambert recreational resource within the western Connecticut Dr. Parker Moreland community. Steve Barone Jim Johnstone Colin Campbell Carly KleinStern Dennis Cartolano Bob Lambert Mike Chiarella Roger Moore Route Jeff Chodak Parker Moreland, PhD Bill Cloutier Allan Ostergren Cecilia Dietrich Marc Polansky Dirk Feather Joe Privitera Randy Fender Monty Robson Randy Finden Don Ross John Gebauer Gene Schilling Elaine Green Katie Shusdock Tina Hartzell Paul Woodell Tom Heydenburg Amy Ziffer In This Issue "OUT THE WINDOW ON YOUR LEFT" ............................... 4 SUNRISE AND SUNSET ...................................................... 13 MARE HUMBOLDTIANIUM AND THE NORTHEAST LIMB ......... 5 JUPITER AND ITS MOONS ................................................. 13 ONE YEAR IN SPACE ....................................................... 6 TRANSIT OF JUPITER'S RED SPOT ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Human-System Interface Design for a Lunar Access Vehicle
    Conceptual Human-System Interface Design for a Lunar Access Vehicle Mary Cummings Enlie Wang Cristin Smith Jessica Marquez Mark Duppen Stephane Essama Massachusetts Institute of Technology* Prepared For Draper Labs Award #: SC001-018 PI: Dava Newman HAL2005-04 September, 2005 http://halab.mit.edu e-mail: [email protected] *MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge, MA 02139 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................ 1 1.2 ORGANIZATION.................................................................................................... 2 2 H-SI BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION ........................................................ 3 2.1 APOLLO VS. LAV H-SI........................................................................................ 3 2.2 APOLLO VS. LUNAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 4 3 THE LAV CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE............................................................ 5 3.1 HS-I DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................ 5 3.2 THE CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE ............................................................................ 6 3.3 LANDING ZONE (LZ) DISPLAY............................................................................. 8 3.3.1 LZ Display Introduction.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo 11 Astronaut Neil Armstrong Broadcast from the Moon (July 21, 1969) Added to the National Registry: 2004 Essay by Cary O’Dell
    Apollo 11 Astronaut Neil Armstrong Broadcast from the Moon (July 21, 1969) Added to the National Registry: 2004 Essay by Cary O’Dell “One small step for…” Though no American has stepped onto the surface of the moon since 1972, the exiting of the Earth’s atmosphere today is almost commonplace. Once covered live over all TV and radio networks, increasingly US space launches have been relegated to a fleeting mention on the nightly news, if mentioned at all. But there was a time when leaving the planet got the full attention it deserved. Certainly it did in July of 1969 when an American man, Neil Armstrong, became the first human being to ever step foot on the moon’s surface. The pictures he took and the reports he sent back to Earth stopped the world in its tracks, especially his eloquent opening salvo which became as famous and as known to most citizens as any words ever spoken. The mid-1969 mission of NASA’s Apollo 11 mission became the defining moment of the US- USSR “Space Race” usually dated as the period between 1957 and 1975 when the world’s two superpowers were competing to top each other in technological advances and scientific knowledge (and bragging rights) related to, truly, the “final frontier.” There were three astronauts on the Apollo 11 spacecraft, the US’s fifth manned spaced mission, and the third lunar mission of the Apollo program. They were: Neil Armstrong, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, and Michael Collins. The trio was launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 16, 1969 at 1:32pm.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2022
    FORECAST OF UPCOMING ANNIVERSARIES -- FEBRUARY 2022 116 Years Ago – 1902 February 4: Charles Lindbergh’s birthday. 90 Years Ago – 1932 February 19: Joseph Kerwin's birthday. 60 Years Ago – 1962 February 8: Tiros 4 launched by Thor Delta, 7:43 a.m., EST, Cape Canaveral, Fla. February 20: Mercury Atlas 6 (MA-6), Friendship 7 launched, with astronaut John H. Glenn, 9:47:39 a.m., first American to orbit the earth, Cape Canaveral, Fla. February 27: Discoverer 38 (Corona Mission 9030) launched by Thor, Vandenberg AFB. The last Discoverer named Corona mission. 55 Years Ago – 1967 February 4: Lunar Orbiter 3 launched by Atlas Agena, 8:17 p.m., EST, Cape Canaveral, Fla. February 8: Diademe 1 launched by Diamant A, Hammaguir, Algeria, French satellite. February 15: Diademe 2 launched by Diamant A, Hammaguir, Algeria, French satellite. 50 Years Ago – 1972 February 14: USSR launches Luna 20 (Lunik 20) at 03:27:59 UTC by Proton K from Baikonur which soft lands on the Moon four days later. A rotary-percussion drill retrieved samples from the surface which were returned to Earth by capsule on February 25. 45 Years Ago -1977 February 7: USSR launches Soyuz-24 from Baikonur. Cosmonauts: Viktor V.Gorbatko and Yuri N.Glazkov. Ferry flight to Salyut-5 space station. February 18: Enterprise, the first space shuttle orbiter, was flight tested at Dryden Flight Research Center. 40 Years Ago – 1982 February 25: Westar IV launched by Delta, 7:04 p.m., EST, Cape Canaveral, Fla. 35 Years Ago – 1987 February 5: Soyuz TM-2 launched from Baikonur, 2138 Moscow time, Yuri V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moon Is a Harsh Chromatogram: the Most Strategic Knowledge Gap (Skg) at the Lunar Surface E
    50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2019 (LPI Contrib. No. 2132) 2766.pdf THE MOON IS A HARSH CHROMATOGRAM: THE MOST STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE GAP (SKG) AT THE LUNAR SURFACE E. Patrick, R. Blase, M. Libardoni, Southwest Research Institute®, 6220 Culebra Rd., San Antonio, TX 78238 ([email protected]) Introduction: Data from analytical instruments de- a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) and ployed during multiple lunar missions, combined with revealed 97% of the composition in that mass channel laboratory results[1], suggest the regolith surface of the to be N2. Henderson et al.[5] also identified amino ac- Moon traps more volatiles in gas-surface interactions ids which were attributed to contamination, but results than is currently understood. We assert that the lunar from recent more sensitive LCMS and GCMS experi- surface behaves as a giant 3-D surface chromatogram, ments by Elsila et al.[1] found some amino acid and separating gas molecules by species as each wafts other organic signatures to be extraterrestrial in origin. across the regolith according to its mobility and ad- While these and other investigations suggest contami- sorption characteristics before eventually becoming nation from the Apollo spacecraft as a likely source for trapped. Herein we present supporting evicence for this a number of observed signatures[1,2,4,5], what is not claim. explained is the nature of the trapping mechanism for In gas chromatography (GC), components of a the N2 feature in 10086, and demonstrates gas retention sample are separated within a column according to from a gas that, under most circumstances, exhibits no their individual partitioning coefficients and by such retention at temperatures around 300 K[3].
    [Show full text]
  • Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures
    Space 2003 AIAA 2003-6280 23 - 25 September 2003, Long Beach, California Mobile Lunar and Planetary Bases Marc M. Cohen, Arch.D. Advanced Projects Branch, Mail Stop 244-14, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 TEL 650 604-0068 FAX 650 604-0673 [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents a review of design concepts over three decades for developing mobile lunar and planetary bases. The idea of the mobile base addresses several key challenges for extraterrestrial surface bases. These challenges include moving the landed assets a safe distance away from the landing zone; deploying and assembling the base remotely by automation and robotics; moving the base from one location of scientific or technical interest to another; and providing sufficient redundancy, reliability and safety for crew roving expeditions. The objective of the mobile base is to make the best use of the landed resources by moving them to where they will be most useful to support the crew, carry out exploration and conduct research. This review covers a range of surface mobility concepts that address the mobility issue in a variety of ways. These concepts include the Rockwell Lunar Sortie Vehicle (1971), Cintala’s Lunar Traverse caravan, 1984, First Lunar Outpost (1992), Frassanito’s Lunar Rover Base (1993), Thangavelu’s Nomad Explorer (1993), Kozlov and Shevchenko’s Mobile Lunar Base (1995), and the most recent evolution, John Mankins’ “Habot” (2000-present). The review compares the several mobile base approaches, then focuses on the Habot approach as the most germane to current and future exploration plans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Space Program
    C05500088 TOP eEGRET iuf 3EEA~ NIE 11-1-71 THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM Declassified Under Authority of the lnteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel, E.O. 13526, sec. 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP Appeal No. 2011 -003, document 2 Declassification date: November 23, 2020 ifOP GEEAE:r C05500088 1'9P SloGRET CONTENTS Page THE PROBLEM ... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS l DISCUSSION 5 I. SOV.IET SPACE ACTIVITY DURING TfIE PAST TWO YEARS . 5 II. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE PROSPECTS . 6 A. General ............................................. 6 B. Organization and Management . ............... 6 C. Economics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. 8 III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL FACTORS ... 9 A. General .. .. .. .. .. 9 B. Launch Vehicles . 9 C. High-Energy Propellants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 D. Manned Spacecraft . 12 E. Life Support Systems . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 F. Non-Nuclear Power Sources for Spacecraft . 16 G. Nuclear Power and Propulsion ..... 16 Te>P M:EW TCS 2032-71 IOP SECl<ET" C05500088 TOP SECRGJ:. IOP SECREI Page H. Communications Systems for Space Operations . 16 I. Command and Control for Space Operations . 17 IV. FUTURE PROSPECTS ....................................... 18 A. General ............... ... ···•· ................. ····· ... 18 B. Manned Space Station . 19 C. Planetary Exploration . ........ 19 D. Unmanned Lunar Exploration ..... 21 E. Manned Lunar Landfog ... 21 F. Applied Satellites ......... 22 G. Scientific Satellites ........................................ 24 V. INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION ............. 24 A. USSR-European Nations .................................... 24 B. USSR-United States 25 ANNEX A. SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITY ANNEX B. SOVIET SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES ANNEX C. SOVIET CHRONOLOGICAL SPACE LOG FOR THE PERIOD 24 June 1969 Through 27 June 1971 TCS 2032-71 IOP SLClt~ 70P SECRE1- C05500088 TOP SEGR:R THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM THE PROBLEM To estimate Soviet capabilities and probable accomplishments in space over the next 5 to 10 years.' SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS A.
    [Show full text]