DOCSLIB.ORG

Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120008741 2019-07-01T17:00:41+00:00Z Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits Philip Metzger1, Paul Hintze1, Steven Trigwell2, John Lane3 1 Granular Mechanic and Regolith Operations Lab, NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 2 Applied Technology, Siera Lobo-ESC, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 3 Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations, Easi-ESC, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits Philip Metzger1, Paul Hintze1, Steven Trigwell2, John Lane3 1 Granular Mechanic and Regolith Operations Lab, NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 2 Applied Technology, Siera Lobo-ESC, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 3 Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations, Easi-ESC, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits Background • The Apollo 12 lunar module (LM) landing near the Surveyor III spacecraft at the end of 1969 has remained the primary experimental verification of the predicted physics of plume ejecta effects from a rocket engine interacting with the surface of the moon. • This was made possible by the return of the Surveyor III camera housing by the Apollo 12 astronauts, allowing detailed analysis of the composition of dust deposited by the LM plume. • It was soon realized after the initial analysis of the camera housing that the LM plume tended to remove more dust than it had deposited. • In the present study, coupons from the camera housing have been reexamined. • In addition, plume effects recorded in landing videos from each Apollo mission have been studied for possible clues. • Alan Bean examining Surveyor III. Note that the Apollo 12 LM is in the background. LIM Land· -Ig P·oflle r-"li 200 :E I~ - I I I ~ :I o 100 I 200 300 400 500 Di'stancefrom LM Landing [m] I I t 200 Distance, ~ .. 300 Surveyor Crater .rom Surveyor [m] LIM Land· -Ig P·oflle r-"li 200 :E I~ - I I I ~ :I o 100 I 200 300 400 500 Di'stancefrom LM Landing [m] I I t 200 Distance, ~ .. 300 Surveyor Crater .rom Surveyor [m] LIM Land· -Ig P·oflle r-"li 200 :E I~ - I I I ~ :I o 100 I 200 300 400 500 Di'stancefrom LM Landing [m] I I t 200 Distance, ~ .. 300 Surveyor Crater .rom Surveyor [m] LM Ground Track IN t Sample Locations 2050 /2048 2051~ ....... ...... .... 2049 .... ~ ........ ....... ~..... Camera 2052 Housing ~ 1037 (bottom) Surveyor 3 Intrepid Surveyor III Surveyor Scoop Camera Housing Surveyor Scoop Returned to Earth TopoTopo Map Map of of o 50 100 Meters ApolloApollo 12 12 Site Site Co e samp e 12026 Head Crater 5 m Contour Surveyor Crater Intervals Block era er ( 5780 Sharp Crater Bench alo Crater ~ rater n..__ Core samples ", Core sample -.........__....... ~...................... 12027 12025 and 12028 Surveyor Housing Sample #2050 ( X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Surveyor III Camera Housing Coupon Line Scan Bolt Hole - XPS Analysis of bolt shadow 0.7 0.6 % 0.5 Fe2p 0.4 Ca2p 0.3 concnetration 0.2 Atomic 0.1 0 1234567891011 Analysis point from hole Shear stress along the surface for five cases generated by Fluent CFD: h = 5, 10, 20, 25 [ft] and 45 [m]. Shear Stress Using Sutherland's Formula for Dynamic Viscosity 100 10 <-- CFD Damian End ---> ..... co (j) t5 0.1 - C1 (h =20 ft) - C7 (h =10ft) 0.01 - C2 (h = 5ft) - LM Fly-by (h =25 m) - LM Fly-by (h =45 m) 0.001 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Nozzle [m] Dynamic Pressure along the surface for five cases generated by Fluent CFD: h = 5,, 10, 20, 25 [ft] and 45 [m]. II I I I I I I I I 104 Dynamic Pressure Using Sutherland's Formula for Dynamic Viscosity 3 10 2 10 - C1 (h =20 ft) 1 - C7 (h =10 ft) 10 - C2 (h = 5 ft) - LM Fly-by (h 25 m) ro 10° = Q:.. - LM Fly-by (h =45 m) ~ 1 ~ 10. I/) I/) Q) 2 It 10. .~ 10.3 E ro c >. 10.4 0 <--- CFD Damian End ---> 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Nozzle [m] ~~ ....... LM Flyby simulation at h = 45 [m]. Left axis: (blue line) radial distance traveled by particle from ground track position. Right axis: (green and brown lines) region where shear stress is greater than threshold shear stress, resulting in particle lift for zero cohesion force (green line) and for Sagan’s cohesion force (brown line). 3 3 h = 45 m -- Average Max Horizontal Distance Traveled 2 2 -- Average Max Threshold Lift Shear Stress -- Average Max Threshold Lift Shear Stress (Cohesion Force = 0) 1 1 8 8 7 7 6 Cohesion Force = 0 Sagan Cohesion 6 ........ 5 5 E .:::t:. 4 4 ........ \J 3 3 Q) Cl Q) > I ('0 2 2 q ..... * I- ,........, Q) "'0 () R = 109 m po c "-oJ ('0 0.1 0.1 +-' (/) 8 8 (5 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 0.01 0.01 2 10 o [~lln] Interparticle Force (cohesion force or pull-off force) FDsp = 2πγ .A-"" --r-- γ = 0.075 [J/m2] Walton, O.R., “Review of Adhesion Fundamentals for .J.--T Micron-Scale Particles”, Powder and Particle Journal, 26, --+-1 2008, pp. 129-141. [N] p I 3−n IKDp = K = 6×10-7 [N/m1/2] c- 1x 10-6 1x 10-5 5 x 10-5 1x 10-4 n = 5/2 Iversen, J.D, B.R. White, “Saltation Threshold on Earth, D [m] Mars, and Venus”, Sedimentology, 29, 1982, pp. 111-119. Radial distance traveled by particle from ground track position as a function of particle diameter for h = 45 m. Circles represent different starting points, both x and y. Solid line is the average maximum value of the individual trajectories. 4 3 2 1 ........ 8 7 ~E "---' 6 "'0 5 a> 4 a> > ro 3 I-.... 0 2 ()a> C +-'ro (/) (5 0.1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 o [um] Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 0 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 4 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 6 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 12 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 16 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 20 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 24 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 28 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 32 s Apollo 12 After Touchdown t = 36 s Freefall and Darcy law particle trajectories compared to luminosity 10 - .. 'r>" /'I I , ""'0 ~ J" - rJ- I r"'"""""'1 \ S , L........I ~ 1.0 (\ Io"'l ~ - -r-----.. I 0 ~ ~ J'\. hA Q --... .... - / pu f-L III (j) ~ .~ ~~~ r- ~ ro 0.1 - . r-.... "'D= 'k1tl1 ~ "- ~ \ (j) .-...... · ~ \ \ \ ~ ------ --- --- Q ~~=-- I :\. "r\ IT) = L1, ,/ /1'"l \ • ....-4 ~ -- r t ... ~ \ ro ~ • \ 1\ 0.01 I I " ..... ""'" • I\. I \. I "Y \ If' ~ I L IlU' :'ll, it( ,~. t '{jrml1 • V I '1 ~ o~ Ie 1. video I VI; I 1 10 100 Elapsed Time [rOITI Engine Shutoff, t [s] t.===========--- -----':=====:::::::::::======----==::=::::::::=:::::::=::::::::::::::=====:::::l Luminosity measurements of Apollo 14 landing videos following engine cutoff l: e r ag Mean: Level: Mean: 40.27 Level: Std Dev: Count: 1.12 Count: Percentile: 40 Percentile: 50S Channel: Luminosity -----vn 5 J r: E I I I 9 Mean: 44.44 Level: Mean: 40.52 Level: Std Dev: 1.57 Count: 1.23 Count: Median: 44 Percentile: 41 Percentile: Pixels: 357 Cache Level: 494 Cache Level: • Apollo 15: Descent luminosity sample area Apollo 15: Descent luminosity sample area Apollo 15: Ascent luminosity sample area Apollo 15: Descent luminosity sample area 250 Apollo 15: Absolute Luminosity Value (0-255) 200 -- Descent Luminosity --- Ascent Luminosity >- 150 / \ ... / Ow II o II\ c II/ I E III I :J -I ; I I •J I 100 J I :I J ·I \ ·I \ -:. 50 Notes: 1. Data is luminosity at 1 s intervals to the end of the video. 2. Descent is the luminosity of a dark crater in the background, starting with touchdown. 3. Ascent is the luminosity of the sky between the left two stars, starting as the LM is lifting off. O--<L.-------'-------------'---------'--------L.--------'--------'-------------'---.J-- o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Elapsed Time of Video [s] I I I I 2 Apollo 15: Normalized Luminosity Value (0-1) ..-... c 1 E -I / 7 \ " 1 Descent Luminosity x 6 \ 1 co 5 --- Ascent Luminosity E -I 4 ..-... ----c 3 E 2 ,. \ -I \ ..-... \ +oJ \ --I \ 0.1 \ -II \ +oJ>- 7 \ ·w 6 \ 0 C 5 \ E 4 "- :::::l \ -I 3 \ "'0 '- - .... (1) \ .~ 2 \ co \ 1\ E.... "- I \ , 0 \ .... Z 0.01 I I " / "- / 7 \ J 6 \ J 5 \ I -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elpased Time from Start of Event [s] Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits Summary • Several likely scenarios are proposed to explain the Surveyor III dust observations. • These include electrostatic levitation of the dust from the surface of the Moon as a result of periodic passing of the day-night terminator; dust blown by the Apollo 12 LM flyby while on its descent trajectory; dust ejected from the lunar surface due to gas forced into the soil by the Surveyor III rocket nozzle, based on Darcy’s law; and mechanical movement of dust during the Surveyor landing. • Even though an absolute answer may not be possible based on available data and theory, various computational models are employed to estimate the feasibility of each of these proposed mechanisms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protecting & Preserving Apollo Program Lunar Landing Sites
    PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS In accordance with the NASA TRANSITION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017 Product of the OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY MARCH 2018 PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS Background The Moon continues to hold great significance around the world. The successes of the Apollo missions still represent a profound human technological achievement almost 50 years later and continue to symbolize the pride of the only nation to send humans to an extraterrestrial body. The Apollo missions reflect the depth and scope of human imagination and the desire to push the boundaries of humankind’s existence. The Apollo landing sites and the accomplishments of our early space explorers energized our Nation's technological prowess, inspired generations of students, and greatly contributed to the worldwide scientific understanding of the Moon and our Solar System. Additionally, other countries have placed hardware on the Moon which undoubtedly has similar historic, cultural, and scientific value to their country and to humanity. Three Apollo sites remain scientifically active and all the landing sites provide the opportunity to learn about the changes associated with long-term exposure of human-created systems in the harsh lunar environment. These sites offer rich opportunities for biological, physical, and material sciences. Future visits to the Moon’s surface offer opportunities to study the effects of long-term exposure to the lunar environment on materials and articles, including food left behind, paint, nylon, rubber, and metals. Currently, very little data exist that describe what effect temperature extremes, lunar dust, micrometeoroids, solar radiation, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Surveyor III Crater Large-Scale Maps May Be Produced from Lunar Oribiter Photographs
    FIG. 1. The Surveyor I II Crater. CHARLES W. SHULL t LYNN A. SCHENK U. S. Army TOPOCOM Washington, D. C.20315 Mapping the Surveyor III Crater large-scale maps may be produced from lunar Oribiter photographs (Abstract on next page) INRODUCTlON Because of the inclination of the camera, lunar features were viewed more clearly than URVEYOR III spacecraft was launched Son April 17, 1967 toward the moon on a would have been possible on flat terrain. mission to explore possible Apollo landing This crater, then, became an object of in­ sites. On April 19 the Surveyor landed on the tense interest to the scientific community, moon's Ocean of Storms and almost imme­ especially to astrogeologists who had the diately began transmitting television pictures unique opportunity of observing high quality back to Earth. When the lunar day ended pictures of the interior of a lunar crater for on May 3, over 6,300 photographs had been the first time. Because of this unusual characteristic, the received from Surveyor III by the Jet Pro­ pulsion Laboratory.* ational Aeronautics and Space Administra­ vVhen the spacecraft landed, it came to tion (NASA) requested that the Department of Defense prepare two maps of the crater rest on the inside slope of crater giving it a 12.40 tilt from the local vertical (Figure 1). and surrounding areas. The request was for a photo mosaic at 1 :2,000 scale with 10-meter t Presented at the Annual Convention of the contours and a shaded relief map with con­ American Society of Photogrammetry in Washing­ tours at the smallest interval possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moon After Apollo
    ICARUS 25, 495-537 (1975) The Moon after Apollo PAROUK EL-BAZ National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.G- 20560 Received September 17, 1974 The Apollo missions have gradually increased our knowledge of the Moon's chemistry, age, and mode of formation of its surface features and materials. Apollo 11 and 12 landings proved that mare materials are volcanic rocks that were derived from deep-seated basaltic melts about 3.7 and 3.2 billion years ago, respec- tively. Later missions provided additional information on lunar mare basalts as well as the older, anorthositic, highland rocks. Data on the chemical make-up of returned samples were extended to larger areas of the Moon by orbiting geo- chemical experiments. These have also mapped inhomogeneities in lunar surface chemistry, including radioactive anomalies on both the near and far sides. Lunar samples and photographs indicate that the moon is a well-preserved museum of ancient impact scars. The crust of the Moon, which was formed about 4.6 billion years ago, was subjected to intensive metamorphism by large impacts. Although bombardment continues to the present day, the rate and size of impact- ing bodies were much greater in the first 0.7 billion years of the Moon's history. The last of the large, circular, multiringed basins occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. These basins, many of which show positive gravity anomalies (mascons), were flooded by volcanic basalts during a period of at least 600 million years. In addition to filling the circular basins, more so on the near side than on the far side, the basalts also covered lowlands and circum-basin troughs.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Deliberately Crashed on the Lunar Surface
    A Summary of Human History on the Moon Only One of These Footprints is Protected The narrative of human history on the Moon represents the dawn of our evolution into a spacefaring species. The landing sites - hard, soft and crewed - are the ultimate example of universal human heritage; a true memorial to human ingenuity and accomplishment. They mark humankind’s greatest technological achievements, and they are the first archaeological sites with human activity that are not on Earth. We believe our cultural heritage in outer space, including our first Moonprints, deserves to be protected the same way we protect our first bipedal footsteps in Laetoli, Tanzania. Credit: John Reader/Science Photo Library Luna 2 is the first human-made object to impact our Moon. 2 September 1959: First Human Object Impacts the Moon On 12 September 1959, a rocket launched from Earth carrying a 390 kg spacecraft headed to the Moon. Luna 2 flew through space for more than 30 hours before releasing a bright orange cloud of sodium gas which both allowed scientists to track the spacecraft and provided data on the behavior of gas in space. On 14 September 1959, Luna 2 crash-landed on the Moon, as did part of the rocket that carried the spacecraft there. These were the first items humans placed on an extraterrestrial surface. Ever. Luna 2 carried a sphere, like the one pictured here, covered with medallions stamped with the emblem of the Soviet Union and the year. When Luna 2 impacted the Moon, the sphere was ejected and the medallions were scattered across the lunar Credit: Patrick Pelletier surface where they remain, undisturbed, to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive
    CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY HAER FL-8-B BUILDING AE HAER FL-8-B (John F. Kennedy Space Center, Hanger AE) Cape Canaveral Brevard County Florida PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY BUILDING AE (Hangar AE) HAER NO. FL-8-B Location: Hangar Road, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Industrial Area, Brevard County, Florida. USGS Cape Canaveral, Florida, Quadrangle. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: E 540610 N 3151547, Zone 17, NAD 1983. Date of Construction: 1959 Present Owner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Present Use: Home to NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the Launch Vehicle Data Center (LVDC). The LVDC allows engineers to monitor telemetry data during unmanned rocket launches. Significance: Missile Assembly Building AE, commonly called Hangar AE, is nationally significant as the telemetry station for NASA KSC’s unmanned Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) program. Since 1961, the building has been the principal facility for monitoring telemetry communications data during ELV launches and until 1995 it processed scientifically significant ELV satellite payloads. Still in operation, Hangar AE is essential to the continuing mission and success of NASA’s unmanned rocket launch program at KSC. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A in the area of Space Exploration as Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) original Mission Control Center for its program of unmanned launch missions and under Criterion C as a contributing resource in the CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lunar Dust-Plasma Environment Is Crucial
    TheThe LunarLunar DustDust --PlasmaPlasma EnvironmentEnvironment Timothy J. Stubbs 1,2 , William M. Farrell 2, Jasper S. Halekas 3, Michael R. Collier 2, Richard R. Vondrak 2, & Gregory T. Delory 3 [email protected] Lunar X-ray Observatory(LXO)/ Magnetosheath Explorer (MagEX) meeting, Hilton Garden Inn, October 25, 2007. 1 University of Maryland, Baltimore County 2 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center 3 University of California, Berkeley TheThe ApolloApollo AstronautAstronaut ExperienceExperience ofof thethe LunarLunar DustDust --PlasmaPlasma EnvironmentEnvironment “… one of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration is the dust and its adherence to everything no matter what kind of material, whether it be skin, suit material, metal, no matter what it be and it’s restrictive friction-like action to everything it gets on. ” Eugene Cernan, Commander Apollo 17. EvidenceEvidence forfor DustDust AboveAbove thethe LunarLunar SurfaceSurface Horizon glow from forward scattered sunlight • Dust grains with radius of 5 – 6 m at about 10 to 30 cm from the surface, where electrostatic and gravitational forces balance. • Horizon glow ~10 7 too bright to be explained by micro-meteoroid- generated ejecta [Zook et al., 1995]. Composite image of morning and evening of local western horizon [Criswell, 1973]. DustDust ObservedObserved atat HighHigh AltitudesAltitudes fromfrom OrbitOrbit Schematic of situation consistent with Apollo 17 observations [McCoy, 1976]. Lunar dust at high altitudes (up to ~100 km). 0.1 m-scale dust present Gene Cernan sketches sporadically (~minutes). [McCoy and Criswell, 1974]. InIn --SituSitu EvidenceEvidence forfor DustDust TransportTransport Terminators Berg et al. [1976] Apollo 17 Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites (LEAM) experiment. PossiblePossible DustyDusty HorizonHorizon GlowGlow seenseen byby ClementineClementine StarStar Tracker?Tracker? Above: image of possible horizon glow above the lunar surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Space Suit
    APOLLO SPACE S UIT 1962–1974 Frederica, Delaware A HISTORIC MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LANDMARK SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 DelMarVa Subsection Histor y of the Apollo Space Suit This model would be used on Apollo 7 through Apollo 14 including the first lunar mission of Neil Armstrong and Buzz International Latex Corporation (ILC) was founded in Aldrin on Apollo 11. Further design improvements were made to Dover, Delaware in 1937 by Abram Nathanial Spanel. Mr. Spanel improve mobility for astronauts on Apollo 15 through 17 who was an inventor who became proficient at dipping latex material needed to sit in the lunar rovers and perform more advanced to form bathing caps and other commercial products. He became mobility exercises on the lunar surface. This suit was known as famous for ladies apparel made under the brand name of Playtex the model A7LB. A slightly modified ILC Apollo suit would also go that today is known worldwide. Throughout WWII, Spanel drove on to support the Skylab program and finally the American-Soyuz the development and manufacture of military rubberized products Test Program (ASTP) which concluded in 1975. During the entire to help our troops. In 1947, Spanel used the small group known time the Apollo suit was produced, manufacturing was performed as the Metals Division to develop military products including at both the ILC plant on Pear Street in Dover, Delaware, as well as several popular pressure helmets for the U.S. Air Force. the ILC facility in Frederica, Delaware. In 1975, the Dover facility Based upon the success of the pressure helmets, the Metals was closed and all operations were moved to the Frederica plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-21-306, Nasa
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees May 2021 NASA Assessments of Major Projects GAO-21-306 May 2021 NASA Assessments of Major Projects Highlights of GAO-21-306, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found This report provides a snapshot of how The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) portfolio of major well NASA is planning and executing projects in the development stage of the acquisition process continues to its major projects, which are those with experience cost increases and schedule delays. This marks the fifth year in a row costs of over $250 million. NASA plans that cumulative cost and schedule performance deteriorated (see figure). The to invest at least $69 billion in its major cumulative cost growth is currently $9.6 billion, driven by nine projects; however, projects to continue exploring Earth $7.1 billion of this cost growth stems from two projects—the James Webb Space and the solar system. Telescope and the Space Launch System. These two projects account for about Congressional conferees included a half of the cumulative schedule delays. The portfolio also continues to grow, with provision for GAO to prepare status more projects expected to reach development in the next year. reports on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects, and activities. This Cumulative Cost and Schedule Performance for NASA’s Major Projects in Development is GAO’s 13th annual assessment. This report assesses (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA’s major projects, including the effects of COVID-19; and (2) the development and maturity of technologies and progress in achieving design stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveyor 1 Space- Craft on June 2, 1966 As Seen by the Narrow Angle Camera of the Lunar Re- Connaissance Orbiter Taken on July 17, 2009 (Also See Fig
    i “Project Surveyor, in particular, removed any doubt that it was possible for Americans to land on the Moon and explore its surface.” — Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 Scientist-Astronaut ii Frontispiece: Landing site of the Surveyor 1 space- craft on June 2, 1966 as seen by the narrow angle camera of the Lunar Re- connaissance Orbiter taken on July 17, 2009 (also see Fig. 13). The white square in the upper photo outlines the area of the enlarged view below. The spacecraft is ca. 3.3 m tall and is casting a 15 m shadow to the East. (NASA/LROC/ ASU/GSFC photos) iii iv Surveyor I: America’s First Moon Landing by William F. Mellberg v © 2014, 2015 William F. Mellberg vi About the author: William Mellberg was a marketing and public relations representative with Fokker Aircraft. He is also an aerospace historian, having published many articles on both the development of airplanes and space vehicles in various magazines. He is the author of Famous Airliners and Moon Missions. He also serves as co-Editor of Harrison H. Schmitt’s website: http://americasuncommonsense.com Acknowledgments: The support and recollections of Frank Mellberg, Harrison Schmitt, Justin Rennilson, Alexander Gurshstein, Paul Spudis, Ronald Wells, Colin Mackellar and Dwight Steven- Boniecki is gratefully acknowledged. vii Surveyor I: America’s First Moon Landing by William F. Mellberg A Journey of 250,000 Miles . December 14, 2013. China’s Chang’e 3 spacecraft successfully touched down on the Moon at 1311 GMT (2111 Beijing Time). The landing site was in Mare Imbrium, the Sea of Rains, about 25 miles (40 km) south of the small crater, Laplace F, and roughly 100 miles (160 km) east of its original target in Sinus Iridum, the Bay of Rainbows.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveyor Ill Mission Report Part I
    \ NAT IONAL AERONAUT ICS AND SPAC E ADMIN ISTRATION Technical Report 32-1177 Surveyor Ill Mission Report Part I. Mission Description and Performance JET PROPULSION LAB ORATOR Y CALIFORNIA INS TITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PASAD E NA, CALIFORNIA September 1, 1967 NAT IONAL AERONA UT ICS AND SPAC E AD MINISTRAT ION Technical Report 32-1177 Surveyor Ill Mission Report Part I. Mission Description and Performance Approved for publication by: H. H. Haglund Surveyor Project Manager JET PROPULSION LAB ORA TOR Y CAL I FORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLO GY PASAD E NA, CAL I FORNI A September 1, 1967 TECHNICAL REPORT 32-1 177 Copyright © 7 196 Jet Propulsion laboratory California Institute of Technology Prepared Under Contract No. NAS 7-100 National Aeronautics Space Administration & Preface This three-part document constitutes the Surveyor III Mission Report. It describes the third in a series of unmanned missions designed to soft-land on the moon and return data from the lunar surface. Part I of this report consists of a technical description and an evaluation of engineering results of the systems utilized in the Surveyor III mission. Analysis of the data received from the Surveyor III mission is continuing, and it is expected that additional results will be obtained together with some improvement in accuracy. Part I was compiled using the contributions of many individuals in the major systems which support the Project. Some of the information for this report was obtained from other published documents; a list of these documents is con­ tained in a bibliography. Part II of this report presents the scientific data derived from the mission and the results of scientific analyses which have been conducted.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Research Online Oro.Open.Ac.Uk
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits Journal Item How to cite: Bickel, V. T.; Honniball, C. I.; Martinez, S. N.; Rogaski, A.; Sargeant, Hannah; Bell, S. K.; Czaplinski, E. C.; Farrant, B. E.; Harrington, E. M.; Tolometti, G. D. and Kring, D. A. (2019). Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124(5) pp. 1296–1314. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2019 American Geophysical Union https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1029/2018JE005876 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk RESEARCH ARTICLE Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications 10.1029/2018JE005876 for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits Key Points: V. T. Bickel1,2 , C. I. Honniball3, S. N. Martinez4, A. Rogaski5, H. M. Sargeant6, S. K. Bell7, • Bearing capacity of pyroclastic, 8 7 9 9 10,11 mare, and highland regions is E. C. Czaplinski , B. E. Farrant , E. M. Harrington , G. D. Tolometti , and D. A. Kring calculated based on measurements 1 2 of boulder tracks in orbital images Department Planets & Comets, Max
    [Show full text]
  • Shoot the Moon – 1967
    Video Transcript for Archival Research Catalog (ARC) Identifier 45011 Assignment: Shoot the Moon – 1967 Narrator: The assignment was specific: get photographs of the surface of the Moon that are good enough to determine whether or not it’s safe for a man to land there. But appearances can be deceiving, just as deceiving as trying to get a good picture of, well, a candy apple. Doesn’t seem to be too much of a problem, just set it up, light it, and snap the picture. Easy, quick, simple. But it can be tough. To begin with, the apple is some distance away, so you can’t get to it to just set it up, light it, and so on. To make things even more difficult, it isn’t even holding still; it’s moving around in circles. Now timing is important. You have to take your picture when the apple is nearest to you so you get the most detail and when the light that’s available is at the best angle for the photo. And even that’s not all. You are moving too, in circles. You’re both turning and circling about the apple. Now, about that assignment. As the technology of man in space was developing, it became more and more apparent that our knowledge of the Moon’s surface as a possible landing site was not sufficient. To land man safely on the Moon and get him safely off again, we had to know whether we could set up a precise enough trajectory to reach the Moon.
    [Show full text]