Team-BHP
(
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
Well you can clearly spot an object in the image.
If you divide the image into 4 parts, see the left top part of the bottom right quadrilateral. A sharp shadow can be easily verified.
What made me more curious, is the line passing by just on its right.
Like some rover/object has passed by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11
(Post 4704928)
|
In fact the chap had to go frame by frame and then compare. Hats off to his perseverance. Now Chandrayaan 3 can be planned fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamahunter
(Post 4704934)
Well you can clearly spot an object in the image.
If you divide the image into 4 parts, see the left top part of the bottom right quadrilateral. A sharp shadow can be easily verified.
What made me more curious, is the line passing by just on its right.
Like some rover/object has passed by it.
|
If you're talking about the lines to the right of the title image in that Verge article:
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65812040/content_Vikram_Impact_Ratio_1100.0.png)
Personally I think that's an artifact of image splicing, basically where they've joined different images from multiple satellite tracks together to make a composite of the area. It's only because I see it repeated and it reminds me of the swathes I've seen working with open source LANDSAT data for example.
Did this guy physically look into the images and find it out or was he even more clever using deep learning with OpenCV to get the job done? Whatever it is, it is definitely a great achievement. They probably should get him into ISRO!clap:
Unless the lander has disintegrated much above the surface, how can one explain the scattered parts? That too, knowing that moon doesn’t have any atmosphere.
ISRO downplaying doesn’t surprise me. They should have their genuine reasons. JMT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chethan B G
(Post 4705451)
Unless the lander has disintegrated much above the surface, how can one explain the scattered parts? That too, knowing that moon doesn’t have any atmosphere.
ISRO downplaying doesn’t surprise me. They should have their genuine reasons. JMT.
|
Well from what I recall the failure was due to a timing issue with the engine burns, essentially firing the rockets to slow the rate of descent till you got a nice pillowy landing. Because it didn't happen, the poor lander careened into the surface where sheer impact velocity would've shattered parts and sent them careening.
Take meteoroids. Often you get them collide with one another and fragments go flying right? Heck, a lot of lunar derived meteoroids came about the same way, where the force of impact scattered lunar debris with such velocity, it exceeded the escape velocity for lunar gravity and found themselves on Earth. So I don't think we should be surprised if the parts are scattered. In fact it would've been quite the surprise if the parts Weren't scattered because that would indicate it landed sufficiently gently for it not to all fall apart, which would raise other questions about the cause of failure.
Heck, scientists are actually worried about all these Lunar landings by unmanned vehicles etc kicking up enough debris to damage the archaeological integrity of existing landing sites, such as Apollo sites. Read below:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/17/1...ing-high-speed Quote:
Landing people on the Moon is messy — a lesson that the Apollo astronauts learned the hard way. Using a rocket engine to lower a large spacecraft down to the lunar surface kicks up a whole lot of fast-moving dust that can travel far and wide, capable of hitting and even damaging spacecraft on and around the Moon.
|
Quote:
So if you aim a rocket engine at the Moon for an extended period of time — which you typically need to do to lower something down to the surface — it can easily accelerate lunar dirt to speeds of thousands of meters per second, sending them hundreds of miles away.
|
Quote:
NASA wants to go back to the Moon, this time to stay. Maintaining an extended human presence on the lunar surface is going to require a lot of landings — to transport people, cargo, habitats, and more to the Moon. Without any major infrastructure changes, that’s going to increase the possibility of kicking up dust that could damage spacecraft around the Moon, the historical Apollo sites, or even the Moon base that NASA wants to build and maintain. It could also lead to tensions between nations that have spacecraft near each other.
|
(emphasis mine)
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 20:03. | |
