INDIA — India launched Chandrayaan-1 into orbit Oct. 15, for the country’s first lunar mission. The spacecraft will capture high resolution images of the moon’s topography. The mission will last two years. Scientists hope the exploration will provide them with a better understanding of the earth and its origins.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 17,00.htmlThe public response to the plans appears to reflect the gulf between India's consumer class of 50 million to 100 million people and the rest of the population of 1.1billion. Poorer Indians tend to say the money should be spent on fighting poverty in a country where 800 million people live on less than $3 a day and 47 per cent of children under three are malnourished.
So, maybe they are referring to the above.Modern scientific study of our neighbor began in 1610, when Galileo, training his spyglass on the moon, became the first person to see the dark and light regions for what they really were: vast plains and rugged mountains, respectively. Galileo's famous trial for heresy—for insisting that the Earth revolved around the sun rather than vice verse—apparently kept Descartes from publishing one of the first theories about the origin of the moon until 1664, long after his own death. (His theory was essentially an early version of the planet-capture theory.) Descartes left a fuller explanation for others, admitting "I have not undertaken to explain everything."
The first moon-origin theory to gain a solid foothold was put forth in 1878. That year, George Howard Darwin, son of the famous evolutionist, proposed that Earth spun so rapidly in its early years that the sun's gravity eventually yanked off a chunk of an increasingly elongated Earth; that chunk became the moon. Four years later, the geologist Osmond Fisher added a juicy addendum: The Pacific ocean basin marks the scar left behind where our future satellite ripped away. The so-called "fission" theory became the accepted wisdom well into the 20th century, as this quirky, 1936 U.S. Office of Education script for a children's radio program attests:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html
harbans wrote:Is something seriously wrong with US Univs??? First Tufts Univ, then Alicia Dung from Browns writes junk and now Auburn..
INDIA — India launched Chandrayaan-1 into orbit Oct. 15, for the country’s first lunar mission. The spacecraft will capture high resolution images of the moon’s topography. The mission will last two years. Scientists hope the exploration will provide them with a better understanding of the earth and its origins.
http://www.theplainsman.com/news/2008/o ... er_23_2008
Fission hypothesis
Early speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust because of centrifugal forces, leaving a basin – presumed to be the Pacific Ocean – behind as a scar.[41] This idea, however, would require too great an initial spin of the Earth; and, even had this been possible, the process should have resulted in the Moon's orbit following Earth's equatorial plane. This is not the case.
Capture hypothesis
Other speculation has centered on the Moon being formed elsewhere and subsequently being captured by Earth's gravity.[42] However, the conditions believed necessary for such a mechanism to work, such as an extended atmosphere of the Earth in order to dissipate the energy of the passing Moon, are improbable.
Co-formation hypothesis
The co-formation hypothesis proposes that the Earth and the Moon formed together at the same time and place from the primordial accretion disk. The Moon would have formed from material surrounding the proto-Earth, similar to the formation of the planets around the Sun. Some suggest that this hypothesis fails adequately to explain the depletion of metallic iron in the Moon.
A major deficiency in all these hypotheses is that they cannot readily account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.[43]
Giant Impact hypothesis
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact. A Mars-sized body (labelled "Theia") is believed to have hit the proto-Earth, blasting sufficient material into orbit around the proto-Earth to form the Moon through accretion.[6] As accretion is the process by which all planetary bodies are believed to have formed, giant impacts are thought to have affected most if not all planets. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[44]
one of the 'mainstream' theories is that the moon was formed at the same time as the earth and thus share similar birth secrets.Scientists hope the exploration will provide them with a better understanding of the earth and its origins.
Amber G. wrote:To add to the above:
**** Added later from wiki:Fission hypothesis
Early speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust because of centrifugal forces, leaving a basin – presumed to be the Pacific Ocean – behind as a scar.[41] This idea, however, would require too great an initial spin of the Earth; and, even had this been possible, the process should have resulted in the Moon's orbit following Earth's equatorial plane. This is not the case.
Probably a good book would explain it much better, but in short -A quick question for you...
When an object is spinning, isn't there a Centripetal force acting on that object too, which pulls even loose objects to the center of the spinning object. This would in effect dislodge the theory of a part of the earth breaking off on its own.
) faster than present to make stuff escape.Does the impact theory explainRahul M wrote:one of the 'mainstream' theories is that the moon was formed at the same time as the earth and thus share similar birth secrets.Scientists hope the exploration will provide them with a better understanding of the earth and its origins.
however, due to the lack of volcanic activity and weather much of it has remained unchanged on the moon. therefore study of the moon should answer some of the questions about earth's childhood, provided the theory is true of course !
as Amber G says, if the impact theory is correct, then also moon should provide some clues about earth's early days since the supposed impact occurred in earth's infancy(calculated from the moon's age) and there is a high likelihood that the foreign object and earth 'exchanged' materials during the collision. these should still be on the moon w/o much change for us to discover and investigate.
AdityaM wrote:if they both collided & formed moon with the residue..why would there be more H3 on moon as compared to on earth?....
I don't think anyone can answer this one.
Well according to discovery it is trying to pull awaySaiK wrote:would'nt have theia done a chandrayaan-1 on the earth?.. and came to a final 386K KM orbit around us? furthermore they say, it is still trying to move away from us..
How does one hijack Europa from Jupiter's massive gravitational force?http://shopping.discovery.com/product-52214.html
What would life on earth be like without the moon? Well, chances are, there wouldn't be any life on earth without the moon. Life – if it had started at all – would still be in the earliest stages of evolution.
Scientists use the latest computer simulations to show how an ancient rogue planet – Orpheus – collided with the earth millions of years ago, producing a sizable chunk of debris that eventually became our moon. If that collision had never occurred, we would live in a very different place. Imagine a moon-less weather report – blizzards over the Sahara, floodwaters swallowing the Pyramids, 90-degree temperatures in Antarctica. As the earth wobbles on its axis – unsecured by the moon's gravitational pull – the polar caps would grow and recede at frightening rates. And without the moon, our planet would spin much faster – meaning four-hour days and searing temperatures.
Worse yet, evidence reveals that we are in fact losing our grip on our lunar friend thanks to the ebb and flow of the oceans' tides. Experts reveal theories for salvaging the moon – including hijacking Europa from Jupiter – and demonstrate how we can prepare ourselves for our eventual life without it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)
At just over 3000 km in diameter, Europa is slightly smaller than Earth's Moon and is the sixth-largest moon in the Solar System. Though by a wide margin the least massive of the Galilean satellites, its mass nonetheless significantly exceeds the combined mass of all moons in the Solar System smaller than itself.[10] It is primarily made of silicate rock and likely has an iron core. It has a tenuous atmosphere composed primarily of oxygen. Its surface is composed of ice and is one of the smoothest in the Solar System. This young surface is striated by cracks and streaks, while craters are relatively infrequent. The apparent youth and smoothness of the surface have led to the hypothesis that a water ocean exists beneath it, which could conceivably serve as an abode for extraterrestrial life.[11] Heat energy from tidal flexing ensures that the ocean remains liquid and drives geological activity.[12]
Actually virtually all planets (with possible exception of Pluto) and their satellites (and comets to lesser degree) have approximately the same orbital plane and also spin in the same direction (again with possible exception of Neptune)..Does the impact theory explain
-why moon's orbital plane around earth is more or less same as earth's orbital plane around sun ....coincidence?
-why moons spin direction is same as earths spin direction?
Looks like this guy has zero skill in math.harbans wrote:http://www.tuftsdaily.com/1.906260
Where do some of these guys get their 'facts' from?The aim of the mission is to map the surface of the moon in its entirety — a task that has not yet been attempted. Though this investment helped India join the ranks of previous lunar explorers (NASA, the European Space Agency, Japan and China), it is considered a rather expensive endeavor, costing almost $4 billion. In terms of social impact, however, it certainly promises to be a large leap forward.
Although applause for the mission was nearly unanimous, there has been a smattering of disapproving grunts that criticize India’s heavy investment in a non-utilitarian program. Opponents question how India, a Third World country, can afford to spend so much money on something as seemingly trivial as probing the surface of the moon. Given that 25 percent of its population lives under the national poverty line, could India have better spent the $4 billion on food aid?
Ranjith
According to ISRO the mission cost them approximately INR 386 crores, which roughly translates to 4 billion US dollars.
The Chandrayaan-1 trajectory was very tricky and the results are remarkably on the dot. We had practically no deviation in any phase of the mission. The first lunar injection came within 10 km of accuracy. To get this over 4 lakh km is really unique (for a first time shot).
Now people recognise that our launches are reliable and perform well. This will definitely build up the confidence of the customer.
AmberAmber G. wrote:Actually virtually all planets (with possible exception of Pluto) and their satellites (and comets to lesser degree) have approximately the same orbital plane and also spin in the same direction (again with possible exception of Neptune)..Does the impact theory explain
-why moon's orbital plane around earth is more or less same as earth's orbital plane around sun ....coincidence?
-why moons spin direction is same as earths spin direction?
This is consistent (and do not have contradiction), actually somewhat likely, result of the theory.
Wrt to Europa - I wonder if others here have read here Aurther C. Clarke (and his book about 2010 - where there is intelligent life in the ocens of Europa)
I liked to watch Europa (and other three Jupitor's moon which are easily visible even with a small telescope, but for a long time my favorite moon was Titan and my dream was (and now I realize that its not going to happen) was to travel and see Saturn rising from Titan .. but oh well
Singha wrote:flash gordon series did have people moving planets around with 'tractor beams'
There have been several theories. One was proposed by Laplace, the French mathematician, that said that solar system was formed by a rotating gas cloud. Later other theories appeared as to how the plants could have been sheared off the sun by a star that was closely passing by the sun. The current theory is similar to Laplace's which states that the gas cloud condensed to form planets around the same age as the sun.juvva wrote:My point is the ~same orbital plane and spin is more likely if the sun, planets and sats "coformed" rather than thru impacts.
On the sidelines a similar dilemma about Japanese Kaguya:dada wrote:what is the minimum orbital radii for lunar satellites ?
chang-e1 at 200 km
Chandrayaan-1 is orbiting 100 km from lunar surface
if still lesser orbital radii are possible , why are they unstable ?
Just to add - "conformed" is consistent with - that during billions of years after the initial formation- there are collision and new bodies are formed, orbits changed a little (or more) etc.. Some moons are very likely "captured" asteroids etc. (Craters show that these collisions have taken place .. and most comets are the ones whose trajectories were disturbed by outer planets etc from oort cloud.. )Amber
My point is the ~same orbital plane and spin is more likely if the sun, planets and sats "coformed" rather than thru impacts.
Check out the picture: I really liked it when it first came out.. and it looks nice.linkLast week, NASA released a newly restored image of a younger Earth. It was taken from Lunar Orbiter 1 in 1966, the first of several orbiters that helped gather data for the first moon landing in 1969. The photograph shows Earth just cresting the Moon’s curving horizon, the first picture of our planet framed by the surface of the Moon. ...
When the photograph was published, in 1966, it looked like a newsprint version of a high-contrast snapshot from space, a stark scattering of whites and blacks. The data from the lunar orbiter was stored on old analog tape drives. Now, imaging experts at NASA have digitized those drives — mining data that could not be recovered when they were first made — and produced a high-resolution version of that historic photograph.
The rough surface of the moon no longer looks starkly black and white. It has been rendered instead in a broad palette of grays, which give the moonscape a dimensional presence it never had in the photograph that first appeared. The cloud patterns that hide the surface of Earth, a crescent earth, are much more subtle.
Is it so? I think that it is the trick which eyes play now and then - oftimes I have found that the same picture which appears cratered at one time appear to be hilly and hummocky the next.SSSalvi wrote:Phil Stooke has put the ISRO TMC video as a single strip.
Post #220 in
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/inde ... &start=210
There seems to be inversion in data values resulting depressions to appear as mountains.
Which forum was it? That was a good piece of deductive work, locating the region covered by CY's camera.harbans wrote:Not sure of copyright aspects here. That was picked up from a forum. It's a photograph taken by the Clementine mission. Not sure but i doubt posting a comparitive photograph on a blog will cause much issues (?) even if copyrighted.
JMT..
you may be right. Emily Lakdawalla also pointed that out in her blog http://www.planetary.org/blog/.SSSalvi wrote:Phil Stooke has put the ISRO TMC video as a single strip.
Post #220 in
There seems to be inversion in data values resulting depressions to appear as mountains.
When the Chandrayaan-1 Moon Impact Probe descended to its crash on the Moon on November 14, it took many pictures on the way down. I repeated earlier a report issued by The Hindu that the probe captured 15,000 images, but I've now been told that that number is not correct. I received an email yesterday from Paul Spudis, a lunar scientist who is the principal investigator on the mini-SAR radar mapper on the Chandrayaan-1 orbiter. Spudis wrote that he was in mission control during the descent (he blogged the event for Air & Space magazine), and that the Moon Impact Probe returned approximately 3,100 images, or slightly more than two per second (assuming the capture rate was constant). He said "I've looked through most of them, trying to identify specific features. I did not succeed before I had to leave for home." He's an expert on the lunar south pole, so that in itself is interesting. I'll bet if the images were posted on the Web that sooner or later some armchair planetary scientist would figure out where they belonged!
