This is an image from the commissioning orbit. Later images from mapping orbit may be better. Image number will follow in a locator image.

I think this is Surveyor 5. Can't be certain yet but several details around it seem to work.

Phil

Click to view attachment

<waiting anxiously for confirmation, hoping Phil pulls a two-fer for the week...>

More of a one-fer, I'm afraid. Now I'm afraid to open my mouth.

However, others add more info... Check out this link at the Vernadsky Institute:

http://www.planetology.ru/panoramas/lunokh...anguage=english

... where Sasha Basilevsky has posted the discovery of Lunokhod 1 and Luna 17. That's a much bigger deal than Lunokhod 2 (plus it happens to be correct). I have the full image and I'll post details soon. Tracks are barely visible, unlike those of Lunokhod 2, but that may vary with lighting. However I can see tracks in some cases, especially near the biggest crater. I would not have found this by my preferred method, comparing the old Soviet maps with this, because my main feature, the biggest crater, isn't visible in this view. It must be very subdued and only visible under very low lighting.

Phil

Okay, I've taken a look at NASA site: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/a...nar_Rovers.html

There are some errors on page. First of all the two images of Lunokhod 1 and 2 is actually same image just differently processed. What is shows is Lunokhod 2, which I verified using old soviet map of the trail it took on the surface available here - http://astro4u.net/yabbse/index.php/topic,....html#msg241262

The green rectangle I placed there is - more or less - the data gathered by LRO.

That's great news Phil!
On the Soviet side of things, that leaves Luna 16 and Luna 18, both of whom I expect will be discovered in the near future. And offcourse the big price, finding Luna 9 and 13, which will be very very hard given the small size of the landers and the large uncertainty in their positions, but who knows...

I still have the impression that Luna 23 is standing at a very large tilt, possibly with one of two of its legs in the crater or on top of some boulder. Given the size of that lander (which includes the ascent stage) the length of the shadow doesn't seem to add up and sun reflections are very different from Luna 24 which is seen under the same sun angle. An extreme tilt might have disabled the drill and/or the firing of the ascent stage.

The Quotable Phil is quoted in Science Daily:


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00316164950.htm

--Bill

I wonder if Science Daily will correct their article to indicate the true position of the rover, which readers of this site learned from Phil yesterday.

I've been trying to get the word out about this, but generally there is less interest in such corrections. You know how it is - the story about a celebrity scandal is on page 1, the correction is on the back page.

The think that really concerned me was how the story turned into a 37-year-old mystery about a lost rover. That was all created by people trying to write eyecatching headlines. But it becomes very embarrassing.

I found what I thought was the Lunokhod in an image - I knew as any of us would have that it was in that specific image, from the coordinates. I saw the dark track and the dark spot but didn't notice the fainter track leading up to the bright spot - I had already cropped the image around the dark spot. But it was about a location in an image. It gets turned into finding a location on the moon, as if it was lost. So now Russians working on this are saying - 'it wasn't lost, we knew where it was all along'. Quite rightly. And people are asking me 'how do you lose a rover on the moon?' - but of course that didn't happen.

Anyway I did a story with AOL yesterday which may help.

Phil

The story is a bit goofy but at least they have the corrected location:
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/nas...-rover/19405554

Goofy, silly and sensational headlining, but at least word is getting out on the work that LRO (et al) is doing. Take the general media reports with a passel of salt and we'll be OK. The AOL article was tolerable until it lapsed into the Richard Garriot story.


I noticed that the Soviet map matched some craters well enough, some it was off, some way, way off. I'll be interesting when Phil (or someone) is able to rubber-sheet the map to the images.

--Bill

It's amazing to watch how this story unfolds in the mass media. Phil, you're a long way from Hollywood, so just to save you the trip this weekend I'll drive up there, assume your identity & have you on tabloid covers & TMZ by Sunday morning. You're welcome.

On a completely different note, have any of the booster impact and/or Ranger sites been imaged at high resolution yet? Assume that the S-IVB hits might be the easiest of these to spot.

EDIT: And right after posting, I see you've found the Apollo 14 LM impact already! You're a machine, Phil; go, man, go!!!

I've been searching for Ranger 9 impact scar, but my blasted internet connection at work keeps timing out...

Ranger 9 looks to be outside the coverage we have so far - looks like the best images are just to the east of it. I posted Apollo 14's LM ascent stage (or shall we say a candidate for it) in the other thread.

Phil

Luna-21 found
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/20...-21-Lander.html


Who did not try to find a Luna-16?

-0.68 56.3
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO....0/M106511834LE

No-one appears to have turned up Luna 16 to date, so I’m wondering if there is something about this one (such as poorer LROC imagery) which is inhibiting the search? I see bright objects in the correct area, some with apparent shadows going the correct way, but none anything like as sharp as the Luna 17, 20, 23 etc images.

LROC side has images of Surveyor 6 and Surveyor 5.

Luna 16 and Luna 18 still appear to be missing although they should be somewhere in the imagery.

Am I correct that the Luna 9-13 area has not yet been imaged/released by LRO?

No. It remains to find the 4 stations made a soft landing on the moon - Luna-9, 13, 16, Surveyor-7.

What about Ranger impacts? Or the Surveyor 2 crash site? Any plans to look for these?

Everything will be looked for! The list of targets - thousands of them including all anthropogenic sites - has been public for months. It's just a matter of actually getting the right images. and finding the objects.

Phil

Mostly the right lighting conditions. You can't find anything in the images with direct overhead solar lighting...

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/20...ic-network.html

That has got to be the best man-made impact site we've seen yet.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Good old fashioned explosions!

Click to view attachment

Most probably it's just one of the many rocks in the area, but size and shadow at least seem to comply with the other Luna sample return missions, so this might be a candidate for Luna 18? Object is somewhat to the northeast of the Luna 20 lander on LRO image M119482862R.

Lots and lots of (big) rocks all over the area, but most of them are either too big, too small, or too rounded to be a lander, assuming at least that Luna 18 more or less landed intact (contact seems to have been lost at a altitude of less then 100 mtr).

Looks more like a boulder to me, with its uniform relfectivity and boulder-shaped shadow, rather than a multi-faceted tall, thin metallic object. But as always, it's easy to be wrong in this game...

Luna-16
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/206-Luna-16.html

That's one of the clearest shots yet.

The list at the LROC site states a preliminary position for Luna 18 at 3.760 N 56.655 E on image M119482862R pixel coordinates 3189 X 28221.
Given that the pixel coordinates relate to the raw image (flipped), this translates to coordinates 1875 X 28221 on the image as published, leading us to below position.

Click to view attachment

Conform the same logic, Luna 20 can indeed be found on the same image at pixel coordinates 4086 X 29618, so hopefully my mathematics are correct.

If this is indeed Luna 18, the craft seems to have landed on the edge of a crater, but how much damage it sustained is impossible to tell. Hopefully we get clearer images later.

I didn't know we had access to that image yet.

Phil

The site doesn't give you direct access to that image, but when I ran a search for it in the library the raw TIFF nevertheless showed up and could be downloaded.

http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/M119482862R

Tried the same to get Surveyor 7 but that image as yet seems unaccessable.

Thanks for the tip!

I'm learning a lot here. Locating both those landers on that image, I find that they are further north than I had expected. Also, that raw image is south-up. If it's rotated 180 degrees it is right-reading - no further flip needed. When I compare the two landers - I mean the candidate Luna 18 lander as it's not confirmed yet - I find the 'Luna 18' is quite a bit smaller than Luna 20:

Click to view attachment

Maybe it's not the right object, but large rocks are very rare in this region.

Phil

How far apart are they in the image Phil, is it possible that we are looking at a perspective issue here? No doubt that the Luna 20 candidate is a man made object, you can even discern the shadow of narrow cross-section antennas or whatever they are protruding from the top.

EDIT: Also, is it possible the impact caused it to embed in the regolith somewhat or some of the protruding devices to separate, giving it that smaller appearance?

This is a locator image for Luna 20 and the Luna 18 candidate:

Click to view attachment

The black box (approx. 1500 m wide) has Luna 20 in the upper left corner and the Luna 18 candidate in the lower right corner. But while searching through the image I found this object:

Click to view attachment

It's inside that large crater at the bottom of the locator image. It appears to be exactly the same size and form as Luna 20.

Phil

Wow...good eye

The large crater in that locator image is 4 km north of the expected landing site.

Phil

Here's the new comparison image. (PS I really ought to be doing some work around the house... but who can leave this stuff alone?)

Click to view attachment

Phil

I can almost convince myself that the crash landing has caused the ascent stage to fall over to the north.

If this is Luna 18 it obviously landed - rather than crashed - but presumably landed hard enough to do some serious damage to the spacecraft, especially its communication system.

The difference in shadow lengths between the two objects is related to local slopes - Luna 18 (my candidate for it anyway) is on a crater wall sloping toward the sun.

Phil

Impossible to tell whether your candidate or the 'official' candidate is Luna 18, we have to wait until they release some new images, preferably with a low sun angle.

We should keep in mind that Luna 18 (like Luna 23) should have its ascent stage still on top (contrary to Luna 16/20), so it should be a lot higher (unless the thing has toppled over on landing and is lying on its side as might be the case with the official candidate).
Probably Luna 18 can best be compared with Luna 23, but then we need two images with similar sun-angle.

I'd say it's a very very very very very very very very very very very good candidate.

If it's NOT Luna 18, then someone else landed a replica Luna spacecraft at some point.

I agree that Phil's object is Luna 18. Geert's object looks like a rock which is a different shape and substantially smaller than a Luna. Geert, thnanks also for explaining how there are more images available than the system seems to show, which also explains how no-one (to my knowledge) has been able to find Luna 16 in a big context image, although the craft itself has been excised and posted by the LROC people.

If south is to the bottom, the ascent stage might actually have toppled over to the SE, and there is a curious extra shadow on the NE side of the image.. a rock or an arm or antenna of the spacecraft? Better defintion image awaited with interest.

The object I mentioned before was at the coordinates the LROC site gave for Luna 18, so it's no 'Geert's object'
I agree that the object Phil shows much better conforms to size and shape of a Luna sample return craft, so I think he has indeed a much better candidate.

I tried to find the object Phil mentions in other images of the area, problem is making sure that you have indeed the same thing, but maybe I succeeded in M104147428LE, if I'm correct than the same crater Phil mentions is in this image almost at the bottom of the image.

Click to view attachment

Might this be the same object Phil has found? It certainly looks 'artificial' and indeed as if the ascent stage has broken off, there still seem to be some shadows of antenna..

EDIT: From the latest localizer image Phil posted, it's clear I had the correct crater, but the wrong stone/object !
Still trying to find the correct object in the other images of the area.

I'm trying to get the same thing in other images as well, and trying to work out convincingly that we are indeed talking about the same thing, it's hard to puzzle out how pixel-coordinates from one image map into the other, so I might very well be wrong! If I can find the time I'll try to work out a better method of making sure we are talking about the same thing..

I'm not convinced. Looking at the shadow gives you a rough idea of what the shape of the object is along the line of sight. It looks rather bumpy, but then again I don't know if the shadow of the object falling on that (what appears to be) rock is the cause of this.

Click to view attachment

Here's a finder image for Luna 16 - I just figured it out yesterday. I'm preparing guides like this to all the previously unlocated objects.

Phil

This is where my Luna 18 candidate is:

Click to view attachment

and here is the same thing at high sun. It doesn't look so convincing in this image.

Click to view attachment

Phil

Judging from your latest image, I clearly found the wrong object although possibly in the correct crater.

Based on the lat/lon data and the image data, both the "official" luna 18 candidate as probably your candidate, should also be visible in image M104147428LE which seems to have a more favorable sun angle, however as yet I didn't manage to find either.

Don't know why they don't include this image on the list at the preliminary Luna 18 position, while it seems to cover the area, maybe they simply haven't managed either to find the object in this image?

Housework indeed ... and bang goes the gardening.

I'm looking at Phil's second set of 2 comparison images. Now assuming the landing orientations of the 2 craft are roughly the same, I'm seeing in the case of Luna 18 an extra "lump" at the South East (bottom right) position, which might be the ascent stage toppled off. That might make the funny shadaow top right (North East corner) to be the partially raised drilling arm.

It looks to me like you found "Nomad" from the Star Trek Original Series!

I'd say not. Here's my guess on the relative orientations. The slopes that they are resting on and the different sun angle are likely contributing to the apparent variance in dimensions. When you alter lighting angles on spherical objects (which the Luna craft were rife with) perceptions of size and shape change accordingly.

I do see what you mean. That extra object (now in the NE postion) still looks brighter than the rest and could still be a toppled shiny ascent stage. And maybe the dark shadow (now at south, bottom) is a rock it unluckily landed on and it is now straddling, or indeed the drilling arm.

The landing sequence of these vehicles was totally automated and Lunas 18 and 20 were the same model (unlike Luna 23, 24) so my guess is that landing orientation would be intended to be identical, so that antennae and landing radar were pointing in predictable ways. But of course things can go wrong...as we know they did with Luna 18.