Difference between revisions of "July 17, 2011"
(Created page with "__NOTOC__ =A Morning Observation And a New Problem= <!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:0:<h1> --> <!-- ws:start:WikiTextLocalImageRule:6:<img src="/file/view/...") |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
morning too, so I had his view to confrim my observations. And his image looks very much<br /> | morning too, so I had his view to confrim my observations. And his image looks very much<br /> | ||
like my view for he used a Meade 3" ETX and I obseserved with a 3" Orion Mak-Cass. And<br /> | like my view for he used a Meade 3" ETX and I obseserved with a 3" Orion Mak-Cass. And<br /> | ||
| − | then I found Eric Roel's image (right) from a 2006 [mailto:tychocrater@yahoo.com Chuck Wood]</em><br /> | + | then I found Eric Roel's image (right) from a 2006 [http://www.lpod.org/?m=20060307 LPOD], and was reminded that Humboldt<br /> |
| + | has a long linear ridge rather than a central peak. A classic Apollo 15 [http://www.lpod.org/?m=20060206 view] shows that there<br /> | ||
| + | is a central peak, as well as a line of hills. The real question then is what is the origin of the<br /> | ||
| + | hills? A vertical [http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/wac_mosaic_detail/5 view] from LRO shows long groves of ejecta to the NE, in the same direction<br /> | ||
| + | as the ridge. Perhaps Humboldt formed from a low oblique impact, creating a central ridge as<br /> | ||
| + | at Schiller. But Schiller itself is very elongated and Humboldt isn't. The main mass of impact<br /> | ||
| + | melt is to the SE, indicating that might be the impact direction. And the ridge marks the boundary<br /> | ||
| + | between a flat part of the floor and the part covered by hills. These clues ought to be enough to <br /> | ||
| + | suggest an origin for the line of hills, but I don't see it yet. Do you?<br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | <em>[mailto:tychocrater@yahoo.com Chuck Wood]</em><br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>Technical Details</strong><br /> | <strong>Technical Details</strong><br /> | ||
Revision as of 21:45, 1 January 2015
A Morning Observation And a New Problem
left image by Maurice Collins, New Zealand, and right one from Eric Roel, Mexico
I observed the Moon this morning (Saturday) at 5:30 AM and immediately noticed a long crater
at the terminator. What was intriguing was that a massive central mountain stuck up into the
setting Sun while the rest of the crater, except the rim crests, were shadowed. And the large
peak complex wasn't centered, it extended a considerable distance to the north. From its size
and position I knew that the shadowed crater was Humboldt but I didn't know why the peak
was so "uncentral". Fortunately, Maurice Collins captured an image (left above) early Saturday
morning too, so I had his view to confrim my observations. And his image looks very much
like my view for he used a Meade 3" ETX and I obseserved with a 3" Orion Mak-Cass. And
then I found Eric Roel's image (right) from a 2006 LPOD, and was reminded that Humboldt
has a long linear ridge rather than a central peak. A classic Apollo 15 view shows that there
is a central peak, as well as a line of hills. The real question then is what is the origin of the
hills? A vertical view from LRO shows long groves of ejecta to the NE, in the same direction
as the ridge. Perhaps Humboldt formed from a low oblique impact, creating a central ridge as
at Schiller. But Schiller itself is very elongated and Humboldt isn't. The main mass of impact
melt is to the SE, indicating that might be the impact direction. And the ridge marks the boundary
between a flat part of the floor and the part covered by hills. These clues ought to be enough to
suggest an origin for the line of hills, but I don't see it yet. Do you?
Chuck Wood
Technical Details
Maurice's image: July 16, 2011, 1002-1031 UT. ETX-90 + LPI.
Eric;s image: March 3, 2006. 10″ f/20 TEC Maksutov + LU-075M camera, 100 frames from 3000.
Related Links
Rükl plate 60
COMMENTS?
Click on this icon File:PostIcon.jpg at the upper right to post a comment.
