Difference between revisions of "March 29, 2005"

From LPOD
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 15: Line 15:
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
<table width="80%"  border="0" align="center" cellpadding="8">
 
<table width="80%"  border="0" align="center" cellpadding="8">
<tr><td><div align="center" class="main_sm">Image Credit: [mailto:ralph_a47.hotmail.com Carmelo Zannelli]</p>
+
<tr><td><div align="center" class="main_sm"><p>Image Credit: [mailto:ralph_a47.hotmail.com Carmelo Zannelli]</p>
 
</div></td>
 
</div></td>
 
</tr>   
 
</tr>   
Line 24: Line 24:
 
<p align="left">The Moon is a messy target. An incoming projectile has only about a 17% chance of striking a relatively flat area; most impacts occurred on top of existing craters. This causes uneven ejecta distribution and even low spots in the new crater’s rim where it cuts into the older crater. The Hainzel-Mee crater cluster is an even more complex crater group with impacts on top of impacts on top of impacts. The oldest feature in this sequence is the very poorly defined 132 km wide ruined crater Mee. The small crater Mee F was later formed as a normal crater but its rim was destroyed when smooth plains were formed on part of Mee’s floor. The 70 km wide crater Hainzel cut into Mee’s floor sometime before the smooth plains were emplaced (because the plains embay Hainzel’s rim). Hainzel A and C are an odd pair. Both overlap Hainzel but it is difficult to see which is younger. Hainzel A looks younger because of its central peak and superb rim terraces and it’s radial lineations to the north. However, instead of a clear crater rim overlapping C, there is simply a partial ridge between the two craters. Did Hainzel A and C form simultaneously? Even the Lunar Orbiter IV image does not answer that question! This image raises again questions of the naming of craters. Why is an old and obscured crater given the name Hainzel, while the remarkable and fresher crater “A” merely has a letter designation? This is not an isolated blunder, check out boring Epimenides and its brighter subsidiary “S”. And why does the odd ruin Mee warrant a name at all? Sometimes I think that a fresh look at lunar nomenclature, unencumbered by national pride, could yield a more consistent and useful nomenclature. But 300 years of mistakes, oops, I mean tradition, can’t be set aside so cavalierly!</p>
 
<p align="left">The Moon is a messy target. An incoming projectile has only about a 17% chance of striking a relatively flat area; most impacts occurred on top of existing craters. This causes uneven ejecta distribution and even low spots in the new crater’s rim where it cuts into the older crater. The Hainzel-Mee crater cluster is an even more complex crater group with impacts on top of impacts on top of impacts. The oldest feature in this sequence is the very poorly defined 132 km wide ruined crater Mee. The small crater Mee F was later formed as a normal crater but its rim was destroyed when smooth plains were formed on part of Mee’s floor. The 70 km wide crater Hainzel cut into Mee’s floor sometime before the smooth plains were emplaced (because the plains embay Hainzel’s rim). Hainzel A and C are an odd pair. Both overlap Hainzel but it is difficult to see which is younger. Hainzel A looks younger because of its central peak and superb rim terraces and it’s radial lineations to the north. However, instead of a clear crater rim overlapping C, there is simply a partial ridge between the two craters. Did Hainzel A and C form simultaneously? Even the Lunar Orbiter IV image does not answer that question! This image raises again questions of the naming of craters. Why is an old and obscured crater given the name Hainzel, while the remarkable and fresher crater “A” merely has a letter designation? This is not an isolated blunder, check out boring Epimenides and its brighter subsidiary “S”. And why does the odd ruin Mee warrant a name at all? Sometimes I think that a fresh look at lunar nomenclature, unencumbered by national pride, could yield a more consistent and useful nomenclature. But 300 years of mistakes, oops, I mean tradition, can’t be set aside so cavalierly!</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
<p align="right">&#8212; [mailto:tychocrater@yahoo.com Chuck Wood]</blockquote>
+
<p align="right">&#8212; [mailto:tychocrater@yahoo.com Chuck Wood]</p></blockquote>
 
<p align="left"><b>Technical Details:</b><br>
 
<p align="left"><b>Technical Details:</b><br>
 
Mar 22, 2005. 235 mm SC _ Vesta Pro webcame + IR-cut off filter. 300 of 1500 frames stacked with Iris 4.32</p>
 
Mar 22, 2005. 235 mm SC _ Vesta Pro webcame + IR-cut off filter. 300 of 1500 frames stacked with Iris 4.32</p>
Line 30: Line 30:
 
[[iv_142_h2.jpg|Lunar Orbiter 4 image]]
 
[[iv_142_h2.jpg|Lunar Orbiter 4 image]]
 
<br>Rukl Plate 63
 
<br>Rukl Plate 63
 +
</p>
 
<p align="left"><b>Tomorrow's LPOD: </b> A Looong Lunar Exposure</p>
 
<p align="left"><b>Tomorrow's LPOD: </b> A Looong Lunar Exposure</p>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>

Revision as of 21:17, 17 January 2015

Mee Too!!

["#" onMouseOver = "document.images['main_image'].src='archive/2005/03/images/LPOD-2005-03-29b.jpeg'; return true" onMouseOut = "document.images['main_image'].src='archive/2005/03/images/LPOD-2005-03-29.jpeg'; return false" LPOD-2005-03-29.jpeg]

Image Credit: Carmelo Zannelli


Mee Too!!

The Moon is a messy target. An incoming projectile has only about a 17% chance of striking a relatively flat area; most impacts occurred on top of existing craters. This causes uneven ejecta distribution and even low spots in the new crater’s rim where it cuts into the older crater. The Hainzel-Mee crater cluster is an even more complex crater group with impacts on top of impacts on top of impacts. The oldest feature in this sequence is the very poorly defined 132 km wide ruined crater Mee. The small crater Mee F was later formed as a normal crater but its rim was destroyed when smooth plains were formed on part of Mee’s floor. The 70 km wide crater Hainzel cut into Mee’s floor sometime before the smooth plains were emplaced (because the plains embay Hainzel’s rim). Hainzel A and C are an odd pair. Both overlap Hainzel but it is difficult to see which is younger. Hainzel A looks younger because of its central peak and superb rim terraces and it’s radial lineations to the north. However, instead of a clear crater rim overlapping C, there is simply a partial ridge between the two craters. Did Hainzel A and C form simultaneously? Even the Lunar Orbiter IV image does not answer that question! This image raises again questions of the naming of craters. Why is an old and obscured crater given the name Hainzel, while the remarkable and fresher crater “A” merely has a letter designation? This is not an isolated blunder, check out boring Epimenides and its brighter subsidiary “S”. And why does the odd ruin Mee warrant a name at all? Sometimes I think that a fresh look at lunar nomenclature, unencumbered by national pride, could yield a more consistent and useful nomenclature. But 300 years of mistakes, oops, I mean tradition, can’t be set aside so cavalierly!

Chuck Wood

Technical Details:
Mar 22, 2005. 235 mm SC _ Vesta Pro webcame + IR-cut off filter. 300 of 1500 frames stacked with Iris 4.32

Related Links:
Lunar Orbiter 4 image
Rukl Plate 63

Tomorrow's LPOD: A Looong Lunar Exposure



Author & Editor:
Charles A. Wood

Technical Consultant:
Anthony Ayiomamitis

Contact Translator:
Pablo Lonnie Pacheco Railey (Es)
Christian Legrand (Fr)

Contact Webmaster

A service of:
ObservingTheSky.Org

Visit these other PODs:
Astronomy | Mars | Earth

 


COMMENTS?

Register, and click on the Discussion tab at the top of the page.