Difference between revisions of "Talk:March 3, 2015"

From LPOD
Jump to: navigation, search
(Comment provided by starsplitter - via ArticleComments extension)
(Comment provided by chuck Wood - via ArticleComments extension)
 
Line 31: Line 31:
 
Unfortunately I don't know how to interpret any of the above images, other than Mons Hansteen is definitely a special feature for the Moon.
 
Unfortunately I don't know how to interpret any of the above images, other than Mons Hansteen is definitely a special feature for the Moon.
 
Ron
 
Ron
 +
</comment>
 +
== chuck Wood said ... ==
 +
 +
<comment date="2015-03-03T21:34:08Z" name="chuck Wood" signature="[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] ([[User talk:Chuck|talk]])">
 +
interpretation of mineral composition requires calibration of Clementine or WAC color image. But just identifying it as being unusual is a step forward.
 
</comment>
 
</comment>

Latest revision as of 14:34, 3 March 2015

Comments on "March 3, 2015"


starsplitter said ...

3 March 2015

Here's just a quick run through of Mons Hansteen using the LROC quick map tools to update this LPOD of yesteryear:


LROC WAC:

http://bit.ly/1Ndi8Pu


LROC no shadows:

http://bit.ly/1B5lHAR


LROC Clementine color ratio overlay:

http://bit.ly/1NdiYMh


LROC WAC Color test overlay:

http://bit.ly/1B5lPAj


A quick map NAC image of an interesting part of Mons Hansteen:

http://bit.ly/1NdjMk2


I did a similar run-through for "the Helmut" and Mons Gruithuisen gamma and delta and they didn't pop out as does Hansteen.


Ron

--Starsplitter (talk)

starsplitter said ...

3 March 2015

Unfortunately I don't know how to interpret any of the above images, other than Mons Hansteen is definitely a special feature for the Moon.

Ron

--Starsplitter (talk)

chuck Wood said ...

3 March 2015

interpretation of mineral composition requires calibration of Clementine or WAC color image. But just identifying it as being unusual is a step forward.

--Chuck (talk)