Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Spacecraft Images Crash Site of Retired LADEE Probe

Posted by timothy on from the she-went-down-in-the-dark dept.

An anonymous reader writes In April, NASA ended the mission of its Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission by de-orbiting (read: crashing) it on the far side of the moon. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has now directly imaged the crash site, showing a small crater and the spray of rocks and dust caused by the crash. "LADEE's grave lies about 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) from the eastern rim of the larger Sundman V crater, just 0.2 miles (0.3 km) north of the spot where mission team members predicted the spacecraft would go down based on tracking data, NASA officials said. ... The new crater is less than 10 feet (3 meters) wide. It's so small because LADEE was just the size of a washing machine, and the probe was traveling relatively slowly (3,800 mph, or 6,116 km/h) when it impacted the surface. The LROC team was able to spot LADEE's impact crater after developing a new tool that compared before-and-after images of the same lunar sites, researchers said."

26 comments

  1. Does it capture hotspots of Eboli? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    In Guyana?

  2. washing machine fun by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    So a washing machine going 3,00 MPH would make a decent hole in the dirt. Like anvil shooting

    1. Re:washing machine fun by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      But you'd be required by state law to hire a licensed and bonded plumber to remove it from the crater.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:washing machine fun by plover · · Score: 1

      So I'm not the only one picturing an actual washing machine crashing into the moon. Good!

      --
      John
    3. Re:washing machine fun by c4tp · · Score: 1

      Comparing LADEE to a washing machine? Typical male chauvinist pigs!

    4. Re:washing machine fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget, must be union

  3. a de-orbiting anomaly? by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    enlarging my vocab one crash at a time.

  4. Horrible quality by BlueBlade · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain to me why the images have such bad quality and resolution? Satellite images of the earth are good enough to spot someone sunbathing on a roof. I would think that the price of top-notch optics and sensors would pale compared to the cost of just making the trip to the moon, so why aren't the pictures as good quality as what we get from the earth-orbiting satellites?

    --
    Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    1. Re:Horrible quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing, the satellites orbiting the Earth taking photos of "someone sunbathing on a roof" are satellites designed just for the job of photographing the Earth. The Lunar probes you're referring to have a multitude of tasks, and it's all a trade-off relating to mass, power consumption, and quality.

      The other thing you need to understand is that it costs a lot to put a satellite in orbit around the Moon.

    2. Re:Horrible quality by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why the images have such bad quality and resolution? Satellite images of the earth are good enough to spot someone sunbathing on a roof.

      The narrow band cameras have a resolution of 0.5 meters/pixel
      That also happens to be the legal limit for commercially available satellite imagery.

      They could have sent up something to take higher resolution pictures, but they wouldn't have the memory, weight, or power budget to handle the files.

      There's also the fact that (A) the system they're using is proven technology that was modified from the Mars orbiter camera and (B) 0.5 meters/pixel is a fairly high resolution for mapping a landscape.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Horrible quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because most of those high-resolution images aren't from orbiting satellites. They're usually stitched together from low-flying aircraft taking pictures. The really high-rez orbital stuff isn't generally available to the public.

    4. Re:Horrible quality by itzly · · Score: 1

      The satellite images of people sunbathing on their roof are actually taken with an airplane.

  5. So I asked my Russian buddy: LADEE? by arielCo · · Score: 1

    "Da"

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:So I asked my Russian buddy: LADEE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya nez naiou Pa-roussikie. Please explain joke.

    2. Re:So I asked my Russian buddy: LADEE? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm Russian and I don't get it either.

    3. Re: So I asked my Russian buddy: LADEE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ladee Da are part of the most sampled and borrowed rap lyrics ever. Old school stuff. So, it is only convenient to suggest a Russian would add Da to Ladee. Cult reference having really nothing to do with Russia.

  6. "Retired"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    I didn't know Rick Deckard was currently working as a NASA spokesman.

  7. I'm sorry... by Snard · · Score: 1

    I can't read a story about this probe without hearing Jerry Lewis screaming in my head.

    --
    - Mike
    1. Re: I'm sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think, therefore, I believe everyone missed the good part. After all the knowns of the mission, "they missed by that far"

  8. alien by johncandale · · Score: 1

    Because then you could spot the random alien ship parts that the grays also crashed there duh :)

  9. Space trash and human behavior by johncandale · · Score: 1
    I find it a little sort sighted we are just dumping our trash about. Here me out before you say, "well it is just one advanced probe." They used to say that about satellites.

    More than 95% of stuff in orbit now is junk and huge resources at NASA and DoD are used just to track it More than 500,000 pieces of debris, or “space junk,” are tracked as they orbit the Earth. They all travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft. http://motherboard.vice.com/re... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...

    it will be much harder to remove later. By the time we are building moon telescopes and research bases, we will be using half the payload for tools to sweep the junk up http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...

    1. Re:Space trash and human behavior by itzly · · Score: 1

      Space junk in Earth orbit is completely incomparable to a crashed satellite on the Moon's surface.

    2. Re:Space trash and human behavior by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Your argument/analogy is for crashing it into the moon, rather than leaving it as orbit of the moon as space junk.

    3. Re:Space trash and human behavior by johncandale · · Score: 1

      Your argument/analogy is for crashing it into the moon, rather than leaving it as orbit of the moon as space junk.

      Not really. You could land it in a desert and collect it or put it on a course with the sun, burning it up into it's base elements

    4. Re:Space trash and human behavior by johncandale · · Score: 1

      Space junk in Earth orbit is completely incomparable to a crashed satellite on the Moon's surface.

      Space junk in Earth orbit is completely comparable to a crashed satellite on the Moon's surface. I can do that too.

    5. Re:Space trash and human behavior by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No you can't.

      One of those options would require ludicrous amounts of delta-V, and the other would require large amounts of delta-V. The resulting increase in mass making for even more delta-V requirements to get it to where it was originally. And more mass to launch and so on.

      It's not magic. They can't just click their fingers and have a magic rocket and fuel appear attacked the space craft in lunar orbit.