Change'e 3/Yutu

[ka9q]

and which Apollo mission landed on Mare Imbrium from a polar orbit.

Excellent point, since every Apollo mission landed from a low inclination retrograde orbit (i.e., from the east) in the early morning.

I suppose someone could claim that it was faked by animating LRO imagery. But I already have a ready response.

Gone to Plaid's computer recreation of Armstrong's view during the Apollo 11 landing using LRO imagery had one big tell-tale indication: the sun angle is almost exactly the same throughout the sequence. LRO viewed the area from high altitude so its angles between the various landmarks were all small. The Apollo approach footage was shot from a much closer distance so the sun angle varies considerably. In some scenes the sun angle ranges from 0 (with very pronounced heiligenschein washing out the down-sun detail) to high enough for significant shadows to be seen.

Because Change' 3 landed from polar orbit with the sun to one side, and because the field of view of the landing camera is rather small, we don't see quite as much of a sun angle variation as we might. But I'm sure we could show that it does change, especially as the Chinese release more imagery. Anybody know how many videos were taken during the landing?

This was the first soft landing on the moon during the modern digital camera era. I wish we'd done it, but I'm happy that at least somebody did.

[raven]

Indeed. Not since Luna 24 have we had a lander on the moon, and not since Lunokhod 2 have we had a rover.
Who is 'we'? Why, the human race. Our space achievements speak for us all.
"Man must explore, and this is exploration at its finest", to quote Apollo astronaut David Scott.
Can't wait to see more. 

[ka9q]

The Chinese have quite a way to go to reach NASA's standard for releasing data to the press, but it's starting to dribble out.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/china/change3/131216photos/

I hadn't seen the picture of the lander as seen from the rover.  Note the following:

1. Absolutely black sky; no stars
2. Lander covered with cheap-looking gold-painted "tin foil"
3. Shadow side of lander is brightly lit
4. No sign of blast crater under lander
5. No piles of lunar dirt on top of landing pads

Let's see just how many more we can find. Anybody see a "C" on any of those rocks? :-)

</sarcasm mode>

Can anybody orient this picture for me? Glancing at the moon tonight I noticed that it's approximately full, meaning that the lunar longitude of the sun is roughly zero. The landing site is roughly 44N 20 W, so the sun should be in the south-southeast. The shadow of the rover is to the left as seen by the lander, which means the lander is looking approximately east -- is that right?

That dish on the lander is probably designed to communicate with earth, but if I'm right about the orientation it doesn't seem to be pointed that way at the moment.  I don't know the communication system; can the rover communicate only with earth or can it also relay through the lander?

[ka9q]

Reading some other posts and looking at it again, I think the camera on the lander is looking north, not east. It's a full moon only just tonight, so allowing for where the sun was when the lander was lowered to the surface, and looking at the approach to the landing site from the south, I think the rover's dish probably is looking back over the lander back at the earth. If so, then it's just off the top of the picture taken of the lander from the rover.

Edit: The earth should be above and a little to the left of the lander, pretty much where the dish on the rover is pointed.

[Eastsider]

The Chinese have quite a way to go to reach NASA's standard for releasing data to the press, but it's starting to dribble out.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/china/change3/131216photos/

I hadn't seen the picture of the lander as seen from the rover.  Note the following:

1. Absolutely black sky; no stars
2. Lander covered with cheap-looking gold-painted "tin foil"
3. Shadow side of lander is brightly lit
4. No sign of blast crater under lander
5. No piles of lunar dirt on top of landing pads

Let's see just how many more we can find. Anybody see a "C" on any of those rocks? :-)

</sarcasm mode>

1. Clear & distinct tracks left in the regolith by the rover.
2. Conflicting directions in light shadows.

A certain Aussie must be royally freaking out right now as several of his hoax theories have just been sent packing by the Chinese.

I suspect he will just start calling the Chinese liars instead of admitting defeat. 

How that kid survived into adulthood is beyond me.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

I suspect he will just start calling the Chinese liars instead of admitting defeat. 

Which of course makes no sense.

IF the Chinese faked it, they would fake it to look exactly how they (I.E. their scientists and engineers) think it should look like.
They think it should look like Apollo.

[darren r]

The Daily Mail's story about the landing attracted the usual coterie of idiots, cynics and racists. Several of the more simple-minded posters asked if the rover was going to perform a drive-by of 'the American flag' (because, of course, there's only one) in order to prove or disprove the US landings. When I pointed out that the nearest Apollo site was around a thousand km away, somebody else responded :

'How convenient'

The logical contortions implicit in those two words took my breath away.

[twik]

I suspect he will just start calling the Chinese liars instead of admitting defeat. 

How that kid survived into adulthood is beyond me.

I think hoax proponents who argue on the technicalities have started to be replaced by people whose position is "the powers that be can always warp reality to make you think things that aren't true." So, there's little point in trying to prove them wrong, because any evidence that contradicts them can be dismissed with one of two dicta:

1. It's faked.
2. They're lying.

Once every bit of data is run through this sieve, we are left with faith, or preference, because there's absolutely nothing (even, to many conspiracists, the evidence of our own eyes) that cannot be invalidated by these two claims.

[Eastsider]

I suspect he will just start calling the Chinese liars instead of admitting defeat. 

Which of course makes no sense.

IF the Chinese faked it, they would fake it to look exactly how they (I.E. their scientists and engineers) think it should look like.
They think it should look like Apollo.

It makes absolutely no sense, but that is the entertaining madness in their thinking.

I read somewhere on the web recently that trying to get a conspiracy theorist to stop believing in their theories is akin to trying to get a monkey to stop liking bananas. (no offense to monkeys)

[Peter B]

I suspect he will just start calling the Chinese liars instead of admitting defeat. 

How that kid survived into adulthood is beyond me.

I think hoax proponents who argue on the technicalities have started to be replaced by people whose position is "the powers that be can always warp reality to make you think things that aren't true." So, there's little point in trying to prove them wrong, because any evidence that contradicts them can be dismissed with one of two dicta:

1. It's faked.
2. They're lying.

Once every bit of data is run through this sieve, we are left with faith, or preference, because there's absolutely nothing (even, to many conspiracists, the evidence of our own eyes) that cannot be invalidated by these two claims.

As always, for me the issue isn't convincing the hoax believers they're wrong, but explaining to the fence sitters why the HBs are wrong. That's one reason why calm and straightforward explanations are helpful - you sound sensible in comparison to the disorganised HB. The other reason, of course, is that you remaining calm and straightforward will often send the HB over the edge into abuse, which helps reinforce the win.

[Peter B]

Incidentally, are there any LRO images of the landing site?

I was fascinated to watch the descent "video" on the Bad Astronomy blog, but I always like playing these sorts of videos backwards to see what the landing site looks like from a distance. The BA video is hard to play backwards, so I can't work out whether the landing site is visible at the start of the video.

[gwiz]

Here you are:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=7756&hl=
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33511.495

[Dalhousie]

I find that descent from polar orbit really exciting, because it means that the Chinese have shown they can land future rovers and sample return missions anywhere on the surface.  Poles, Aiken Basin anyone?

Incidently this is the first time we have rovers on two other celestial bodies at the same time.

[gwiz]

Here's the planned Chinese lunar sample return system, even more LM-like:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=33431.0;attach=562163;image
.

[ka9q]

I have a ham friend in Germany who's reporting strong signals, with various modulations, on X-band coming from the moon.

I guess he's "in cahoots", huh?