40 Year Old Russian Rover Says Привет (Hello!)

reply to post by Dorian Soran

“The fact that Lunokhod 1’s reflection is now stronger than that of its twin is a mystery. This may yield important clues as to why all of the reflectors are weaker than in the first decade after landing.”

if something gets stronger its better than before

reply to post by Kandinsky


S&F for great info and well put together content...
On the other hand,
I have a ten year old boy who is really getting into robots and space. I think you just blew my chances of us ending up anywhere but MIT out of the water LOL! GEEE Thanks! jk!
Good thread!
~prep

Interesting post, very well written to....
I really love stories like this.

Nice thread!

This peice of machinery was certainly built to last!

I wonder if i am the only person that thinks this rover totally looks "The Business"?



[edit on 8-6-2010 by scobro]

Send up some Tesla power waves and get it started again.
What.
He could provide power to the Moon and planets is what he said.
Too bad we had to slop around in oil for 70+ years before looking to
Tesla again.
Spin around you 60 cycles there is more to come.

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
reply to post by Dorian Soran

 

“The fact that Lunokhod 1’s reflection is now stronger than that of its twin is a mystery.

if something gets stronger its better than before

Ahhh - but it didnt say that it was better than itself did it?

It is better than ITS TWIN - which means the twin had a flaw or was built to lower standards than than this one. ( simplest explanation is usually the correct one )

Dorian Soran

reply to post by Rapsio


You know, I thought the same thing, but the fact remains that the Apollo reflectors are not reflecting the light as efficiently as they did when they were first put down.

I suppose the question should be, what's degenerating the Apollo ones?

Originally posted by Rapsio
Why are you so surprised that it was clean? NASA says (and we must believe nasa right?

) there is no atmosphere on the moon, no wind. We have no other source of information so we stick to the official story. This is nothing like the rovers on Mars where they are covered with dust from the winds
Even the footprints of the first astronauts must be preserved for milenia.
So if it's not hit by an meteor (or nearby) it must be clean.

And also, this. Their excuse that the appollo reflector sucks because of dust ...

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

maybe its the same phenomenon that cleans the mars rovers' solar panels

It is.

Its called static surface cleaning.

Something predicted to occur by plasma cosmologists.

The soil on the Moon and on Mars is charged.

This is also why the soil clung to the astronauts space suits like tar.


Such cleaning mechanisms are actually used in industrial applications today.

A contact free cleaning rig that uses ionized air as the basis for the cleaning of dust:
www.haug-static.com...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Rapsio
Why are you so surprised that it was clean? NASA says (and we must believe nasa right?

) there is no atmosphere on the moon, no wind. We have no other source of information so we stick to the official story. This is nothing like the rovers on Mars where they are covered with dust from the winds
Even the footprints of the first astronauts must be preserved for milenia.
So if it's not hit by an meteor (or nearby) it must be clean.

There is a lunar dust storm in the line where night and day meet...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jra


Those are cool pics. But I have to wonder why they would put a camera in the position that it is...Why would you want antennas and nuts and bolts in every shot?

Originally posted by nik1halo

Originally posted by ickylevel
Or maybe they are the only actual reflectors on the moon, and the apollo moon landing was an hoax ?

So what, pray have they been bouncing lasers off for the past 50-odd years, moon dust?

God knows how this little Russian space champ has stayed so clean though. Maybe the aliens have those guys that wait at the traffic lights to clean your windscreen too? Space Bums!

No atmosphere = no wind. So no dust kicked up to cover its reflective panels.

Thanks for the replies, but a very big thanks for those enjoying the spirit of the thread

How can dust move on the Moon?

A few guys are interested in the 'hows and whys' dust can be moving around in a vacuum. It's a fair expectation that nothing should be moving around with no wind to speak of...or maybe not?

The accepted explanation is electro-static charge.

The Apollo 17 astronauts described weird rays of light on the horizon of the Moon near twilight. At the same time, Russian and American images showed a blurry horizon that couldn't be explained.

Astronaut Eugene Cernan's illustration
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/51e18a0be21d.jpg[/atsimg]

It turns out that the nightside of the Moon is negatively charged and the dayside is positively charged. The point were night and day meets...shadow and light...is called the terminator. As the terminator endlessly chases across the surface of the Moon (billions of years!), the surface dust is pushed before it and rises up in small 'storms.'

The effect is one we're all familiar with...

Miss Chardonnay Bollinger-Smith demonstrates...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef3ca2f28def.jpg[/atsimg]

On the Moon, there is no rubbing. The dust is electrostatically charged by the Sun in two different ways: by sunlight itself and by charged particles flowing out from the Sun (the solar wind).

On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micron and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes, Stubbs explains. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again.

'Moon Fountains'

So far, so simple! A good question at this point is, 'why are some retro-reflectors cleaner than others?' I don't know. There are some very-informed folk on ATS who could likely answer and save us all having to find out for ourselves!

LRO imaged the Apollo landing sites so...

I figured a 2.5m long 'brass and antique leather' beast like Lunakhod should easily be spotted by NASA's LRO. It covered 6 miles and should leave tracks too

In a little publicised image, we've got him...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02861222016e.jpg[/atsimg] NASA LRO: Soviet Lunar Rovers

I can't find a good shot of Lunokhod1 with the tracks, but found a good one of the twin Lunokhod2 with clear tracks...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/15bc0297649b.jpg[/atsimg]
Image source

in soviet russia Lunokhod 1 reflects light on to you!
second line for soviet russia.

Originally posted by Rapsio
Why are you so surprised that it was clean? NASA says (and we must believe nasa right?

) there is no atmosphere on the moon, no wind. We have no other source of information so we stick to the official story. This is nothing like the rovers on Mars where they are covered with dust from the winds
Even the footprints of the first astronauts must be preserved for milenia.
So if it's not hit by an meteor (or nearby) it must be clean.

Sorry, but if you investigate, you will discover that the DUST PROBLEM is a bit of a mystery, in that on Mars there should be dust on the rovers, but some how it is missing 100%. Probably because all the images, purporting to come from Mars, are not real, but are actually computer generated images, CGI, just like as the movie industry are now using to create movies like AVATAR. The government had such computers and softwares ages ago. If the dust existed then the Rovers should have stopped working years ago already. Just how can it be that the solar panels are spotlessly clean ? Because all the images are 100% CGI fantasy land. Once again just like as with the Apollo Missions, the Mars Rovers are just one big huge fraud.

[edit on 9/6/2010 by CAELENIUM]

reply to post by Kandinsky

A good question at this point is, 'why are some retro-reflectors cleaner than others?'

I am speculating here:

- I would expect that the more solar energy deposited per square meter, the greater the ionization.

- The further from the equator one gets, the less solar energy is deposited per square meter (because the Suns rays are less perpendicular to the surface - you can see the effect in this image).

- Less ionization, I would expect, would mean less dust transfer.

- Lunokhod 1 is >12 degrees north of the northernmost Apollo retroreflector (Apollo 15) and >35 degrees north of the Apollo 11 & 14 retroreflectors.

Therefore, I would expect less dust on more northerly reflectors.

Another possible explanation is that the Apollo retroreflectors were set-up on the ground, whereas the Lunokhod mirrors were up on top of the rover - thus it would not have accumulated as much dust.

Originally posted by jra
Nice post Kandinsky.

I don't have much to add, but I thought I'd contribute by adding a link to panoramic imagery from both Lunokhod's 1 and 2.

www.planetology.ru...

Hey man awesome photos! Hey isn't it funny how in the panoramic images sent back by this little robot, it shows stars... How come the other apollo missions dont show stars...

Originally posted by Rapsio
Why are you so surprised that it was clean? NASA says (and we must believe nasa right?

) there is no atmosphere on the moon, no wind.

Well not quite totally accurate, there is solar wind, also space dust does rain down on the moon much as it does into Earth's atmosphere - and technically there is an atmosphere on the moon, but it's so incredibly thin it's basically trace amounts of gasses held by the gravity, it's impossibly negligible, so it's easier to say there is no atmosphere.

Originally posted by Skinon
Hey man awesome photos! Hey isn't it funny how in the panoramic images sent back by this little robot, it shows stars... How come the other apollo missions dont show stars...

I don't see any stars. These images would have been scanned, so I think what you're seeing is dust that was on the scanner.

You need to have a long exposure to get stars to appear.

excuse me but where in the article does it state the rover said "hello" ??!

This is just about shooting a laser to a mirror on the rover and confirming its location. It's not like this robot is still functional. You do understand the stretch of the title you made?
The article doesn't tell anything about the state this rover is in. Except for the proof of superior manufacturing quality there's nothing else really