Decades-Old Soviet Reflector Spotted On the Moon 147
cremeglace writes "No one had seen a laser reflector that Soviet scientists had left on the moon almost 40 years ago, despite years of searching. Turns out searchers had been looking kilometers in the wrong direction. On 22 April, a team of physicists finally saw an incredibly faint flash from the reflector, which was ferried across the lunar surface by the Lunokhod 1 rover. The find comes thanks to NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which last month imaged a large area where the rover was reported to have been left. Then the researchers, led by Tom Murphy of the University of California, San Diego, could search one football-field-size area at a time until they got a reflection."
Turns out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Did you hear? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's always in the last place you look.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda ironic that Murphy found it in the wrong place.
And I was there! (Score:2)
A better source of information on this is the UCSD press release: http://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/news/releases [ucsd.edu]
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:5, Insightful)
This I always felt was the best proof that humans were on the moon, as opposed to say that the whole thing was faked in a movie studio.
Eh, personally, I think that's not a very good argument. This soviet thing is as much a counterargument as anything -- the Soviets have one on the moon, but they didn't send anyone. Probes can place reflectors.
The best argument for the moon landing IMO is the scrutiny the Soviets would have had to put into it. They would have been able to pick up telemetry and the transmissions from the craft (hell, amateurs were able to see the Apollo ships through telescopes) during the flight.
Long story short: we sent something of the right size to the moon, landed it there, and brought it back, and it was transmitting what we said it was transmitting. You can concoct some half-baked explanation of us sending up a recording or something like that (actually a recording wouldn't work as they transmitted time-sensitive information, so you'd have to say that NASA was transmitting a hidden stream to the craft what they would transmit back), but IMO by the time you get to this point it seems like the hard parts of Apollo were basically done.
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:5, Funny)
The moon landing was a fake, but it was filmed on the moon. They didn't want you to know that we've had a moon base since 1964.
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:5, Funny)
No you dummy, it was a soundstage on mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. The sand would be the wrong colour...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it was. But with postprocessing they took out most of the red.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that soundstage was used to film Capricorn One [imdb.com]
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:4, Funny)
It's all true:
http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy part is that someone actually believes that [wikipedia.org]. (Sorry about the Godwin, btw.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a reference. [faqs.org]
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ignore the disinfo agents. Here's how it works (Score:4, Funny)
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, damn, I'm from BC and this guy's stuff looks epic.
Brilliant post though. I'm honestly not sure if he actually believes that or if he's having a wag.
Re: (Score:2)
The best argument for the moon landing IMO is the scrutiny the Soviets would have had to put into it. They would have been able to pick up telemetry and the transmissions from the craft (hell, amateurs were able to see the Apollo ships through telescopes) during the flight.
Long story short: we sent something of the right size to the moon, landed it there, and brought it back, and it was transmitting what we said it was transmitting. You can concoct some half-baked explanation of us sending up a recording or something like that (actually a recording wouldn't work as they transmitted time-sensitive information, so you'd have to say that NASA was transmitting a hidden stream to the craft what they would transmit back), but IMO by the time you get to this point it seems like the hard parts of Apollo were basically done.
The people who deny the moon landing don't understand even the rudiments of physics or electronics, and they would not be swayed by your "scientific trickery". Nothing short of writing your name in gigantic green letter large enough to read with the naked eye across the face of the moon would satisfy them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing short of writing your name in gigantic green letter large enough to read with the naked eye across the face of the moon would satisfy them.
What if I was a brewery from Latrobe, PA and grafitti'd the Moon with our branded horse, in green. Would that satisfy them?
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:4, Interesting)
The best argument for the moon landing IMO is the scrutiny the Soviets would have had to put into it
For me the best arguement is the fact that it's forty years later and no one has made a deathbed confession that they worked on faking the landing. To fake it you would have needed many many many people to keep a secret for 40 years. Impossible IMO.
Re:US left a corner reflector as well (Score:5, Funny)
That's because we game them Nikola Tesla and the location of Atlantis in exchange for their silence on the matter. I'm not sure what we gave them to keep quiet about 9/11; perhaps the location of Tesla's base on Mars after he escaped from Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people do you think are now keeping the secret of government nine eleven conspiracy?
Zero.
Re: (Score:2)
I always enjoy this...
Being able to send data to and from the Moon was achieved in the early 1960s. So I postulate this:
NASA transmitted to the Moon. The transmission was also sent to the astronauts working on the faked moon set in "real time." The astronauts' responses were sent to the Moon which echoed them back to Earth based upon who was doing the talking (ie, when the CSM pilot spoke, it came from the CSM, when the moon-based astronauts spoke, it was sent to the LEM).
At least the speech would appear
Re: (Score:2)
There is no proof that the spacecraft contained any astronauts. The transmissions from the spacecraft could very well be transmissions received from Earth. If the astronauts where in a studio, then they could reply to Houston at the ve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are only five apparently, at least among those which we can resolve - three from Apollo and, now, two from Lunokhods.
But the one from first Lunokhod is apparently a bit more valuable and interesting than the rest; placed in the most northerly location, can give more data about "wobble" of the Moon and hence its precise rotation.
Re: (Score:2)
We left 3 LLR retroreflector arrays, at the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 landing sites. (That is 3 out of 6, so exactly 1/2 of the landings.)
Apollo 15's LLR array is by far the biggest, and so it is used the most often for ranging. But, to get the rotation (librations) of the Moon, you need a distribution in both latitude and longitude. The Apollo LLR arrays form a nice, but not especially large, triangle centered around the center of Near Side, Lunakhod 2 is usefully separated from them to the North-East, but Lun
The moon landing was faked... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this a surprise? (Score:1)
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia...
Nah, too obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
How old is that defector? Someone should tell him Stalin is dead!
Re: (Score:2)
Stalin died in 1953, even before the Sputnik launch. Lunokhod launch was in 1970.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, Mod points You!
Re: (Score:2)
/rats
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:4, Funny)
My god, your logic is impeccable!
I believe that this story is very informative and that we all will get very insightful comments from everyone involved, and some of the posts will be funny, while others may be somewhat redundant, however there always will be a few underrated and overrated commentators, but it is all good as long as it does not lead to any flamebait here. Of-course Trolls are welcome to join the conversation, just as per usual arrangement.
Oh, and the Anonymous Cowards... I see you, I see you and your reflections in the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the Anonymous Cowards... I see you, I see you and your reflections in the Moon.
Except that the mirror on the moon is a retroreflector, meaning you only see yourself. You've just outed yourself as Anonymous Coward!
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, I post under my nick here. Oh Your God! I am the ACTUAL Anonymous Coward but I am hiding behind a nick name. Wow, this is just mind shuttering! Am I hiding from myself I wonder?
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, and whose fault is it? Whose fault is it, MoonBuggy 611105?
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, it was very precise. Inaccurate as hell, but very precise!
They should have just stuck a GPS receiver and a cell phone on it...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But it could have been damaged by the environment. The thermal cycling is pretty extreme on the moon.
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, of course, with only 1/6 gravity, using an off the shelf standard velodrome construction, the banking on the track would be totally out of whack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who said it was a surprise? (Score:2)
Who said it was surprising? Why does "surprise" have to be involved? When you're searching for something for forty years, even though you know it must be there somewhere, actually finding it is noteworthy.
Headline: Deepest Part of Marianas Trench Discovered.
Locke2005: Why is that a surprise? You can't have a bottomless trench, so of course there has to be a deepest part!
Da! (Score:1, Redundant)
footbal-field sized (Score:3, Funny)
is this an imperial unit or what?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
why do you ask?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
African or European unit?
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian football fields are 110 meters.
At least, as far as I know. I don't think I've actually seen one.
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct. Not including Endzones of course, but yes, there is a 50 yard line on both sides, and 5 yards from both of them is the "C" center line.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean soccer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That should be "Metric or New Republic football fields."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
American Football is played on a field 360 by 160 feet, or 109.72m by 48.77m, or 5351.04sq.m. Some of the length is end zones.
IFBA declared a fixed size for a pitch of 105m long and 68m wide, which is 7140 sq.m, instead of instead of a minimum and maximum length - from 100m to 110m - and a minimum and a maximum width - from 64m to 75m. So the olde standard allowed fields from 6400 to 8250 sq.m.
So an American Football field would be from 750 millisoccerfields to 650 millisoccerfields.
Or a pitch would be fr
Re: (Score:2)
True. But ask most fans how long the field is, and many if not most will say "100 yards". Then we think "huh. My team's longest return is 108 yards".
now we are six (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's obvious really. If they weren't then my conspiracy theories about the Moon landings would be proven false. And that's physically impossible, because they're true!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Moon aliens. From the Earth.
Re:now we are six (Score:4, Informative)
The list to which you linked to includes Lunokhod 2. There are five, now all usable.
Re: (Score:2)
...I mean, "includes two Lunokhods"
In Soviet Luna... (Score:2, Funny)
...reflector dish spots YOU!!!
cool. (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time I see pictures of the soviet rovers, I can't help but think how bizarre the things look. Like a combination of a bathtub and a baby carriage.
wiki article [wikipedia.org] about one of the rovers.
I found it neat that it had some decaying isotope, and a lid, to close and keep the internals warm during lunar night. Too bad they didn't have lithium ion batteries back then eh? Not sure what they used, but 1970's era rechargeable batteries tend to suck period.
The wheels are especially weird looking, like something from a nightmare.
wheel closeup picture [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Cold batteries suck, period.
Cold tends to slow down chemical reactions. Most batteries rely on chemical reactions to move electrons.
As Khan said so eloquently, "It is very cold in space".
Fun experiment: if you have an old tape player that runs on batteries, stick the batteries in a refrigerator for a few hours. Pop them back into the player, listen to the tape speed up as they get warmer.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in central Canada, so I'm quite experienced with cold batteries being useless :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have picked up on your intuitive understanding of cold by your use of the word "eh?", eh?
Wisconsin is great for the liquor, but lousy because there's no Tim Horton's (or Waffle Houses). The concessions we make...
/still really cold for a chunk of the year
Not weird. Antique. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen old tractors before, I was thinking more of the holes in the paddles, and the drum being made from screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what they used, but 1970's era rechargeable batteries tend to suck period.
So they can also be marketed as a feminine hygiene product?
Badabum Tsching. I'll be here all week folks. Remember to tip you waitress.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the characteristics of Soviet spacecraft design is that they seal everything they can in atmospheric pressure vessels. This simplified the thermal design problem because convective cooling could be employed in the pressurized parts. Some of their manned spacecraft designs were repurposed as satellites using this principle. Their purpose built satellites were also pressurized. The "tub" of the lunokhod is a pressure vessel for the electronics. The Wikipedia page even mentions that the electric motors
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are joking, but apparently a couple derivatives of these rovers helped in the Chernobyl cleanup. Odd coincidence I guess.
link [wikipedia.org]
SETI is HARD (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take decades to find a reflector in the nearest astral body, it quite puts in perspective the whole difficulty of searching for extraterrestrial life light-years away.
Zapped (Score:4, Funny)
How about mars? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it would be nice to have a reflector on mars. I wonder if it is possible to go that distance.
Distance is a problem (ranging sensitivity is proportional to 1/distance to the fourth power), but aberration makes this sort of passive Laser ranging to the planets impossible. (The retroreflector arrays return photons towards the direction they were received from, which is not the direction the Earth will be at one round-trip time later.)
There have been several proposals to do active laser ranging to spa
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ! Finally ! (Score:3, Informative)
This is way cool. The LLR (Lunar Last Ranging) people have been looking for this for a long, long time.
This (by providing a new fiducial point on the Moon) will significantly help Lunar geodesy.
Note, by the way, that LLR returns are always exactly 1 photon per shot, so this flash was no fainter than any other LLR return.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, by the way, while the Lunakhod's were Soviet, the French actually built the retroreflectors, so this is a Soviet-French experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Because (unlike the case with Satellite Laser Ranging), the expected return per shot is actually less than one photon. So, a shot returns either zero or one photons.
They do lots of shots and gate (time filter) the returns to get a single range estimate, based on maybe 1000 photon returns. But, each shot still returns only one photon at most at a time. (With the appropriate color filter, and a nanosecond size time gate, there is rarely a photon from the solar illumination of the Moon, and those that get thro
Didn't even make it in Top 10 Technology Mistakes (Score:2)
Didn't even make it in Top 10 Technology Mistakes:
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/173067,top-10-technology-mistakes.aspx [pcauthority.com.au]
That's no reflector! (Score:2)
Lunokhod on TV (Score:2)
In the recent discussion about the other Lunokhod, someone mentioned the Discovery documentary Tank on the moon [discovery.com]. I've seen it since; if you want to know more about these very impressive vehicles, this is a good starting point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other mirrors up there. why actually search for this one ?
FTFA: Now the team can eventually pin down the changing shape of the lunar orbit to the millimeter to help test Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
There might be other reflective things on the moon, but I assume that this one is somehow special. I at least *hope* that the people searching for it know what they are doing :p
There are certainly other reflectors out there on the moon, that could and have been used for measuring the moon's distance--and for some time now. I can't imagine what could be special about this one, except for the quality, perhaps? Nah. What if it's not kosher for others to shoot lasers at the reflectors that other scientists use? The article ends there and is skimpy on details.
Re:why bother ? (Score:5, Informative)
Lunokhod 2 is in the most northerly position out of all available retroreflectors on the Moon, which will contribute to much more precise data about the Moon "wobble" (since the distance of Lunokhod 2 is greatly affected by it, in comparison to something near the center of the view from Earth)
PS. (Score:2)
I mean, Lunokhod 1 in the above post...the one about which the story is ;/
oops (Score:2)
wobble detector? um...Does that mean we're not supposed to huck moon rocks at it?
Re: (Score:2)
What if it's not kosher for others to shoot lasers at the reflectors that other scientists use?
They are mirrors. Everyone who does this (US, French, Germans, Russians, so far) has used all the ones up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Her house is on the moon.
She can't be from this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Their space program pretty much sucked.
Well, considering the fact that they : - launched the first satellite in space - shot the first animal in space - had the first man in space - reached the moon first (Luna I & II) I'd have to agree with you that their program obviously sucked!