Domes and clefts?

[mikeDnight]

For over a year now I've been studying the floor of a crater named Werner situated in the southern uplands. The crater caught my attention in January last year when I noticed what appeared to be a fine cleft extending from one of its multiple central peaks and up and over its terrace to the south. Over the intervening period I've discovered for myself several other clefts and last night was no exception.

Last night's observation revealed what appeared to be two fine parallel clefts extending upwards in the drawing below, from the central peak system to the inner crater wall. Also, there appeared to be four domes, two between the two clefts and two to the outside of the western cleft. The difficulty lies in trying to find images of sufficient quality and with the same lighting as at the time of the sketch. Most NASA images are woefully inadequate due to the high Sun. Earth based images would be good if of high quality, as these could match the detailed eyepiece view.

[Paz]

That is interesting, I'll have a look in the Kaguya atlas later and see if that's got a close up that helps.

[mikeDnight]

6 hours ago, Paz said:

That is interesting, I'll have a look in the Kaguya atlas later and see if that's got a close up that helps.

Hi Paz,

I've never heard of that Atlas. I know there's been a question mark over the existance of some of the rille I've seen within Werner. Percival Wilkins did indicate a rille or cleft on the floor of Werner back in the 1950's, but he was using a 36" refractor, where as I'm only using a 4". Still, these fine clefts appear in the same place on repeated lunations. A few weeks ago I was looking through a lunar atlas belonging to paulastro, and two clefts were visible in the orbited image, exactly where my scope showed them. A couple of nights ago i saw three clefts exactly as I saw them on the occasion I made the drawing below, two of which were in Paul's atlas image. They are very shallow in the image and from an earth based observational point of view, require a low Sun for some. He seeing wasn't good two nights ago, yet the clefts were obvious, but not easy! They are easier to see with a binoviewer!

 

[Paz]

I had a look but Werner is not featured in the Kaguya atlas. Below is a picture of that atlas.

I looked through all my other atlases and none show these details. Quickmap the online moon map also doesn't feature them but they may be very sensitive to sun angle.

[Pete Presland]

Two very finely detailed sketches there, very nicely done!

[mikeDnight]

On 29/03/2018 at 01:02, Paz said:

I had a look but Werner is not featured in the Kaguya atlas. Below is a picture of that atlas.

I looked through all my other atlases and none show these details. Quickmap the online moon map also doesn't feature them but they may be very sensitive to sun angle.

Hi Paz,

It is very difficult to get the right Sun angle in many orbiter images. My friend paulastro has a wonderful atlas, The Cambridge Photographic Moon Atlas, that shows at least two of the clefts as the finest collapsed lava tubes, but you've to examine the image very carefully to notice them. The 21 century moon atlas also hints at them. It might be interesting to take a look at Werner over several nights to pick them up visually, as sometimes they are much more evident than at other times. I find a binoviewer to be invaluable in teasing out fine detail within craters.

 

[paulastro]

mikeDnight said:     My friend paulastro has a wonderful atlas, The Cambridge Photographic Moon Atlas, that shows at least two of the clefts as the finest collapsed lava tubes, but you've to examine the image very carefully to notice them. The 21 century moon atlas also hints at them. It might be interesting to take a look at Werner over several nights to pick them up visually, as sometimes they are much more evident than at other times. I find a binoviewer to be invaluable in teasing out fine detail within craters.

There are also some useful photos in the Orbiter pictures of the nearside of the Moon published by Springer some time ago. 

Also Werner features in Craters of the Near Side Moon by John Moore.  This 713 page volume in a very affordable and useful book.  It's a fabulous reference to every crater on the nearside, giving a detailed description on what to look out for.  The craters are arranged in alphabetical order so it's VERY easy to use.

[paulastro]

Here's a link for John Moore's book - you can even look inside it

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Craters-Near-Side-Moon-Moore/dp/1497324440

[johnfosteruk]

Cracking sketch Mike, I'll have a look see if I can find anything for you.

[MarkRadice]

What lovely sketches. 

Have you tried the Quick Map  site? It uses Lunar Recce Orbiter radar and observational data. It has a tool that allows you to drag a line from point to point on the surface and then gives a height profile. 

Very useful for comparing observations with spacecraft data. 

http://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/?layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjZwLpNKG%2BscB2fDbMADlPnNAE5rDgjZWakiE2mAmOuqt3J9%2BjTOKQ9QPRkmBSuBcgGZoPQUskVVYicDhwo3OQbRCkBkueCroisls5iLO63GX32%2B5cufe8bspWmt4M1urKMuEURFEhcChsDvIU9LoqPHEYcpGeWHqqymGkAHRQIKqJ6UiFZqXlNtDKRkoFTb7GFWrFrGUqTUkwfTVNntDDjZHU4%2BDiKtKyFaBjJTyzNaAd9fN1ves2ENN9bcoaezlNAdsjQUezBUS7iBVEW72G-TxP4x8ja0e-RpSAH7VQ8YLve4qIhXbIvFrJIJnLxBHooiiDJinPIqChZdFvdFPfLkRKYnKiaxgwlYtT4kkbCHPA6wlGgZG8GKY%2BZorEsPxBHE1WLVYAoL6LMU8QnjZSk-5JEpypDi1njOhzFXgGlyFDgemk8AIoZQkZwXkXaCs2nQYn9JoC6BOvz67laTZ%2BdSHaKoT2pa3CVIczXAcCGSVhu1IMNMphh4PR80ungrIjkfX48Zp92x%2B0GkbQY0kzBAA&extent=-90%2C-59.32156512404224%2C90%2C59.32156512404224&proj=10

[johnfosteruk]

I think I have it Mike. Looking at the Quick Map site, I oriented and flipped your sketch to match and the domes (or dome like features perhaps ) I think are clear to see as per this:

Note the profile of the two lines forming a cross on the close up view.

 

As for the clefts I think I have that too.

Look between the two white lines, you'll see a slightly meandering dark line and looking the intersection of the red line with the profile (which corresponds to the yellow dot on the blue line on the image - right on that dark line) There's a little 'shelf' there.

Look at this one, where the red line intersects there is a depression that sits below the 'floor' level between the domes. Again, white lines show what I'm calling a cleft.

I think the elevation data used by quick map is only 128 pixels per degree but the LRO has produced 512 pixel resolution elevation data which would give us a more accurate profile. I've tried using this with LTVT to model stuff before but it crashes it so I may revisit this

HTH

[paulastro]

Gosh, that's cool stuff John, how long did it take you to do it?

[johnfosteruk]

19 minutes ago, paulastro said:

how long did it take you to do it?

About an hour, it was most welcome too as I was running out of things to do seeing as it's been raining all day, almost had to do housework

 

 

[paulastro]

I must take a look at this software John, though I doubt I have your skill.

Weather wise it's snowing hard here, 2 inches and getting rapidly deeper, though it is supposed to turn to rain later.

[mikeDnight]

23 hours ago, johnfosteruk said:

I think I have it Mike. Looking at the Quick Map site, I oriented and flipped your sketch to match and the domes (or dome like features perhaps ) I think are clear to see as per this:

Note the profile of the two lines forming a cross on the close up view.

 

As for the clefts I think I have that too.

Look between the two white lines, you'll see a slightly meandering dark line and looking the intersection of the red line with the profile (which corresponds to the yellow dot on the blue line on the image - right on that dark line) There's a little 'shelf' there.

Look at this one, where the red line intersects there is a depression that sits below the 'floor' level between the domes. Again, white lines show what I'm calling a cleft.

I think the elevation data used by quick map is only 128 pixels per degree but the LRO has produced 512 pixel resolution elevation data which would give us a more accurate profile. I've tried using this with LTVT to model stuff before but it crashes it so I may revisit this

HTH

That's amazing stuff John. I can barely use a TV remote, so you have my deepest admiration! ?

Every image where I've seen indications of the clefts, they have been barely noticeable, yet through the telescope they are quite obvious (though not easy) once found. I haven't observed Werner when the moon is waning as in the image, so may be they become more evident during waxing? May be not everything that appears as a possible cleft is actually a cleft at all? The four mounds corresponding to the dome-like features in my sketch are reassuring, as are the indications of clefts in your processing pics. I have to remember that my small scope is limited by its resolving power! 

[johnfosteruk]

12 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

so may be they become more evident during waxing?

That's why I want to get the visualisation tool playing nicely with the higher resolution laser altimeter data because then I can use it to model the terrain under illumination at any point in the lunar cycle - with the resolution (hopefully) to show what you're seeing.

Either that or we start calling you Percival
>>>Coat

[mikeDnight]

9 hours ago, johnfosteruk said:

That's why I want to get the visualisation tool playing nicely with the higher resolution laser altimeter data because then I can use it to model the terrain under illumination at any point in the lunar cycle - with the resolution (hopefully) to show what you're seeing.

Either that or we start calling you Percival
>>>Coat

Well it could be those Salenites filling in the cracks just to be awkward!

Archimedes at first looks like a flawless plane, but careful attention to albedo seem to reveal fine clefts  in it too. Now I'm getting worried! 

These could be nothing more than sharp changes in albedo.

Percy 

[mikeDnight]

On 01/04/2018 at 23:00, johnfosteruk said:

I think I have it Mike. Looking at the Quick Map site, I oriented and flipped your sketch to match and the domes (or dome like features perhaps ) I think are clear to see as per this:

Note the profile of the two lines forming a cross on the close up view.

 

As for the clefts I think I have that too.

Look between the two white lines, you'll see a slightly meandering dark line and looking the intersection of the red line with the profile (which corresponds to the yellow dot on the blue line on the image - right on that dark line) There's a little 'shelf' there.

Look at this one, where the red line intersects there is a depression that sits below the 'floor' level between the domes. Again, white lines show what I'm calling a cleft.

I think the elevation data used by quick map is only 128 pixels per degree but the LRO has produced 512 pixel resolution elevation data which would give us a more accurate profile. I've tried using this with LTVT to model stuff before but it crashes it so I may revisit this

HTH

I received a copy of Craters of the Near Side Moon by John Moore today, and on page 657 there's am image of Werner showing the most obvious rille/cleft at 5 o'clock. Careful study of the image in the book also shows indications of a second south running cleft at 7 o'clock, and possibly one at roughly 12 o'clock corresponding to the cleft between the dome-like mounds. I hope the attached image is clear enough!

[johnfosteruk]

I like it and I see it too. Moore's book is on my wishlist as it goes.

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

there's am image of Werner showing the most obvious rille/cleft at 5 o'clock.

I'm sure I can also see another one running perpendicular through the one at 5 o'clock.

For my part, I couldn't get the higher resolution elevation model data to play nice with the Lunar Terminator Visualisation thing. So I've installed some GIS tools (The stuff they make google maps and the like with) and that seems to be playing nice. It's going to take a while though, see the bottom line of the terminal window in the image with 0...10, that needs to get to 100 and it's taken about an hour to get this far.

That's because it's transforming the data from an SLDEM file into an orthogonal model/image. (SLDEM is Kaguya and LRO laser altimeter data coregistered for extra accuracy) covering the 30x45 degree region with Werner in it and the file has 512 data points per degree of lunar surface. 

The file it will produce is going to be 71000x47000 pixels which is 3000 odd megapixels. I'll crop that to cover the area of interest and should end up with a pretty decent model with an effective resolution of about 50-60 meters per pixel and 3-4 metre accuracy.

Then I can render illumination as it was at the time of your observation and you never know we might end up with something useful which can be pulled around and viewed from different viewpoints.

If not I've just learned about geographic information system mapping which was fun. Back to work tomorrow for a rest 

 

[johnfosteruk]

Darn it, it’s hung overnight. It was at 47% when I went to bed and got to 74% before hanging. Back to the drawing board. 

Does anybody have a supercomputer they’re not using?

[mikeDnight]

On 03/04/2018 at 15:49, mikeDnight said:

I received a copy of Craters of the Near Side Moon by John Moore today, and on page 657 there's am image of Werner showing the most obvious rille/cleft at 5 o'clock. Careful study of the image in the book also shows indications of a second south running cleft at 7 o'clock, and possibly one at roughly 12 o'clock corresponding to the cleft between the dome-like mounds. I hope the attached image is clear enough!

 

Looking back over your work here John, I think you're a genius. The clefts certainly appear to correspond extremely well with the linear features in the sketch. The question now arises, "How can a 100mm apo with binoviewer, good as it is, detect these features with relative ease, even on mediocre nights?" 

[johnfosteruk]

3 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I think you're a genius

I wouldn't go that far, but, I have just in the last 2 days taken delivery of the Moore book - it was on my list anyway and your post reminded me.

I've spent a wee while this weekend studying page 657 and I think it does definitely reinforce your observations.

As for your question, in theory, according to the Dawes limit you should be able to resolve details down to approx 2.24km. 

I'm measuring (what we are supposing are) your domes at about 1.3km diameter and the clefts about half that across so it is a puzzler.

My own questions are twofold.

1. Does the Dawes limit fall short in terms of the way the brain processes seeing? I believe a well trained observer's brain sort of live stacks the image, doing some very clever stuff to average things out. Does one chip away at the limit the longer your session, the more experienced you are etc and so on. Plus does it do enough to account for your modern, slightly better than mediocre () optics? I think not. (Did I read somewhere that the Cassini Division which is approx 0.5 arcsec across was discovered using a 2.5" telescope - Dawes limit 1.8 arcsec?)

Plus, the Dawes limit was formulated using what observers saw wasn't it - how do your optics compare with theirs?

2. Are you observing just the features, or the shadow cast from the features? If the latter there's scope there for enlargement isn't there?

Think on 

[mikeDnight]

23 minutes ago, johnfosteruk said:

I wouldn't go that far, but, I have just in the last 2 days taken delivery of the Moore book - it was on my list anyway and your post reminded me.

I've spent a wee while this weekend studying page 657 and I think it does definitely reinforce your observations.

As for your question, in theory, according to the Dawes limit you should be able to resolve details down to approx 2.24km. 

I'm measuring (what we are supposing are) your domes at about 1.3km diameter and the clefts about half that across so it is a puzzler.

My own questions are twofold.

1. Does the Dawes limit fall short in terms of the way the brain processes seeing? I believe a well trained observer's brain sort of live stacks the image, doing some very clever stuff to average things out. Does one chip away at the limit the longer your session, the more experienced you are etc and so on. Plus does it do enough to account for your modern, slightly better than mediocre () optics? I think not. (Did I read somewhere that the Cassini Division which is approx 0.5 arcsec across was discovered using a 2.5" telescope - Dawes limit 1.8 arcsec?)

Plus, the Dawes limit was formulated using what observers saw wasn't it - how do your optics compare with theirs?

2. Are you observing just the features, or the shadow cast from the features? If the latter there's scope there for enlargement isn't there?

Think on 

Some thought provoking questions there John. I've often been amazed at how much detail I've seen in Saturn's rings when the planet is high in UK skies. Cassini is a doddle but Encke shouldn't be detectable, but it is, and I'm not talking about the Encke minima, I'm seeing the gap itself! Obviously the width of the gap is unresolvable in an FS128 and a 120 Equinox, which were the scopes I were using at the time; however, the length is easily resolvable, so it seems small to medium size sharp optics can be more effective than popular opinion would have us believe. Im sure experience and good seeing plays a part too, but i feel fairly certain that most observers, if they were with me at the time, would have little difficulty seeing the things I see.