4.3 Article

Illumination conditions at the lunar poles: Implications for future exploration

期刊

PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 170-178

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.07.006

关键词

Polar illumination; Moon; Landing sites; Space exploration; LOLA

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [FOR 1503, GL 865/2-1]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [14-22-00197]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We produced 400 x 400 km Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) of the lunar poles from Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) ranging measurements. To achieve consistent, high-resolution DTMs of 20 m/pixel the individual ranging profiles were adjusted to remove small track-to-track offsets. We used these LOLA-DTMs to simulate illumination conditions at surface level for 50 x 50 km regions centered on the poles. Illumination was derived in one-hour increments from 01 January, 2017 to 01 January, 2037 to cover the lunar precessional cycle of 18.6 years and to determine illumination conditions over several future mission cycles. We identified three regions receiving high levels of illumination at each pole, e.g. the equator-facing crater rims of Hinshelwood, Peary and Whipple for the north pole and the rim of Shackleton crater, and two locations on a ridge between Shackleton and de Gerlache crater for the south pole. Their average illumination levels range from 69.5% to 82.9%, with the highest illumination levels found at the north pole on the rim of Whipple crater. A more detailed study was carried out for these sites as targets for a lander and/or rover equipped with solar arrays. For this purpose we assumed a lander with a structural height of two meters above the ground (height of the solar panels). Here average illumination levels range from 77.1% to 88.0%, with the maximum found at the ridge between Shackleton and de Gerlache crater on the south pole. Distances, sizes and slopes of nearby Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs) as a prime science target were also assessed in this case.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据