Landing Site selection 1.0.pdf

Chandrabhraman
Lunar Landing Landing Site Study
]
i
l

Table of contents:
1. Introduction:
1.3. Mission Overview
2. Constraints for Landing Site Selection
2.1. Nearside of moon
2.2. Non-polar regions
2.3. Type of lunar surface
 Mare
 Highland
2.4. Lunar Regolith Properties
 Dust thickness
 Soil Bearing Properties
 Bulk Density
 Void Ratio
 Coefficient of Cohesion
 Age of Regolith
2.5. Lunar Terrain
 Slope of Lunar Surface
 Roughness
 Lunar topographical features
2.6. Communication
2.7. Lightning Condition
2.8. Shadow Region
2.9. Dispersion
2.10. GLXP NASA provided constraint
2.11. Some other constraints:
 Lunar Surface temperature
 Radiation
3. Proposed Landing Sites
3.1. Landing Site I: Plato Region
3.2. Landing Site II: Rümker Region
3.3. Landing Site III: Hevelius Region and Grimaldi Region
3.4. Landing Site IV : Kepler Rgion
3.5. Landing Site V: Sinus Iridium Region
3.6. Landing Site VI: Mare Serentatis
3.7. Landing Site VII: Seleucus Region
3.8. Landing Site VIII: Kepler Region and Aristarchus Region
3.9. Landing Site IX: Cassini Region
3.10. Landing Site X: J. Herschel Region and Plato Region
3.11. Landing Site XI: Hevelius Region
3.12. Reserved Landing Sites
4. Conclusion
5. References
6. Software’s and Websites used
1.1. Chandrabhraman
1.2. Objectives
1.4. Document Overview

1. Introduction
1.1.
1.2.
1.3. Mission Overview
which would take around seventy hours to enter Lunar Sphere of Influence. Craft would
then enter into an orbit around Moon by a capture manoeuvre after which it lowers itself
into a lower lunar orbit. From this orbit, it inserts itself into a descent orbit. At this stage,
powered descent manoeuvre would be implemented to decelerate the craft by firing a LAM
engine for a safer soft landing. As it approaches the Lunar Surface, craft would be guided to
the desired landing point by using its Navigational cameras and other sensors. A rover shall
1.4. Document overview
data available in the public domain. This document shall present the thought process,
mentioned Landing Sites. It shall conclude with the results that would show various
proposed Landing sites.
We have worked on developing systems and technologies that allow spacecraft and
other vehicles to navigate and control their movement on the surface of the Moon
or in its orbit. We are interested in sharing our work and looking for collaborating
with projects comprising the latest advancements in GNC for moon
Follow us at: https://github.com/chandrabhraman
We are in a new era of lunar exploration by offering the largest international incentive
prize of all time.
We might as well take the landing criteria for teams to safely land a robot on the surface
of the Moon, have that robot travel 500 meters. A candidate methodology is mentioned
here: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1410.pdf
Assuming a launch vehicle puts the spacecraft in a Lunar Transfer Trajectory (LTT)
then be deployed onto the surface of Moon to perform the GLXP requirements.
We can arrive at this strategy after observing the historic lunar missions and the
logical and mathematical derivations by which Chandrabhraman has arrived to following
Chandrabhraman
Objectives

2. Constraints for landing site selection:
2.1. Nearside of moon:
This portion of moon is selected for two main reason:
 Information available: Very less information is available for far side of moon.
Topographical and Geological maps are only available for nearside of moon.
 Lunar Terrain: Far side of moon is almost completely covered by highlands and large
impact craters.
 Communication: As nearside of moon directly faces the earth communication can
directly happen via Lander or rover. For communication from far side some kind of
relay is required, which would increase complication and cost of project.
Thus, 41% of lunar region is omitted from further analysis.
2.2. Non-polar regions: Polar Regions are excluded from the analysis on basis of topography,
temperature, lightning conditions, communication, and permanent shadow regions.
2.3. Type of lunar surface: Lunar surface can be divided into two regions:
 Mare: Relatively smooth, flat dark surface of moon are called mare. Only 16% of total
lunar surface is covered lunar mare out which 2.5% lies on far side of moon. These are
large flows of basaltic lava that correspond to low-albedo surfaces. General properties
of lunar maria are same. They contain various topographical features like wrinkled
ridges, rilles, and domes. Crater density depends on the age of surfaces.
 Highlands: Lighter part of moon is called highlands. These highlands are older than
mare regions hence heavily cratered. Contains uneven topography, steep slopes, high
density of rocks, and mons.
Thus, mare is potential landing sites, but smooth and flat surface near highlands may
be considered.
Figure 1 Lunar nearside: dark areas are mares and light areas are highlands

2.4. Lunar Regolith Properties:
 Dust thickness: Direct data for unvisited sites is not available for lunar surface. But,
retro-reflective effects of lunar surface give us an estimate concentration of lunar dust
on its surface. Thus, a region with high albedo generally, contains more dust thickness
than regions with low albedo. It is also noticed by various earlier missions (Apollo and
Lunokhod) that regions with steep slopes, rims of crates and boundary of ridges and
rilles usually have high concentrations of dust. Low thickness of dust will help in better
rover movement.
 Soil Bearing Strength/Capacity: At present, Lander structure defines the soil bearing
strength constraint. Exact data available regarding for Soil Bearing Strength is only of
the sites visited by earlier missions. But data from these sites are not sufficient for
analysing other parts of moon. Luckily, a pattern is found in lunar soil properties. For
different parts of lunar surface, soil properties remains constant with lunar geology.
Range of soil bearing strength on lunar surface varies from 0.5 Ncm-2
to 9.3 Ncm-2
. Soil
Bearing Strength at area near rilles, ridges, slopes of high impact crates, mons, high
albedo regions, and steep slopes does not lie between ranges of values required. Soil
Bearing Strength considered is of value greater than 5.5 Ncm-2
. Regions with lava flow
and basalt are the regions which have desired soil bearing strength.
 Bulk density: Values of Bulk density lunar surface has been provided on public forums
which help us estimating value of soil bearing capacity.
Table 1 Dependence of Lunar soil bearing capacity on bulk density
Bulk Density
g cm-3
Soil Bearing Capacity
N cm-2
1.6 5.6
1.61 8.2
1.62 4.4
1.70 6.2, 10
1.76 12.5
1.79 > 6.2
1.80 16
1.82 11
1.83 100
1.84 36
1.86 > 6.2
1.90 32
1.93 > 6.2
 Void Ratio:
 Data for porosity of lunar regolith is obtained from NASA GRAIL mission.
 We can obtain Void Ration from porosity using formula:
𝑷𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 =
𝑽𝒐𝒊𝒅 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐
𝟏 + 𝑽𝒐𝒊𝒅 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐
 Void ratio is required with bulk density to estimate the value of Soil bearing
strength.

Table 2 Variation of various regolith properties on void ratio
Soil Parameters
(in situ)
Void Ratio
> 1.3 1.3 – 1.0 1.0 - 0.9 0.9 – 0.8 < 0.8
Bearing Capacity
(N.cm-2)
< 0.7 0.7 – 2.5 2.5 – 3.6 3.6 – 5.5 > 5.5
Cohesion
(N.cm-2)
< 0.13 0.13 – 0.22 0.22 – 0.27 0.27 – 0.34 > 0.34
Angle of internal friction
(degree)
< 10 10-18 18-22 22-27 > 27
Typical Locations on
Lunar Surface
Isolated
bumps and
small beds
of fine
grained
material
On edge of
fresh
craters with
small
dimensions;
steep
slopes
On
elements of
every
eroded
crater
Inter crater
areas
In areas of
shallow
depth of re-
worked soil,
stone like
formation
isolated
stones
 Coefficient of cohesion:
 Cohesion information is needed regarding landing of Lander.
 Coefficient of cohesion (µ) required is 0.3 to 0.7.
 Age of regolith: Younger regions have lower density of impact craters than older
regions.
2.5. Lunar Terrain: Topography of lunar surface restricts landing site area selection. Various
terrain features effecting landing site selection are:
 Slope of lunar surface:
 Slope considered for landing site analysis is of less than 12◦
.
 12◦
is selected on basis of previous Apollo missions. Lander calculations are also
in reference to this limit of slope. But area selected as landing sites has an
average slope ranging from 0.02◦
to 8.6◦
.
 But, area of interest may contain slope greater than 12◦
because of present of
small craters and other lunar topographical features. Maximum slope
encountered inside these areas is of 22.67◦
.
 At later stages, rover configurations may put further constraint on maximum
slope allowed.
 Information regarding slope of lunar surface is available from Lunar Orbiter Laser
Altimeter (LOLA) and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) mounted on
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

Figure 2 Lunar Surface slope and roughness
 Roughness:
 Roughness of lunar surface is defined on basis of present of rocks and small
depressions present on surface.
 Lower roughness will help in better navigation and reduce shadow regions.
 Information regarding roughness of lunar surface is available from Lunar Orbiter
Laser Altimeter (LOLA) mounted on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).
Figure 3 Lunar surface roughness

 Lunar topographical features: Various features and their characteristics are requied
too be known for landing site analysis. These features include:
 Wrinkled Ridges ( Dorsum / Dorsa ):
 These features are low, sinuous ridges formed on the mare surface that can
extend for up to several hundred kilometres.
 They frequently outline ring structures buried within the mare, follow
circular patterns outlining the mare, or intersect protruding peaks.
 They are very complex features, which can be either straight or curved, or
even be braided and zigzagged.
 Their width can be anything from less than 1 km to over 20 km. And their
heights range from a few meters to 300 meter.
 These are found near craters.
Figure 4 "Bulging" wrinkles extend from the north edge of Mare Tsiolkovskiy
 Rille:
 Rille is typically used to describe any of the long, narrow depressions in the
lunar surface that resemble channels.
 Typically a rille can be up to several kilometers wide and hundreds of
kilometers in length.
 These generally fall into three categories, consisting of sinuous, arcuate, or
linear shapes.

Figure 5 Lunar Rille
 Domes:
 Lunar domes are wide, rounded, circular features with a gentle slope rising
in elevation a few hundred meters to the midpoint.
 They are typically 8–12 km in diameter, but can be up to 20 km across.
Some of the domes contain a small craterlet at the peak.
 Analysis of domes is important in reference to the shadow regions, as
dimensions are huge enough to create shadows at low sun angles to
hamper entire operation.
Figure 6 Lunar dome

 Craters:
 The Moon's surface is saturated with craters, almost all of which were
formed by impacts.
 The smallest craters found have been microscopic in size, found in rocks
returned to Earth from the Moon. The largest crater called such is about
360 km in diameter, located near the lunar South Pole.
 Craters typically will have some or all of the following features:
o A surrounding area with materials splashed out of the ground when
the crater was formed
o Raised rim, consisting of materials ejected but landing very close by
o Crater floor, a more or less smooth, flat area, which as it ages
accumulates small craters of its own
o Central peak, found only in some craters with a diameter exceeding
26 km (TYC category crater)
 Analysis of crater dimensions and density is one of the most important
constraints in landing site study. Features of lunar crater used for site
selection are:
o Crater depth
o Crater Diameter
o Craterlets within crater
o Rim height and slope
o Impact Crater Splash distance
o Depth to diameter ratio
Figure 7 Depth to diameter ration frequency of crater on lunar nearside

o Presence of central peak
Figure 8 Tycho crater, a TYC category crater
2.6. Communications:
Depending on the lunar Landing date elevation of earth with respect to moon changes with
different sites on moon. Maximum permissible elevation allowed depend antenna and its
orientation Lander/rover. Software System Toolkit version 10 is used to find earth elevation
and azimuth angle.
2.7. Lightning Conditions:
North-western portion of map is preferred for landing site on basis of phase of moon with
respect to earth. South-eastern region for same reason is not preferred.
Figure 9 Phases of moon with respect earth

2.8. Shadow regions:
 Due to absence of atmosphere on moon, shadows formed are pitch black, hence these
shadow regions will cause failure of solar panels mounted on rover.
 Shadow formed depends on dimensions of feature and sun angle.
 With increasing shadow density restriction on rover movements increases.
2.9. Dispersion:
 Various errors in navigation, propulsion and decent trajectory may cause the Lander to
land at some distance from the desired landing site.
 With reference to earlier robotic missions and considering lack of manual navigation
for landing a dispersion length of 50 km is considered.
 Hence, those landing sites are only considered which at least have area of diameter
100 km of smooth and flat surface.
2.10. GLXP NASA provided constraint:
 NASA guidelines for protecting historic sites exclude some areas from landing site
selection.
 According to these guidelines 2 km sphere of region with respect to the landing site of
earlier missions is been restricted from the Lander to enter.
Table 3 List of Artificial object on moon
Sr. No. Earlier Mission Latitude Longitude
1. Luna 2 29.1N 0E
2 Ranger 4 15.5 S 130.7W
3. Ranger 6 9.358 N 21.480E
4. Ranger 7 10.63 S 20.60 W
5. Luna 5 8 N 23 W
6. Luna 7 9.8 N 47.8 W
7. Luna 8 9.1 N 63.3 W
8. Ranger 8 2.638 N 24.787 E
9. Ranger 9 12.828 S 2387 W
10. Luna 10 ? ?
11 Luna 11 ? ?
12. Luna 12 ? ?
13. Luna 13 18.87 N 62.05 W
14. Surveyor 1 2.474 S 43.339 W
15. Lunar Orbiter 1 6.70 N 162 E
16. Surveyor 2 5.5 S 12 W
17. Lunar Orbiter 2 3.0 N 119 E
18. Lunar Orbiter 3 14.3 N 97.7 W
19. Surveyor 3 3.015 S 23.418 W
20. Lunar Orbiter 4 ? ?
21. Surveyor 4 0.4 N 1.33 W
22. Explorer 35 (IMP-E) ? ?
23. Lunar Orbiter 5 3 S 83 W
24. Surveyor 5 1.461 N 23.195 E
25. Surveyor 6 0.49 N 1.40 W
26. Surveyor 7 40.86 S 11.47 W
27. Luna 14 ? ?

28. Apollo 10 LM ? ?
29. Luna 15 ? ?
30. Apollo 11 0.6741 N 23.4730 E
31. Apollo 12 3.0124 S 23.4216 W
32. Luna 16 0.68 S 56.3 E
33. Luna 17 & Lunokhod 1 38.28 N 35.0 W
34. Apollo 13 2.75 S 27.86 W
35. Luna 18 3.57 N 56.5 E
36. Luna 19 ? ?
37. Apollo 14 S-IVB 8.09 S 26.02 W
38. Apollo 14 LM-8 3.6453 S 17.4714 W
39. Apollo 15 S-IVB 1.51 S 11.81 W
40. Apollo 15 LM-10 descent
stage
26.1322 N 3.6339 E
41. Apollo 15 LM-10 ascent
stage
26.36 N 0.25 E
42. Luna 20 3.57 N 56.5 E
43. Apollo 16 LM 8.9730 S 15.5002 E
44. Apollo 17 S-IVB 4.21 S 12.31 W
45. Apollo 17 LM-12 descent
stage
20.1908 N 30.7717 E
46. Apollo 17 LM-12 ascent
stage
19.96 N 30.50 E
47. Luna 21 & Lunokhod 2 25.85 N 30.45 E
48. Explorer 49 (RAE-B) ? ?
49. Luna 22 ? ?
50. Luna 23 ~12.75 N ~62.2 E
51. Luna 24 12.75 N 62.2 E
52. Hagoromo / Hiten ? ?
53. Hiten 34.3 S 55.6 E
54. Lunar Prospector 87.7 S 42.35 E
55. SMART - 1 34.24 S 46.2 W
56. Moon Impact Probe(MIP) /
Chandrayaan 1
89 S 30W
57. SELENE Rstar 28.213 N 159.033 W
58. Chang’e 1 1.50 S 52.36 E
59. SELENE (Kaguya) main
orbiter
65.5 S 80.5 E
60. LCROSS 84.729 S 49.36 W
61. GRAIL 75.62 N 26.63 W

Figure 10 Earlier missions on nearside of moon
2.11. Some constraints are at present is not included in analysis but in later stage mat
poses important role in landing site selection. These constraints are:
 Lunar Surface Temperature:
Figure 11 Lunar surface temperature variation

 Radiation: It is the one of the most important constraint regarding electronics of
Lander/rover. For analysis of radiation following features have to be see:
 Gamma ray radiation: Information about gamma ray variation over lunar surface
is obtained from Kaguya mission.
Figure 12 Gamma ray variation over Lunar surface
 Neutrons: Information regarding neutron broadband, epithermal, rate, and
thermal on lunar surface is available on public domains.
Figure 13 Neutron broadband variation

3. Proposed Landing Sites:
3.1. Landing Site I:
 Region: Plato
 Feature: Plato Crater
 Position:
 Latitude: 51◦
35’ 40” N
 Longitude: 09◦
23’ 21” W
 Description:
In spite of belonging to TYC type crater it lacks central peak. Reason being that it is
filled with 2.6 kilometres layer of lava. Due to presence of lava layer inside the crater
its regolith properties are similar to that of mare region but with absence of rilles,
ridges and domes. The age of Plato is about 3.84 billion years, only slightly younger
than the Mare Imbrium.
 Advantages:
 It contains only 4 craters of diameters of about 2 km.
 Absence of rilles, domes, wrinkled ridges and lower density of impact craters
make Plato crater region one of the most 100 km diameter smooth area.
 The gradual darkening of the floor of Plato as the sun's altitude increases from
20° till after full moon.
 Disadvantages:
 Rim of the crater restricts the movement of rover and Landing site for the
Lander.
 If dispersion becomes greater than 50 km Lander may land on rim with steep
slope or some topographical feature.
 Plato crater’s flat surface contains moderate concentration of rocks, boulders
and depressions.
Diameter: 100.68 km
Rim slope: 13◦
to 20◦
Rim height: 1.9 km – 3.6 km
Flat surface Maximum Slope: 4.6941◦
Flat surface Average Slope: 0.6073◦
Flat Surface Maximum Altitude: -2347 m
Flat Surface Minimum Altitude: -2615 m
Flat Surface Depth = 268 m
Crater Depth ≈ 2 km
Elevation on 8th
of March, 2015: 36.7886◦

Figure 14 Geological map of Landing Site I
Figure 15 High Resolution (125 m per pixel) image of Landing Site I taken from LROC

Figure 16 Plot of elevation of Landing Site I with respect to some random line of 275 km length
Above graph is plotted for a random line marked on crater floor. This procedure was
performed 20 times for different lines to get rough estimation of slope and elevation
profile of crater floor. Sudden decrease in elevation in Figure 16 is due to presence of a
craterlet in the path of line.
Figure 17 Plot of elevation of Landing Site I with respect to some random line of 2.2 km length
Table 4 List of Plato craterlets of diameter of about 2 km
Plato craterlet Diameter from Clementine Mission
(km)
1 2.60
2 2.24
3 2.06
4 1.94

Figure 18 Absolute slope variation over Landing site I
Figure 19 Elevation of Landing Site I with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.2. Landing Site II:
 Region: Rümker Region
 Feature: Oceanus Procellarum
 Position:
 Latitude: 34◦
00’ 10” N
09’ 09” W
 Description:
Oceanus Procellarum is largest lunar mare region and the only the only one of lunar
mare region to be called Oceanus. Area selected lies south of Rima Mairan, north of
Wollaston crater, to east of Wollaston D and surrounded by wrinkled ridges on east
and west side. Being a mare region is filled with basalt flows.
 Advantages:
 Lies in north-western region of nearside of moon.
 Even if dispersion increases by 50 km there is a chance that Lander may land in
some other nearby flat, smooth area.
 Region is at least 61.42 km away from nearest topographical rough patch.
 Disadvantages:
 Region contains high density of small impact craters with respect to other landing
sites.
 Even if region of interest is a part of largest mare of moon, diameter of region is
smaller than that of Landing Site I.
Diameter: 95.49 km
Maximum Slope: 5.1441◦
Average Slope: 0.5040◦
Maximum Altitude: -2149 m
Minimum Altitude: -2445 m
Depth: 296 m
Albedo: 0.085 – 0.097
Elevation on 8th
of March, 2015:36.0052◦

Figure 20 Geological map of Landing Site II
Figure 21 High Resolution (500 m per pixel) image of Landing Site II taken from LROC

Figure 22 Plot of elevation of Landing Site I with respect to some random line of 125 km length
Figure 23 Plot of elevation of Landing Site II with respect to some random line of 3.65 km length

Figure 24 Elevation of Landing Site II with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015
3.3. Landing Site III:
 Region: Hevelius Region and Grimaldi Region
 Position:
 Latitude: 00◦
16’ 49” N
06’ 15” W
 Description: This region marks the latitudinal lower bound for Oceanus Procellarum.
Equator passes through almost midway the area of interest. Craters Reiner T and
Reiner U lies in north of area concerned, whereas Hermann F, Hermann R and
Hermann S lies to its west side. Hermann E its marks its eastside boundary. It is the
only proposed landing site which is spread over both northern and southern
hemisphere of moon. Surveyor I lie about 244.45 km away from desired area.
 Advantages:
 As the area lies on equatorial plate it is a better landing site from communication
and propulsion point of view.
 Even if dispersion increases by 50 km there is a chance that Lander may land in
some other nearby flat, smooth area.
 Only one crater, Hermann D of diameter greater than 2.5 km lies in the region of
interest.
 It has been found out that Regolith and rock composition of area is very close to
the composition found at Apollo 11 site, thus giving us almost exact values of
various soil parameters.
 Disadvantages:
 Landing site area has one of the lowest diameters among all 11 proposed Landing
Site.
 Nearest earlier mission landing site is that of Surveyor I which lies at about
244.45 km away from Landing Site III. Thus, exact and accurate information
regarding soil bearing strength of the region is not available, only estimate
information regarding specified quantity is available.

Diameter: 92km
Depth: 275 m
Albedo: 0.060 – 0.080
Elevation on 8th
of March, 2015: 40.7673◦
Figure 25 Geological Map of Landing Site III
Figure 26 High Resolution (500 m per pixel) image of Landing Site III taken from LROC

Figure 27 Plot of elevation of Landing Site III with respect to some random line of 107 km length
Figure 28 Plot of elevation of Landing Site III with respect to some random line of 4.12 km length

Figure 29 Elevation of Landing Site III with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015
3.4. Landing Site IV:
 Region: Kepler Region
 Position:
 Latitude: 08◦
22’ 24” N
21’ 39” N
 Description: This site is one of the most smooth and large area on nearside of moon.
Site lies to the west of crater Kepler and to the south-east and north of crater Marius
and crater Suess F, respectively. It is surrounded by Rima Suess on east and southwest
side and Rimae Maestlin on its southeast side.
 Advantages:
 Area of interest for this particular site largest among all eleven sites, thus making
this site best suitable choice for large dispersion.
 As Luna 7 lie inside area of interest this particular site gives a chance to go for
GLXP Heritage Bonus prize.
 Region contains very low density of rilles, wrinkled ridges and domes.
 Disadvantages:
 Some patches of area have high albedo indication more concentration of lunar
dust.
 Same areas also have crushed rocks of size < 1 m.
 Few points in area concerned contain rocks of size 600 m. These areas are
depicted in geological map via yellow spots.
 Light Blue patch on the geologic map show area with numerous hills and
depression of 2 to 4 km across diameter.
 2 km sphere has to be removed from the area as per NASA guidelines to protect
heritage sites
Diameter: 167.49 km

Depth: 602 m
Albedo: 0.06 – 0.08
Elevation on 8th
of March, 2015: 47.4433
Figure 30 Geological Map of Landing Site IV
Figure 31 Landing site IV high resolution image obtained from LROC

Figure 32 Landing site IV high resolution image (2m per pixel) obtained from LROC
Figure 33 Plot of elevation of Landing Site IV with respect to some random line of 801 km length
This sudden decrease in elevation at 558.97 km in Figure 15 is due to presence of 2.3 km diameter
crater (08◦
12’ 44” N, 46◦
29’ 11” W) in the path of line.

.
Figure 34 Plot of elevation of Landing Site IV with respect to some random line of 12.4 km length
Above plot (Figure 34) is shown for 12.4 km line drawn in region of interest to study the change in
elevation of terrain for small distance. Above graph is plotted on scale of 200 m.
Figure 35 Elevation of Landing site IV with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.5. Landing Site V:
 Region: Sinus Iridium Region
 Feature: Mare Imbrium
 Position:
 Latitude: 38◦
20’ 10” N
00’ 21” W
 Description:
Landing site area is surrounded on all sides by wrinkled ridges. Crater Carlini lies to the
south and Helicon B lies on east side whereas; crater Helicon and crater Le Verrier lies
to its northeast. Crater Carlini A lies to the southwest and Laplace A lies in the north.
Past mission Lunokhod I and Luna 17 visited mare Imbrium region, distance between
left most corner of proposed Landing site V area and area visited by Lunokhod I and
Luna 17 is 150.39 km. These two areas are divided by wrinkled ridges.North region of
area selected is far more smooth than south region. Even albedo of north region is
lesser than that of south region making north region more favourable for landing with
present constraints.
 Advantages:
 Mare Iimbrium has been visited by Luna 17 and Lunokhod I so information
regarding regolith profile is easily available. Lunokhod I mission gives us variation
of soil bearing strength for various geological features it travelled.
Figure 36 Distribution of bearing capacity values for the lunar surface, as determined by Lunokhod I
Lunokhod I travelled different type of geological sites. After studying path of
Lunokhod I and comparing it with geological features present in the area it is
been found that area selected for Landing Site V lies inside red lines shown in
above plot.

 Landing Site V region contains two different geological areas so even if on later
stage constraint varies; landing site can be adjusted between the two areas.
 Crater density in area selected is lesser than most regions selected for landing
sites.
Figure 37 shows crater density on various parts of lunar surface
 Disadvantages:
 Wrinkled Ridge of Length 28.35 km lies in the south-western corner of area
selected.
 Some patches of area selected have albedo > 0.1 thus depicting either steep
slope or high concentration of dust.
Diameter: 101.34 km
Depth: 552 m
Albedo:
 North region: 0.075 - 0.079
 South region: 0.080 - 0.089
Elevation angle on 8th
of March, 2015: 41.9268◦

Figure 38 Geological map of proposed Landing Site V
Figure 39 Landing site V high resolution image obtained from LROC

Figure 40 Landing site V high resolution image (32m per pixel) obtained from LROC
Figure 41 Plot of elevation of Landing Site V with respect to some random line of 900 km length
This sudden decrease in elevation at 779.21 km in Figure 41 is due to presence of
boulder of height 264 m in the path of line.

Figure 42 Plot of elevation of Landing Site V with respect to some random line of 900 km length
Above plot (Figure 42) is shown for 2.5 km line drawn in region of interest to study the change in
elevation of terrain for small distance. Above graph is plotted on scale of 200 m.
Figure 43 Elevation of Landing site V with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.6. Landing Site VI:
 Region: Mare Serenitatis
 Feature: Mare Serenitatis
 Position:
 Latitude: 24◦
58’ 53” N
16’ 10” E
 Description:
Out of eleven proposed landing site this is the only lading site in eastern hemisphere of
moon. Landing site area lies to the north and south of crater Bobillier and crater Linne
A, respectively. Crater Bessel and crater Hornsby lie to its southeast and west side,
respectively. Region is surrounded by Dorsum Owen, Rima Sung-Mei, and Vallis Krishna
on its west side whereas it is surrounded by Dorsum Azara and Dorsum Buckland to its
northeast and south west side, respectively.
 Advantages:
 Albedo of selected area is least among all eleven landing sites.
 Surface is smooth, with small craters and lacks any large impact crater.
 Disadvantages:
 Roughness parameter is more than other selected landing sites.
 Wrinkled Ridge is present on its north-western corner.
 A single patch in middle of area has high albedo >0.10
 Region lies in eastern hemisphere so is less likable for lightning conditions.
Diameter: 122.75 km
Minimum Altitude: -3259
Depth: 783 m
Albedo: 0.060 – 0.066
Eleveation Angle on 8th
of March: 58.7447◦
Figure 44 Geologic Map of Landing Site VI

Figure 45 Landing site VI high resolution image obtained from LROC
Figure 46 Plot of elevation of Landing Site VI with respect to some random line of 50.1 km length
Depression shown in above plot (Figure 46) is due to the Banting crater of diameter 6.4 km and 665
m depth.

Figure 48 Elevation of Landing site VI with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.7. Landing Site VII:
 Region: Seleucus Region
 Position
 Latitude: 28◦
02’ 39” N
41’ 09” N
 Description:
Landing Site VII is located in the western part of Oceanus Procellarum. 279.22 km long
wrinkled ridges runs to the west side of area selected. To the southwest is crater
Seleucus, to the east is crater Golgi and to the southeast lays crater Schiaparelli. Dorsa
Whiston and Dorsa Burnet runs to the east side of region. Approximately 50 kilometres
to the south of proposed Landing site area, on the Oceanus Procellarum, is the landing
site of the Soviet Landing craft Luna 13.
 Advantages:
 Whole area concerned has almost uniform dust concentration.
 Forms an extensively smooth surface which terminates abruptly against higher
topographical forms.
 Disadvantages:
 Some areas inside region of interest contain impact craters of diameters of about
5-6 km.
 Dust concentration is high till at least 6 km in areas surrounding above
mentioned craters.
Diameters:
Depth: 516 m
Albedo: 0.066 – 0.072
Elevation Angle on 8th
of March, 2015: 25.072◦

Figure 49 Geological map of proposed Landing Site VII
Figure 50 Landing site VII high resolution image obtained from LROC

Figure 51 Plot of elevation of Landing Site VI with respect to some random line of 730 km length
This sudden decrease in elevation at 311 km in Figure 51 is due to presence of boulder
of height 88 m in the path of line.

Figure 53 Elevation of Landing site VII with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015
3.8. Landing Site VIII:
 Region: Kepler Region and Aristarchus Region
 Position:
 Latitude: 13◦
58’ 32” N
47’ 36” W
 Description:
Landing site VIII just lies above Landing site IV. Two sites have exactly same geological
properties. They are divided by as series of wrinkled ridges and impact craters. Large
impact crater Kepler lies to the south east of desired region whereas crater Bessarion
lies to the east. From southwest to northeast area of interest is surrounded by a series
of crater and wrinkled ridges. Rima Marius lies to northwest side of landing site.
 Advantages:
 As region has same geologic properties as landing site IV which was visited by
Luna 7, lunar regolith properties for the area is well known.
 Area contains low density of large impact craters, rilles, ridges and domes.
 Disadvantages:
 Large portion of area selected has high albedo thus high concentration of dust
and more roughness.
 Area selected is very near to large impact crater Kepler thus ejecta from crater in
the form of rocks and boulders can be found near eastern region of landing site.
 We can find small concentration of hills in the south most region of area.
Slopes of hill gradually rise to become steep.
Diameter: 106.39 km
Maximum slope: 6.7992◦
Depth: 463 m
Albedo: 0.062 – 0.070 with some areas > 0.086
Elevation on 8th
of March, 2015: 48.5166◦

Figure 54 Geological map of proposed Landing Site VIII
Figure 55 Landing site VIII high resolution image obtained from LROC

Figure 56 of elevation of Landing Site VIII with respect to some random line of 439 km length
Figure 57 of elevation of Landing Site VIII with respect to some random line of 3.65 km length

Figure 58 Elevation of Landing site VIII with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015
3.9. Landing Site IX:
 Region: Cassini Region
 Feature: Mare Imbrium
 Position:
 Latitude: 36◦
44’ 39” N
08’ 31” W
 Description:
Landing Site IX lies to east of landing site V and south to the Landing Site I. Area of
interest is surrounded by a chain of wrinkled ridges on eastern, western and southern
sides. Crater Carlini D lies to its southwest whereas Landsteiner lies in the south. Crater
Pico D, Pico E, Pico F and Pico EA form its northern boundary. Crater Spitzbergen D,
Spitzbergen C and Spitzbergen A lie to its southeast whereas Montes Spitzbergen and
crater Kirch forms its eastern boundary
 Advantages:
 Southern region of interest is younger thus depicting less impact crater density.
 Disadvantages:
 Crater Le Verrier X, Le Verrier B, Le Verrier D, Le Verrier U and Kirch M lie inside
region of interest.
 Some area within region contains cluster of craters and steep slope rim.
 Area with high albedo covers about 16% of the area of interest.
 Montes Spitzbergen lies near the boundary of landing site area. High Elevation
results shadow region which restrict movements of rover.
 Two small wrinkled ridges are present within the area of interest.
Diameter: 119.16km
Maximum Altitude: -2349
Minimum Altitude: -2684

Depth: 335
Albedo: 0.070 – 0.078
of March, 2015: 51.2466◦
Figure 59 Geological map of proposed Landing Site IX

Figure 60 Landing site IX high resolution image obtained from LROC
Figure 61 Plot of elevation of Landing Site IX with respect to some random line of 632 km length

Figure 62 Plot of elevation of Landing Site IX with respect to some random line of 3.6 km length
Figure 63 Elevation of Landing site IX with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.10. Landing Site X:
 Region: J. Herschel Region and Plato Region
 Feature: Mare Frigoris
 Position:
 Latitude: 59◦
29’ 52” N
51’ 57” W
 Description:
Landing Site X lies to the northwest of Landing Site I. Area of interest is surrounded by
wrinkled ridges completely on eastern side. Large impact crater Fontenelle lies to
north of landing site whereas La Condamine T and La Condamine J make its western
and southern boundary, respectively. Area of interest has Crater Fontenelle X and
crater Plato W on its northwest and southeast side respectively.
 Advantages:


 Disadvantages:
 Region selected can be divided into parts depending upon topography. Western
region has more topographical features than the eastern region. Western side
has local small depressions, with some areas having high albedo.
 Region selected contains at least three scarps and four wrinkled ridges.
 Crater La Condamine S, La Condamine X and La Condamine TA lies in southeaster
region of selected area
 Area of interest at point (58.4599, -24.9714) contains small cluster of craters of
diameter less than 2 kilomteres.
Diameter: 145.81 km
Depth: 310 m
Albedo:
Elevation on 8th
of March, 2015: 72.7629◦

Figure 64 Geological map of proposed Landing Site X
Figure 65 Landing site X high resolution image obtained from LROC

Figure 66 Plot of elevation of Landing Site X with respect to some random line of 451 km length
Figure 67 Plot of elevation of Landing Site X with respect to some random line of 6.85 km length
Figure 68 Elevation of landing site X with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.11. Landing Site XI:
 Region: Hevelius Region
 Position:
 Latitude: 12◦
07’ 18” N
16’ 53” W
 Description:
Landing Site XI is the most geologically smooth terrain out of all eleven landing sites. It
lies to the northeast and west of crater Galilaei and Rima Galilaei, repectively. Crater
Reiner lies to its southeast whereas Reiner Gamma lies to its south. Crater Galilaei A
and Galilaei K lies to it west.
 Advantages:
 Luna 8 and Luna 9 lies to the southwest of Landing site XI whereas Luna 13 lies to
its north thus making Landing site best site to go for NASA Heritage prize
 As area of interest is so near to previously explored area we have almost
accurate information on its topographical and geological features.
 Surrounding areas of region does not have very high or low elevation features.
 Disadvantages:
 Some areas of region have high albedo thus showing high concentration of dust.
 Region contains small to moderate impact craters namely, Galilaei E and Galilaei
J.
 Small area of region of interest contains moderate concentration of domes of
diameter 3-7 km and height of about 300 m.
 Region of interest have depression at position: 10.7495 N, 60.6314 W.
Diameter: 101.45 km
Depth: 326 m
Albedo: 0.062 - 0.066
of March, 2015: 31.7531◦

Figure 69 Geological map of proposed Landing Site XI
Figure 70 Landing site XI high resolution image obtained from LROC

Figure 71 Plot of elevation of Landing Site XI with respect to some random line of 215 km length
Figure 72 Plot of elevation of Landing Site XI with respect to some random line of 3.74 km length
Figure 73 Elevation of landing site XI with respect to earth for date range of March to July 2015

3.12. Reserved Landing sites:
Some sites which does not satisfy 1-2 constraints mentioned in chapter but satisfy
other constraints are kept reserved, in cases in the future if constraints changes
these temporary sites may become better sites than above mentioned sites. These
sites may be better in some constraints that proposed eleven. For example, sites
nearer to equator are better in communication aspect whereas they are worse in
topography aspect.
Table 5 some reserved landing sites which can be used for some slightly different constraints
Temporary
Landing Site
number
Region Feature Latitude Longitude Diameter
(km)
1 Tycho Crater Stöfler 40.7176 S 5.6199 E 54.79
2 Purbach Mare Nubium 20.9542 S 7.0273 W 39.01
3 Eudoxus,
Geminus
Lacus
Somniorum
37.1068 N 35.3240 E 106.97
4 Grimaldi Oceanus
Procellarum
10.9621 S 54.8895 W 101.36
5 Mare
Humorum
Mare Humorum 23.8108 S 43.0201 W 78.26
6 Ptolemaeus Crater
Ptolemaeus
9.2136 S 1.9105 W 125.94
7 Schickard Crater
Schickard
44.2588 S 55.3283 W 57.02
8 Mare
Humorum
Mare Humorum 23.4514 S 38.6739 W 97.24
9 Letronne Oceanus
Procellarum
1.9883 S 40.5012 W 93.76
10 Riphaeus
Mtns.
Mare Cognitum 4.3386 S 26.6923 W 18.59
11 Grimaldi,
Letronne
Oceanus
Procellarum
8.1367 S 49.2301 W 57.45
15 Schiller Crater Schiller 52.0566 S 39.1735 W 32.29
16 Aristoleles Mare Frigoris 52.2688 N 34.6087 E 39.30
17 Colombo Mare Nectaris 14.4103 S 36.0780 E 71.61
18 Cleomedes Mare Crisium 18.7068 N 58.7194 E 71.89
19 Letronne Oceanus
Procellarum
1.9647 S 46.7162 W 52.57
20 Plato Mare Frigoris 58.4351 N 7.8323 W 49.22
21 Tranuntius Mare
Tranquilitatis
12.3099 N 34.2616 E 41.00
22 Mare
Undarum
Sinus Successus 1.1762 N 58.2270 E 64.51

23 Mare
Undarum
Mare
Fecunditatis
1.5327 N 57.7377 E 63.34
24 Cleomedes,
Mare
Undarum
Mare Crisium 15.9949 N 54.8174 E 110.26
25 Timocharies Mare Imbrium 23.2203 N 14.0991 W 60.24
26 Taruntius Sinus
Concordiae
12.1555 N 38.0454 E 44.21
27 Rümker Oceanus
Procellarum
32.5439 N 50.2622 W 45.06
28 Aristochus Oceanus
Procellarum
22.7428 N 41.1018 W 89.95
29 Seleucus Oceanus
Procellarum
18.2840 N 58.6532 W 99.17
30 Schiller,
Clavius
Crater
Longomontanus
49.7971 S 21.5539 W 78.21
31 J. Herschel Mare Frigoris 56.2421 N 37.9421 W 80.38
32 Mare
Vaporum
Mare Vaporum 14.0010 N 3.2222 E 69.59
33 Timocharis Mare Imbrium 24.5592 N 26.8340 W 86.42
34 Grimaldi Oceanus
Procellarum
5.7708 S 53.4052 W 77.23
35 Lepler,
Letronne
Oceanus
Procellarum
0.7089 S 53.4052 W 77.23
36 Kepler Oceanus
Procellarum
6.0532 N 48.9917 W 60.09
37 Rümker Oceanus
Procellarum
35.6250 N 56.4051 W 74.55

4. Conclusion:
A total of 11 landing sites plus 37 temporary sites are chosen based on current constraints. The
most import constraint considered was dispersion and topography. At present, maximum
constraints are based on Lander considerations. On later stage, constraints from rover will be
helpful in further short listing of landing sites.
Table 6 Summary of 11 proposed Landing Sites
Landing
Site
Region
Latitude
(degree)
Longitude
(degree)
Diameter
(km)
Maximum
Slope
(degree)
Depth
(m)
Earth
Elevation
Range
(degree)
Azimuth
Range
(degree)
I Plato 51.5945 -9.3892 100.68 4.6941 268 32 - 45 157-178
II Rümker 34.0027 -47.1524 95.49 5.1441 296 31 – 37 106-130
III
Hevelius
and
Grimaldi
-0.2804 -53.1043 92 8.013 275 28 – 45 82 - 99
IV Kepler 8.3732 -45.3609 167.49 7.68 602 38 – 51 88 - 111
V
Sinus
Iridium
38.3360 -26.0057 101.34 7.4069 552 46 – 55 211-223
VI
Mere
Serenitatis
24.9815 15.2694 122.75 6.8753 783 52 – 72 202-220
VII Seleucus 28.0443 -63.6857 134.45 6.3397 516 18 - 28 92-114
VIII
Kepler and
Aristarchus
13.9755 -42.7934 106.39 6.7992 463 40-52 93 - 118
IX Cassini 36.7443 -11.1419 119.16 6.8212 335 47 - 57 146-176
X
Plato and
J. Herschel
59.4977 -19.8657 145.81 8.5006 310 63 - 75 85 - 136
XI Hevelius 12.1216 -60.2815 101.45 5.9941 326 33 – 34 88 - 107
Figure 74 Proposed landing sites
Grade A – Green, Grade B – Orange, Grade C – Blue

We can observe from above figure that there are very few sites on equatorial region. This is because
of two reasons:
4.1. Topography:
Most of the equatorial region is covered with highlands. Areas left are mostly covered with
impact craters ranging from large to small diameter. Following figures shows the
topography of lunar nearside region.
Figure 75 Lunar earth facing region
Blue region show flat, smooth surface whereas green regions shows highlands
4.2. Previous missions on moon:
Equator being favourable region on basis of communication, lightning and fuel consumption
most of previous mission visited equatorial belt. Thus, NASA GLXP Heritage constraint is
applicable to these regions. Therefore, even we could find some flat surface, it has been
already been visited by previous mission.

Figure 76 Proposed Landing Sites with respect to earlier missions
Apollo 14
Surveyor 3
Surveyor 1
Luna 5
Surveyor 4
Apollo 11
Ranger 8
Luna 18
Landing Site I
Landing Site II
Landing site III
Landing Site IV
Landing Site V
Landing Site VI
Landing Site VII
Landing Site VIII
Landing Site IX
Landing Site X
Landing site XI
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Latitude
Longitude

5. References:
5.1. D. O’Brien, M. Fulchignoni, R.W. Gaskell, M. Hoffmann, H. U. Keller, S. Marchi , C. Raymond,
P. Schenk, H. Sierks, M. Sykes and J. Vinvent; Crater depth-to-diameter ratio and surface
properties of (4) Vesta; 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2012).
5.2. A. Chu, Photographic Moon Book, 2011.
5.3. D. E. Bowker and J. K. Hughes, Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the moon, Langley
Research Centre, 1971.
5.4. D. E. Wilhelms, To Rocky Moon, The University of Arizona Press, 1993.
5.5. C. Meyer, NASA Lunar Petrographic Educational Thin Section Set, 2003.
5.6. V. V. Shevchenko, About Global Distribution Lunar Rocks, State Astronomical Sternberg
Institute, Lunar and Planetary Institute.
5.7. Luna 13, Space Event Report, 1966.
5.8. E. Gusakova, I. Karachevtseva, I. Nadezhdina, J. Oberst and A. Zubarev; Mapping of Luna-17
Landing Site and Reconstruction of Lunokhod-1 Stereo Panoramas; Annual Meeting of the
Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, 2012.
5.9. V. Hamza, Lunar Exploration under Earthshine Illumination – Case 340, 169.
5.10. D. D. Durda and D. A. Kring, A Global Lunar Landing Site Study to provide the Scientific
Context for Exploration of the Moon, LPI-JSC Lunar Science and Exploration, 2012
5.11. R. French, K. Muery, M. Nall, and S. Noble, The Lunar Mapping and Modeling Project, NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center, 2007.
5.12. D. Podolskiy, Soviet Robots on the Moon, NASA TT F-14, 300, 1971.
5.13. E. Gusakova, I. Karachevtseva, J. Oberst, O. Peters, M. S. Robinson, K. Shingareva and M.
Wahlisch, Mapping and GIS-Analyses of the Lunokhod-1 Landing Site, 43rd
Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference, 2012.
5.14. G. P. Kuiper and E. A. Whitaker, Presentation of Ranger VII Moon Images, Lunar and
Planetary Laboratory.
5.15. D. T. Britt, G. J. Consolmagno, W. S. Kiefer, and R. J. Macke, Density and Porosity of Lunar
Feldspathic Rocks and Implications for Lunar Gravity Modeling, Second Conference on the
Lunar Highlands Crust, 2012.
5.16. M. Ohtake, T. Matsunaga, Y. Yokota, S. Yamamoto, Y. Ogawa, T. Morota, C. Honda, J.
Haruyama, K. Kitazato, H. Takeda, A. Iwasaki, R. Nakamura, T. Hiroi, S. Kodama, H. Otake,
Deriving the Absolute Reflectance of Lunar Surface using SELENE (Kaguya) Multiband
Imager Data, Space Sci Rev 154:57-77, 2010.
5.17. K. P. Marshall and M. P. Mobberley, The lunar crater Plato, J. Brit. astron. Assoc.
5.18. O. Calla, S. Mathur and M. Jangid, Study of Plato Crater with MINI-RF, 44th
Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference, 2013
5.19. E. C. Bernett, R. F. Scott, L. D. Jaffe, E.P. Frink, and H. E. Martena, The Bearing Capacity of
Simulated Lunar Surfaces in Vacuum, Technical Report N. 32-336, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1963.
5.20. D. T. Britt, G. J. Consolmagno, A. J. Irving, W. S. Kiefer, and R. J. Macke, Regional Variability
in the Density of Lunar Mare Basalts and Implications for Lunar Gravity Modeling, 43rd
Lunar
and Planetary Science Conference, 2012.
5.21. W. D. Carrier III, Geotechnical Properties of Lunar Soil, Lunar Geotechnical Institute, 2005.
5.22. L. D. Jaffe, Recent Observations of the Moon by Spacecraft, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Californian Institute of Technology, 1969.
5.23. W. D. Compton, Where No Man has gone Before, NASA SP; 4214.
5.24. L. D. Jaffe, Bearing Strength of Lunar Soil, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Californian Institute of
Technology, 1971.

5.25. M. G. Buehler, R. C. Anderson, C. I. Calle, W. D. Carrier III, D. A. Feikema, G. W. Hunter, J. G.
Mantovani, S. Seshadri, and L. A. Taylor, In situ mapping the lunar surface and subsurface.
5.26. Apollo 11 Samples Data Sheets, JSC 19069.
5.27. R. V. Morris, Handbook of Lunar Soils, NASA JSC 19069, 1983.
5.28. S. Kassel, Lunokhod-1 Soviet Lunar Surface Vehicle, Advanced Research Projects Agency,
1971.
5.29. Surveyor I: A Preliminary Report, Lunar and Planetary Division, 1966.
5.30. E. M. Christensen, S. A. Batterson, H. E. Benson, R. Choate, L. D. Jaffe, R. H. Jones, H. Y. Ko,
R. L. Spencer, F. B. Sperling, and G. H. Sutton, Lunar Surface Mechanical Properties at the
Landing Site of Surveyor 3, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, no. 12, 1968.
5.31. L. D. Jaffe, Shear Strength of Lunar Soil from Oceanus Procellarum, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Californian Institute of Technology, 1972.
5.32. H. Hiesinger, J. W. Head III, U. Wolf, R. Jaumann, G. Neukum, Lunar and Planetary Science
XXXIV, 2003.
5.33. V. Gromov, Physical and mechanical properties of lunar soil.
5.34. G. H. Heiken, D. T. Vaniman and B. M. French, Lunar Sourcebook, Cambridge University
Press, 1991.
5.35. J. K. Mitchell, W. N. Houstan, R. F. Scott, N. C. Costes, W. D. Carrier III, and L. G. Bromwell ,
Mechanical Properties of Lunar Soil: Density, porosity, cohesion and angle of internal
friction, Proceedings of the Third Lunar Science Conference, Vol. 3, pp. 3235-3253, 1972.
5.36. Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-214, 1969.
5.37. Apollo 11 Mission Report, NASA MSC-00171, 1969.
5.38. Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Operations Plan, NASA, 1969.
5.39. R. L. Korotev and J. J. Gillis, A new look at the Apollo 11 regolith and KREEP, Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 106, no. E6, 2011.
5.40. N. G. Bailey and G. E. Ulrich, Apollo 11 Voice Transcript Pertaining to the Geology of the
Landing Site, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.
5.41. NASA’s Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to protect and Preserve the
Historic and Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artefacts, 2011.
5.42. M. A. Rosenburg, O. Aharonson, J. W. Head,M. A. Kreslavsky, E. Mazarico, G. A. Neumann, D.
E. Smith,M. H. Torrence and M. T. Zuber, Global surface slopes and roughness of the Moon
from the Luanr Orbiter Laser Altimeter, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 116, 2011.
5.43. V. L. Freeman, Regolith of the Apollo 16 site.
5.44. W. Zhenzhan, L. Yun, J. Jingshan, and L. Jing, An estimation of the Luanr surface
temperature, dielectric constant, regolith thickness and Helium-3 content retrieved from
brightness temperature by CE-1 microwave sounder, 41st
Lunar and Planetary Science
Conference, 2010.
5.45. C.D. Neish, L. Carter, D. B. J. Bussey, J. Cahill, B. Thomson, O. Barnouin, and the Mini-RF
Team, Correlation between surface roughness and the slope on a Lunar Impact Melt, 42nd
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2011.
5.46. Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.
5.47. J. L. Bandfield, R. R. Ghent,A. R. Vasavada,D. A. Paige, S. J. Lawrence and M. S. Robinson,
Lunar surface rock abundance and regolith fines temperatures derived from LRO Diviner
Radiometer data, Journal of Geophysics Research, Vol. 116, 2011.
5.48. Apollo 17 Mission Report, NASA JSC-07904, 1973.
5.49. N. G. Bailey and G. E. Ulrich, Apollo 17 Voice Transcript Pertaining to the Geology of the
Landing Site, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975.
5.50. M. Horanyi, Electrostatic charging properties of Apollo 17 lunar dust, Journal of Geophysics
Research, Vol. 103, 1998.

5.51. Geologic characteristics of the nine lunar landing mission sites recommended by the group
for lunar exploration planning, 1968.
5.52. L. W. Enderson Jr., A study of Lunar landing sites and associated stay times, NASA TN D-
2795.
5.53. T. Kobayashi, H. Ochiai, Y. Suyama, S. Aoki, N. Yasufuku, and K. Omine, Bearing Capacity of
Shallows Foundations in a Low Gravity Environment, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 49, 2009.
6. Software’s and Websites used:
6.1. Software:
 Google Earth
 System Toolkit version 10
 Virtual moon Atlas
 Celestia
6.2. Websites:
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/
 http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/
 http://wms.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp/3dmoon_e/layer_e.html
 http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/global_product/100_mpp_global_bw
 http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse
 http://geo.pds.nasa.gov/missions/lro/diviner.htm
 http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Page/Moon1to1MAtlas
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/site_studies/
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunar_orbiter/
 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/moonpage.html
 http://pub.lmmp.nasa.gov/LMMPUI/LMMP_CLIENT/LMMP.html#
 http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc
 http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/#
 http://www.google.co.in/moon/
 http://simkin.asu.edu/clem/
 http://ode.rsl.wustl.edu/moon/indexMapSearch.aspx
 http://www.visit-the-moon.com/lunar-atlas
 http://cseligman.com/text/moons/moonmap.htm
 http://wms.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/en/observation_mission/lalt/lalt_0
04.html

Landing Site selection 1.0.pdf

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Landing Site selection 1.0.pdf

Ähnlich wie Landing Site selection 1.0.pdf (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Landing Site selection 1.0.pdf