Apollo 11 mission reconstruction - a teamwork

[linuxm@n]

Hello this is a preview pack from our Lem landing on the Moon
Ssc file ans xyz come from my future pack N1-Lune -Beta -3
date and placement are not realy.

Gilles Morere work on the calculation program for orbit, please be patient, if is program is ready.
As soon as our N1-Lune -Beta -3 pack is ready ( tha mean that his program is ready) we will work on the Apollo 11 mission.

Load this file and launch alun.cel to see.....

http://celestiasws.free.fr/EC_MoonLanding_Apollo_Pre1.zip

Chris can you send me same model in 3ds format, it will be more easy for Gilles and me for tuning ssc and xyx (y can see good information with 3dsmax)

Be careful this is just test file hope we give you best file soon

Linuxman

[ElChristou]

...Chris can you send me same model in 3ds format, it will be more easy for Gilles and me for tuning ssc and xyx (y can see good information with 3dsmax)...

I'll try to send you the files this afternoom (night for you)...

[ANDREA]

Hello this is a preview pack from our Lem landing on the Moon Ssc file ans xyz come from my future pack N1-Lune -Beta -3 date and placement are not realy. Be careful this is just test file hope we give you best file soon. Linuxman

Hello Linuxm@n, I have problems with the cel script.
First of all, it starts VERY far away from the Moon, so that it's impossible to see the landing.
Second, the LEM lands on the night side of the Moon, so that it's necessary to put "medium" Ambient light to see something.
And last, in the alun.cel file the "moon" must be "Moon" with capital M, as is in the solarsys.ssc
Hope this may help.
Bye

Andrea

[linuxm@n]

Hello Linuxm@n, I have problems with the cel script.
First of all, it starts VERY far away from the Moon, so that it's impossible to see the landing.

I thinkthat the script run perfectly with XP proSP2 and Linux with celestia 1.4.1 on my computer

Second, the LEM lands on the night side of the Moon, so that it's necessary to put "medium" Ambient light to see something.

Don't forget it use a test file and i have just past short time to do this, date and placement are fictive for the moment.

And last, in the alun.cel file the "moon" must be "Moon" with capital M, as is in the solarsys.ssc

I will have look tomorrow evening this is that i see when i load my script on celestia 1.41:











Linuxman

[ANDREA]

Hello Linuxm@n, I have problems with the cel script.
First of all, it starts VERY far away from the Moon, so that it's impossible to see the landing.

I think that the script run perfectly with XP proSP2 and Linux with celestia 1.4.1 on my computer.

OK Linuxm@n, I used it in 1.5.0pre2, so I'll install in 1.4.1 and check again.

Second, the LEM lands on the night side of the Moon, so that it's necessary to put "medium" Ambient light to see something.

Don't forget it use a test file and i have just past short time to do this, date and placement are fictive for the moment.

OK, never mind, I'll wait further improvement.

And last, in the alun.cel file the "moon" must be "Moon" with capital M, as is in the solarsys.ssc

I will have look tomorrow evening this is that i see when i load my script on celestia 1.41:Linuxman

Obviously I've seen the same things, but manually, not with the cel script, and it looks very nice.
Bye soon

Andrea

[ElChristou]

Well, this test is very cool, even if there is some problem under 1.5...
I have some ideas to get some cool flames...

[ANDREA]

Hello Linuxm@n, I have problems with the cel script.
First of all, it starts VERY far away from the Moon, so that it's impossible to see the landing.

I think that the script run perfectly with XP proSP2 and Linux with celestia 1.4.1 on my computer.

OK Linuxm@n, I used it in 1.5.0pre2, so I'll install in 1.4.1 and check again.
Andrea

Just checked, and I confirm that it works OK in 1.4.0, but doesn't work in 1.5.0pre2, sorry!
Bye soon.

Andrea

[Hungry4info]

In this image...


... there is an obvious barrier between the model of the background for the landing and the actual lunar surface.

I know that this is just a test run, but I am curious. Will this obvious barrier be less obvious in the future? Perhaps making a VT that provides better resolution in that area or something?

[ElChristou]

In this image...

... there is an obvious barrier between the model of the background for the landing and the actual lunar surface.

I know that this is just a test run, but I am curious. Will this obvious barrier be less obvious in the future? Perhaps making a VT that provides better resolution in that area or something?

I have no idea if there is somewhere some photos of the zone to do a VT... of course it would be ideal...

[ANDREA]

...I know that this is just a test run, but I am curious. Will this obvious barrier be less obvious in the future? Perhaps making a VT that provides better resolution in that area or something?

I have no idea if there is somewhere some photos of the zone to do a VT... of course it would be ideal...

I'm digging just now, and I found this interesting drawing, where you can see (in scale) the walk made by astronauts, the couple of small craters close to the LEM, and the bigger crater farther away:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imag ... averse.jpg


This moreover gives the exact positions of the instruments on the ground.
And digging digging I found the final reply to our old doubt "where have gone all those pieces of scrap?
Here it is:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lu ... mpact.html

ADDED LATER: FOUND!!!

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11_lp ... -small.gif[


And if you need I can find more.
Bye

Andrea

[ElChristou]

Great Andrea! this second shot can be used to extrapolate a 3D ground... will do some test as soon as possible.

Now I doubt this scale is good for VT, we need a view much larger...

Andrea, for the reading confort of the thread, could you edit your post with thumbs please? (don't forget I'm still with dialup )

[ANDREA]

Great Andrea! this second shot can be used to extrapolate a 3D ground... will do some test as soon as possible.
Now I doubt this scale is good for VT, we need a view much larger...
Andrea, for the reading confort of the thread, could you edit your post with thumbs please? (don't forget I'm still with dialup )

Done!
Sorry for the previous images size, but I was so happy to have found them that I was in a hurry, so I had not the time to make thumbs (I posted at 3.00 LT!).
Going to search for a wider image.
Bye

Andrea

[ANDREA]

Now I doubt this scale is good for VT, we need a view much larger...

Well, I found something else:
This is at 10 km scale


This photograph was taken from the Lunar Module and it includes both the landing site (arrow) and the Command/Service Module (upper right of arrow). The sharp-rimmed crater at the lower margin is Moltke. The craters north and west of the landing site are secondary craters resulting from ejecta thrown out of Sabine Crater.

It can be found here in hi-res tiff
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/sl ... de_04.html

This at 1 km scale:


The two groups of irregularly shaped craters north and west of the landing site are secondaries from Sabine Crater. This view was obtained by the unmanned Lunar Orbiter V spacecraft in 1967 prior to the Apollo missions to the Moon. The black and white film was automatically developed onboard the spacecraft and subsequently digitized for transmission to Earth. The regularly spaced vertical lines are the result of combining individually digitized 'framelets' to make a composite photograph. and the irregularly-shaped bright and dark spots are due to nonuniform film development.

You can find it here
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/sl ... de_05.html

and at 200 meter scale,


The fresh 180-meter-diameter crater left of the center is West Crater. The landing site is about 60 meters west of 33-meter-diameter Little West Crater. Astronaut Neil Armstrong visited the rim of Little West Crater while astronaut Edwin Aldrin worked around the Lunar Module.


found here
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/sl ... de_06.html

The Little West Crater is the one shown on top right of the previous images I posted, and the arrows mark the landing position.
I hope that this will be enough for Apollo 11 terrain 3D modelling, because I doubt that there could be something else.
Bye

Andrea

[ElChristou]

Mmhh... I suppose it won't be so easy to do a texture from those... we will see...

I'm experimenting some new flames for the CSM and LEM engine, but I realize I'm really not sure of how look exactly those flames in the vacuum... Any suggestion?

[Chuft-Captain]

Mmhh... I suppose it won't be so easy to do a texture from those... we will see...

I'm experimenting some new flames for the CSM and LEM engine, but I realize I'm really not sure of how look exactly those flames in the vacuum... Any suggestion?

Google: rocket exhaust on moon

eg. Extract from the first result:

...That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle....

[ANDREA]

Any suggestion?

...Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more...

Chuff, I played with PhotoShop on Linuxm@n's image of landing LEM, so if I understand correctly the exhaust should look not as on left image, but as on the right one, correct?



Bye

Andrea

[ANDREA]

Mmhh... I suppose it won't be so easy to do a texture from those... we will see...

Due to the poor quality of the smaller scale images, I understand the difficulty to obtain a wide 3D map.
Just an idea: could "fractals" fill the gap?
I understand that this would not be quite real, but not so different, IMHO.
Your opinion?
Bye

Andrea

[ElChristou]

...That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle....

Yes, it's why I was hesitating, but this don't give me enough clue on density of the jet, color etc...

Now the mockup by Andrea seems a good approach...

Mmhh... I suppose it won't be so easy to do a texture from those... we will see...

Due to the poor quality of the smaller scale images, I understand the difficulty to obtain a wide 3D map.
Just an idea: could "fractals" fill the gap?
I understand that this would not be quite real, but not so different, IMHO.
Your opinion?

Don't know yet, must do some test...

I'm working on instruments...
I'm wondering if a 4k texture for this flag is not too much... now one can approach without seeing pixel too quickly...

(Click to enlarge)

[Cham]

4k for that flag !??? Geez, are you smoking grass ?

[tech2000]

Awesome addon, the script would be like a movie..

Bye, Anders