>After decades of uncertainty, the Apollo 16 S-IVB impact site on the lunar surface has been identified
What /sci/ think about this?
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-finds-apollo-16-booster-rocket-impact-site
>>7704408
it looks like piss
>>7704408
>After decades of uncertainty
>impact site on the lunar surface has been identified
>after decades of uncertainty
bullshit from the start. they can take pictures of the earth from orbiting the sun but decided now is the time to search for something they knew was there but never bothered to find.
>>7704408
Can be anything.
They should better show us the far side stuff.
>>7704408
wow
it's fucking nothing and proves nothing
Why is NASA in full damage control?
>>7704726
The Earth is a lot bigger than that crash site.
>>7705245
>it's fucking nothing
It's a cool piece of history. But if there's no fun allowed, then I guess you're right.
>and proves nothing
What do you think it's supposed to prove?
I think its fascinating. I get why it was so hard to pin down the location thanks to the loss of radio signal and prior/post experience. I'm glad that the LRO found it finally.
>>7707949
Im still impressed that they managed to sit and analyse all those pixels filled with craters and actually determine that this crater is the one:p
>>7707949
Why would the crash site be difficult to locate? Wouldn't simple Newtonian physics narrow it down to a small area? Or do the lunar mascons screw up those calculations?
>>7708313
>"In the case of Apollo 16, radio contact with the booster was lost before the impact, so the location was only poorly known. Positive identification of the Apollo 16 S-IVB site took more time than the other four impact craters because the location ended up differing by about 30 km (about 19 miles) from the Apollo-era tracking estimate."
Also, i'd imagine it can be a pain in the ass to separate natural craters from a man-made one.
