по текстам по ключевым словам в глоссарии |
win
koi mac translit |
Археологическая
разведка Луны: результаты проекта SAAM
|
It has been argued [3],
[4]
that the Moon could be used as an indicator of extraterrestrial visits
to our solar system. Unfortunately, the detection of ET artifacts on the
Moon is outside the interest of most selenologists due to their orientation
towards natural formations and processes. It is also not of interest to
mainstream archaeologists, as archaeology tends to adhere to a pre-Copernican
geocentric point-of-view.
In 1992, the Search for Alien Artifacts on the Moon (SAAM) - the first
privately-organized archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon - was initiated.
The justifications of lunar SETI, the wording of specific principles of
lunar archaeology, and the search for promising areas on the Moon were
the first stage of the project (1992-95). Preliminary results of lunar
exploration [5]
show that the search for alien artifacts on the Moon is a promising SETI-strategy,
especially in the context of lunar colonization plans. The aim of the second
stage of SAAM (1996-2001) was the search for promising targets of lunar
archaeological study. The goals of this second stage involved 1) developing
new algorithms for space archaeological reconnaissance, 2) using these
algorithms to detect possible archaeological sites on the Moon, and 3)
examining the reaction of mainstream scientists to these results.
Fig. 1. The ancient Khorezmian fortress Koy-Krylgan-kala appeared as an impact crater on the air photo (left); its artificiality is obvious after the excavations in 1956 (right) [6]. |
Instead of the current presumption that all surface features are natural, an alternative search strategy is to be open to the possible existence of artifacts. If we are open to this possibility, then one can extend Carl Sagan's search criteria for detecting signs of life on Earth [7] to other planets:
"Let us first imagine a photographic reconnaissance by orbiter spacecraft
of the Earth in reflected visible light. We imagine we are geologically
competent but have no prior knowledge of the habitability of the Earth.
Photography of the Earth at a range of surface resolutions down to 1 km
reveals a great deal that is of geological and meteorological interest,
but nothing whatever of biological interest. At 1 km resolution, even with
very high contrast, there is no sign of life, intelligent or otherwise,
in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow, or Peking. We have examined many
thousands of photographs of the Earth at this resolution with negative
results. However when the resolution is improved to about 100 m, a few
hundred photographs of say 10 km x 10 km coverage are adequate to uncover
terrestrial civilization. The patterns revealed at 100 m resolution are
the agricultural and urban reworking of the Earth's surface in rectangular
arrays... These patterns would be extremely difficult to understand
on geological grounds even on a highly faulted planet. Such rectangular
arrays are clearly not a thermodynamic or mechanical equilibrium configuration
of a planetary surface. And it is precisely the departure from thermodynamic
equilibrium which draws our attention to such photographs."
In 1962 Sagan spoke on the possibility of discovering alien artifacts
on the Moon stating that "Forthcoming photographic reconnaissance of the
moon from space vehicles - particularly of the back - might bear these
possibilities in mind." [8]
Rectangular patterns on air-space photos are recognized as signs of human
culture in the remote sensing of the Earth and air archaeology [9].
It seems reasonable then to search for rectangular patterns on the Moon.
For example, assume that the equivalent of proposed modern lunar bases
were built long ago (e.g., 1-4 billion years ago) on the Moon. Such structures
would have been built under the surface for protection from ionizing radiation
and meteorites. Today these ancient structures might appear as eroded systems
of low ridges and depressions, covered by regolith and craters (Fig.
2).
Fig. 2. Simulation of probable HIRES view of ancient settlement on the Moon (left). The erosion wipes off the surface tracks of construction (center), but the SAAM processing could reveal the rectangular anomaly (right). |
A wealth of lunar imagery collected by the Clementine probe are available in digital form [10]. Initial SETI studies [11] used images from the ultraviolet-visible (UVVIS) camera. The resolution of UVVIS images is ~200 m. According to Sagan's detection criteria, this resolution would not be sufficient even to detect the presence of our own civilization on Earth. Studies of the Moon at this resolution would probably not reveal any convincing evidence of the existence of artificial structures. On the other hand, Clementine's high-resolution (HIRES) camera produced images of adequate resolution (9-27 m), but they are much more numerous (~ 600,000 images total) and they are thus largely unstudied. The next section discusses algorithms for automatically scanning large numbers of HIRES images for potential artifacts.
An alternative algorithm that is simpler and faster was used for the
same purpose. Let M(r) be the probability distribution of the distances
between local minima in brightness along horizontal lines in an image.
M(r) thus provides a measure of the size distribution of image detail.
At long scales, this function can be approximated by the fractal power
law:
(1) |
As artificial objects have some typical size, their presence should
increase the squared residuals of linear regression:
(2) |
where C is a constant. According to empirical results, M(r) of the HIRES
images can be approximated by a power law at r > 4 pixels. The regression
is calculated from 4 < r < 31 pixels (i.e., over a scale range from
50 to 900m).
Images are divided into K=12, 96x96 pixel regions. In each region the
best model parameters are calculated by least squares, and the average
of the squared residuals determined:
(3) |
where k is the number of the test square, gk compensates
for gain variations across the sensor, and N is the number of scales. The
average dispersion is estimated from these regional squared residuals.
An analysis of 733 HIRES images using the 0.75 micrometer filter, from
orbits 112-115 (up to 75 deg. latitude) shows the distribution of residuals
to be Gaussian in form. According to the Student's criterion for K=12 estimates,
if the inequality
(4) |
is true in any test square, this area could be considered as statistically
anomalous with a probability of 0.95.
(5) |
as a measure of artificiality. Unfortunately, the value of the squared
residuals depends on the number of pixels in an image. Therefore, it is
difficult to compare images with different sizes. Moreover, shadows increase
the residuals and generate false alarms. These problems can be resolved
by the non-linear regression:
(6) |
where the 'artificiality parameter' "alpha" is independent of the image
size.
Fig.
3 plots alpha of a random set of images representing the natural lunar
background (crosses), and the set of images containing anomalous objects
(squares). The shadows lead to values of alpha greater than zero, but anomalous
objects have values less than zero. At any Solar zenith angle, Zsun
the anomalous formations have systematically lower alpha than the random
set of HIRES images. The average linear regression relating alpha of the
random set and Zsun is shown as a dashed line where the standard
deviation of the crosses from this regression is 0.0113. A deviation of
3 sigma (solid line) is adopted as a formal criterion for the final selection
of candidate objects.
Fig. 3. Selection of lunar features based on 'artificiality parameter' alpha |
(7) |
characterizes the anisotropy of the image in terms of position angle. To correct for camera effects it is normalized by its average over many images. The anisotropy is smoothed and position angle maxima are found. The maxima are the orientations of lineament groups. If there are 90 deg. ± 10 deg. differences between maxima, the image is classified as interesting.
Fig. 4. The image LHD0331A.062 and a map of relief extremities found by the SCHEME algorithm. |
The lineament orientation of surroundings was estimated by the rectangle
test technique applied to the ultraviolet-visible (UVVIS) camera. The UVVIS
image covers 196 times the HIRES area with the same 0.75 micrometer filter.
Only peaks in the anisotropy (Eq. 7) with statistical significance of greater
than 0.9 were taken into account. If one of the two directions of the rectangular
formation on a HIRES-image is within 10 deg. of any significant UVVIS direction,
the object is not considered as interesting. This test rejects about 60%
of finds.
The images of highest interest are shown in Table
1. (The full set of images are listed in Appendix
with the images of highest interest shown in bold.) The finds in the catalogue
are described as systems of simple quasi-rectangular elements: depressions
(d), furrows (f), quadrangle hills (h), rectangular patterns of craterlets
(p), and ridges (r). Thus, an abbreviation such as 'dr' in the last column
is a system with quasi-rectangular depression(s) and quasi-rectangular
ridges. This method of description is convenient for morphological analysis.
Table 1. Catalogue of highest interest finds | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Concerning the lower-ranked images, it is noted that human activity
sometimes correlates with geological lineaments (e.g. valleys, rivers,
deposits around faults, and others) as mentioned earlier. That is why a
negative result of the geological test does not necessarily indicate a
natural object. A positive result would, however, provide further evidence
of artificiality. Similarly, eroded objects could be of low contrast in
orbital imagery. Their fractal properties might not be significantly different
from background, and so a negative fractal test result could undervalue
the find. For these reasons, all of the finds in Table
1 are of potential interest for lunar archaeological reconnaissance.
Quasi-rectangular patterns of depressions ('wafers') - About
69% of the finds are of this type. A wafer is a cluster of rectangular
depressions with rectangular ridges between them. Such a pattern may be
seen in the example in Fig.
5. Presumably, an isolated, single rectangular depression could be
considered an extreme form of this type. Moreover, there are transitional
forms from rectangular patterns of craterlets to wafers. In Table
1 wafers have descriptions with d, dr, or p elements. The typical size
of a wafer is 1-3 km. The size of a depression in a wafer is 0.1-2 km.
Quasi-rectangular patterns of depressions occur in smooth terrains, e.g.,
between craters, or at the bottom of large-scale craters.
Fig. 5. The example of a wafer find (image LHD5472Q.287). |
Quasi-rectangular lattices of lineaments ('lattices') - These
comprise about 30% of the finds. A lattice is a complex of interlacing,
broken ridges or furrows, which form a quasi-rectangular pattern (Fig.
6). This morphological type is present in Table
1 as complexes of r and/or f elements without d. These lineaments have
a typical width of ~50 m and cover ~1 sq. km. in territory. Lattices occur
on slopes and hill tops, where the regolith layer is thinnest. Apparently,
what we see is subsurface structure rather than some organization of regolith.
Fig. 6. The SAAM processing reveals the lattice pattern on the HIRES image LHD5165R.171. |
Fig. 7. Hollow quadrangle hills with rectangular depressions around them could be lunar embankments. |
Besides wafers and lattices, quadrangle hills are worthy of separate
description (Fig.
7). The hills are located in formations of both morphological types.
The dimensions of such hills are 0.3-1 km. Usually the quadrangle hill
has a craterlet on its top. Sometimes the top depression is so large that
the hill appears hollow. Rectangular depressions around hills are a rarity
on the Moon, but are common for man-made mounds on Earth.
Fig. 8. Wafer examples in evolutionary order, from left to right: (a) LHD0316A.083, (b) LHD0470B.112, (c) LHD5443Q.291, (d) LHD5472Q.287, and (e) LHD5661R.068. |
Fig. 9. Lattice examples in evolutionary order, from left to right: (a) LHD0558B.072, (b) LHD5559Q.279, (c) LHD6749R.318, and (d) LHD6158R.320. |
The lattice evolution could be interpreted in terms of erosion as well
(Fig.
9). Apparently, the first (simplest) stage of a lattice is the quasi-rectangular
system of narrow furrows/cracks (Fig.
9a). The cracks expand (Fig.
9b) and transform into a quasi-rectangular pattern of ridges (Fig.
9c). Fig.
9d shows a quadrangle mesa-like hill surrounded by a ridge system (enhanced
using a high-pass filter). Apparently, such ridges are a relatively stable
aspect of the hill they reside on.
Intact subsurface caverns or very eroded wafers and lattices are almost
invisible in low contrast images. Indeed, some rectangular patterns are
found in the relief-enhanced schemes (Fig.
10). A few elements are discernable in the original images. For example,
the lattice seen in the bottom-right corner of the scheme in Fig.
4 is just barely perceivable in the original image.
Fig. 10. Hidden rectangular patterns on the schemes (local extremities of relief) of HIRES images LHD0146A.210, LHD0331A.062, LHD0558B.072, LHD4691Q.253, LHD5243Q.208, and LHD6158R.320. |
Fig. 11. The air view of the Ancient Assyrian ruins of Assur resemble the lunar lattice in Fig. 6. |
These rectangular systems of depressions and ridges resemble terrestrial
ruins. For example, the patterns in Figures 6 and 10 are similar to the
Ancient Assyrian ruins of Assur [18]
(Fig.11).
For comparison, the detailed fractal test (Section 3.2) is used to compute
the the 'artificiality parameter' (alpha) in Eq. (6) over the random set
of HIRES images (MOON), our finds (FINDS) and a collection of air-space
photos of terrestrial archaeological objects [19],
[20]
(ARCHAEOLOGY). Fig.
12 shows the resultant histograms. It is possible that alpha values
of the lunar finds are shifted towards the geological background because
of the thick regolith cover. Still, some finds have the same alpha values
as terrestrial archaeological sites.
Fig. 12. The artificiality parameter for the lunar background (MOON), the finds, and terrestrial archaeology. |
Many lunar geologists explain rectangular depressions on the Moon in
terms of fractures (structural features) at the surface that were present
before the impact events which formed the craters. We have found compact
groups containing rectangular and round depressions of the same size (Fig.
13). Wafers and lattices appear too localized and regular in form to
be tectonic features or jointing patterns resulting from multiple impacts.
These are reasons to doubt a geological interpretation for all rectangular
formations.
Fig. 13. Argument against the geological fractures: the compact groups of neighbouring rectangular and round depressions of same size (LHD5705R.282 and LHD5814R.295). |
In proposed lunar base concepts, the rectangular patterns of subsurface
constructions would be visible on the surface [21],
[22],
[23].
Such complexes could thus appear as wafer or lattice patterns. Subsurface,
rectangular, multilevel caves are unknown in lunar geology. However, they
are usually considered in modern plans for lunar bases, as are hollow hills
(Fig.
14). Quadrangular and hollow hills on the Moon are thus worthy of attention
as well.
Fig. 14. Modern concept of a lunar base within a hollow hill. Compare with Fig. 7. |
Of course, some or all of our finds could be geological formations.
But the possibility that they could be archaeological features is so important
that it should not be ignored a priori . Ultimately, only human
exploration of the Moon will determine whether these features are artificial
or natural in origin.
The reaction of mainstream science to this study is perhaps the most
interesting result of our project. There is a paradoxical contradiction
between the vision expressed in science fiction and the agendas of scientific
research. Unfortunately, idea of artificial objects on the Moon has been
discredited by sensational press [24].
As a result, serious lunar research is not of interest to editors of scientific
journals or even popular science magazines.
As an experiment, popular reports of our work were submitted to Archeologia
(France), Sky and Telescope (USA), and Spaceflight (UK).
None of them responded. Scientific American (USA) sent inspiring
words: "I found your discussion in the latest META news interesting. Please
let me know how the research progresses in the future... The search for
such artifacts is certainly an important one... As your and other searches
progress, we may want to have an article about the effort." Not even the
hint of interest in extraterrestrial archaeology has yet appeared in Scientific
American .
Correspondence with scientific journals is rather predictable. For example,
the reviewer of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society wrote:
"The problem with Arkhipov's work is that he has not tried to explain his
features in any way other than in terms of alien artifacts... Perhaps the
author could be persuaded to develop his technique and write a paper on
that rather than its use in finding ruins on the Moon?" Archaeologists,
as a rule, don't theorize on natural explanations. They explore in situ
. To find, we must search. Unfortunately, planetary geologists have
no interest in conducting archaeological searches. That is why even discussion
on archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon is taboo for the referees.
The reaction of the SETI community is especially interesting. According
to the director of the SETI Institute, Dr. Seth Shostak, "I think the main
problem with taking serious action in these regards is the lack of funding
and the setting of priorities. This is, alas, always a problem for SETI
as there are still only a rather small number of researchers involved,
and they are presently more disposed to search for signals than for artifacts."
Even followers of E. von Daniken ( Ancient Astronauts Society and
Archaeology, Astronautics & SETI Research Association ) ignore
the Moon. Although the SETI League , Society for Planetary SETI
Research (SPSR), and the Russian SETI Center support these studies,
few scientists dare to search for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence
on the Moon.
Serious interest in archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon is practically
nonexistent in the planetary science community. Yet, as revealed by the
SAAM project, patterns similar to terrestrial archaeological sites do exist
on the Moon. Hopefully, lunar scientists may someday be more willing to
consider the exciting possibility of non-human artifacts on the Moon.
It is shown that computerized archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon
is practical. The proposed methods can be used for more extensive lunar
survey, and for planetary SETI in general.
About 80,000 Clementine lunar orbital images have been processed, and
a number of quasi-rectangular patterns were found in accordance with Sagan's
criterion for the detection of intelligent activity in satellite imagery.
The morphological analysis of these finds leads to the reconstruction of
their evolution in terms of erosion. Two possible evolutionary sequences
can be constructed: 1) the collapse of subsurface quasi-rectangular systems
of caverns, and 2) the erosion of hills with quasi-rectangular lattices
of lineaments. In addition, embankment-like, quadrangle and hollow hills
with rectangular depressions were also observed.
These finds resemble terrestrial archaeological sites and modern lunar
base concepts. It is recommended that they be explored in situ as
possible artifacts.
A catalogue of promising objects for archaeological reconnaissance of
the Moon has been compiled. Whether they prove to be artificial or not,
these features are examples of unusual lunar geology and merit further
study.
Modern science and society are not yet prepared for the archaeological
reconnaissance of the Moon. Nevertheless, a discussion on lunar archaeology
will likely occur following the eventual colonization of our satellite.
Geological interpretations of lunar relief are well known, but we must
take into consideration other possibilities as well.
Acknowledgements
The author is very grateful to Dr. Y.G. Shkuratov for access to the
Clementine CDs. I also thank Dr. M.Carlotto, Dr. J.Fiebag, Dr. T.Van Flandern
and Dr. J.Strange for discussions and support.
Longitude [25]
deg. |
Latitude
deg. |
File [26] | Elements |
11.05 | 89.16 | LHD5814R.295 | d |
13.63 | 85.57 | LHD5741R.295 | d |
16.08 | -76.10 | LHD0480B.030 | f |
20.03 | -81.24 | LHD0395A.160 | p |
20.69 | -79.70 | LHD0159B.293 | dr |
22.50 | 80.63 | LHD5686R.160 | r |
25.38 | 75.50 | LHB5443Q.291 | prf |
28.25 | -76.50 | LHD0132B.290 | dr |
28.35 | 79.10 | LHD5502Q.290 | f |
31.16 | 80.78 | LHD5833R.157 | f |
31.21 | 78.82 | LHD5256Q.293 | d |
32.97 | 79.60 | LHD5538Q.289 | f |
33.55 | 77.27 | LHD5715Q.156 | dr |
33.57 | 77.05 | LHD5713Q.156 | dr |
35.45 | 81.20 | LHD5555R.289 | rfd |
37.00 | 77.58 | LHD5472Q.287 | pr |
37.18 | 79.86 | LHD5525Q.287 | df |
41.93 | -82.88 | LHD0280A.151 | fd |
43.09 | 86.94 | LHD5724R.286 | dr |
44.05 | -75.87 | LHD0445B.151 | r |
51.34 | -83.68 | LHD0233A.147 | f |
53.95 | -83.54 | LHD0287A.146 | rd |
56.88 | 87.01 | LHD5705R.282 | dr |
60.29 | 79.20 | LHD5559Q.279 | d |
60.30 | 85.14 | LHD5636R.280 | p |
108.97 | -76.82 | LHD0412B.127 | rhf |
109.85 | -82.38 | LHD0344A.126 | d |
113.40 | 82.50 | LHD5350R.260 | fdr |
123.50 | 86.07 | LHD5652R.126 | df |
124.55 | -82.47 | LHD0282A.121 | d |
128.05 | 80.00 | LHD5375R.254 | ? |
128.25 | -78.26 | LHD0162B.253 | f |
128.41 | -76.13 | LHD0191B.253 | r |
128.83 | 82.91 | LHD5459R.254 | dr |
130.26 | -82.91 | LHD0073A.252 | d |
130.33 | -82.75 | LHD0274A.119 | rp |
130.52 | 79.32 | LHD4691Q.253 | pf |
130.71 | 80.68 | LHD4722R.253 | dr |
131.20 | -78.77 | LHD0111B.252 | dr |
135.66 | 80.05 | LHD4807R.251 | ? |
137.97 | -84.74 | LHD0276A.116 | dr |
139.41 | -86.30 | LHD0184A.115 | f |
145.91 | 77.84 | LHD5288Q.247 | f |
148.00 | -81.36 | LHD0248A.113 | f |
148.41 | -79.04 | LHD0305B.113 | d |
149.69 | -84.26 | LHD0231A.112 | f |
150.71 | -81.43 | LHD0315A.112 | rd |
151.29 | -77.99 | LHD0415B.112 | d |
151.44 | -76.24 | LHD0470B.112 | pr |
154.36 | 83.95 | LHD6979R.244 | p |
155.35 | 83.91 | LHD5605R.112 | dp |
156.86 | 83.25 | LHD5564R.243 | f |
159.68 | -78.18 | LHD0343B.109 | pr |
164.46 | 76.18 | LHD4993Q.240 | rf |
164.51 | 81.34 | LHD5173R.240 | fd |
166.93 | 89.03 | LHD5643R.114 | dr |
167.15 | 80.91 | LHD5286R.239 | f |
169.86 | 81.35 | LHD5175R.238 | d |
169.87 | 79.18 | LHD5107Q.238 | dr |
171.02 | -81.44 | LHD0095A.238 | p |
179.43 | 89.72 | LHD5696R.248 | fp |
190.15 | -77.39 | LHD0469B.098 | rf |
191.53 | 83.32 | LHD5417R.230 | pr |
191.54 | 83.21 | LHD5416R.230 | r |
192.67 | -80.56 | LHD0308A.097 | r |
192.83 | -81.40 | LHD0096A.230 | dr |
192.90 | -76.89 | LHD0392B.097 | f |
197.24 | 89.46 | LHD5611R.108 | drf |
200.20 | 78.82 | LHD5279Q.227 | dr |
224.67 | -76.57 | LHD0421B.085 | dr |
224.72 | -86.21 | LHD0175A.083 | r |
229.10 | -80.45 | LHD0316A.083 | p |
230.32 | -83.27 | LHD0516A.082 | pd |
232.01 | -76.20 | LHD0210B.215 | f |
232.08 | 86.83 | LHD5588R.217 | fr |
242.82 | 87.26 | LHD5629R.214 | df |
243.37 | 82.05 | LHD5628R.080 | dr |
244.03 | -81.12 | LHD0146A.210 | d |
244.99 | 85.05 | LHD7605R.344 | r |
246.08 | 81.88 | LHD7638R.343 | fh |
246.21 | -82.25 | LHD0142A.209 | dr |
250.58 | -85.48 | LHD0193A.073 | r |
251.14 | -82.54 | LHD0140A.207 | r |
251.65 | 79.76 | LHD5397Q.209 | f |
254.56 | 79.99 | LHD5250Q.208 | f |
254.65 | -80.58 | LHD0148A.206 | r |
258.78 | -77.45 | LHD0558B.072 | f |
261.17 | 86.87 | LHD5466R.208 | dr |
266.18 | -83.86 | LHD0278A.068 | r |
266.42 | 86.58 | LHD5492R.206 | dr |
268.33 | 87.79 | LHD5595R.207 | fp |
269.63 | 85.11 | LHD5650R.072 | d |
269.77 | 87.47 | LHD5521R.206 | dr |
272.70 | 82.72 | LHD5562R.202 | r |
273.41 | 79.55 | LHD5545Q.069 | d |
273.56 | 79.74 | LHD5547Q.069 | d |
281.47 | -82.36 | LHD0273A.063 | fd |
284.08 | 87.80 | LHD5717R.202 | dr |
289.90 | -80.94 | LHD0149A.193 | d |
290.49 | 87.58 | LHD5661R.068 | d |
291.22 | -75.94 | LHD0211B.193 | d |
292.29 | 77.16 | LHD5116Q.194 | d |
292.30 | 77.07 | LHD5110Q.194 | d |
293.74 | -80.73 | LHD0315A.059 | p |
296.28 | -79.60 | LHD0173B.191 | dr |
297.82 | 84.15 | LHD5528R.193 | dr |
300.02 | 79.68 | LHD5345Q.059 | hd |
300.98 | 80.42 | LHD5441R.191 | d |
301.21 | 80.96 | LHD5456R.191 | dr |
301.28 | 85.55 | LHD6749R.318 | r |
301.55 | -86.03 | LHD0082A.320 | h |
301.58 | -88.19 | LHD0119A.052 | r |
306.10 | -77.54 | LHD0387B.055 | dr |
311.45 | 86.05 | LHD6158R.320 | rh |
312.61 | 77.97 | LHD5576Q.054 | dr |
312.73 | 78.18 | LHD5578Q.054 | dr |
312.75 | 78.38 | LHD5579Q.054 | dr |
314.96 | 77.38 | LHD5307Q.053 | dr |
315.05 | 77.60 | LHD5313Q.053 | d |
315.37 | 77.84 | LHD5314Q.053 | d |
318.16 | 79.39 | LHD5862Q.316 | fdr |
320.67 | 79.28 | LHD5916Q.315 | dr |
323.28 | 86.62 | LHD5574R.052 | f |
329.05 | -78.41 | LHD0362B.047 | fd |
338.05 | 86.90 | LHD5972R.308 | d |
341.12 | 81.88 | LHA3621R.307 | dr |
349.97 | 87.33 | LHD5752R.303 | pr |
351.42 | 85.96 | LHD5165R.171 | r |
Публикации с ключевыми словами: SETI
- Луна
Публикации со словами: SETI
- Луна
См. также:
Обсудить
эту публикацию>>
Версия
для печати
Комментарии, вопросы? Пишите: info@astronet.ru
или сюда