Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 8.35 Perspective view
of the GLD100 of Diana ( left
dome ) and Grace ( right
dome ) from southeastern
direction. The vertical axis is
30 times exaggerated
Ta b l e 8 . 2 Comparison of shape from shading-based dome heights obtained by Wöhler et al.
( 2006b , 2007b ) (index 'sfs') and height values inferred from the GLD100 constructed by Scholten
et al. ( 2011 )
Dome
h sfs (m)
h GLD100 (m)
Dome
h sfs (m)
h GLD100 (m)
A2 (Arago α )
330
350
C4
50
51
A3 (Arago β )
270
275
K1 (Kies π )
160
180
C1
25
23
M12 (Milichius π )
230
225
C2 (Cauchy ω )
125
120
Diana
70
80
C3 (Cauchy τ )
190
209
Grace
140
144
The domes Diana and Grace appear in the high-resolution Lunar Topophotomap
LT 61A2S1 (50) (cf. Fig. 8.34 ). 9 For Diana, this topographic map yields an eleva-
tion difference with respect to the surrounding mare plain of 80 m on the western
and 50 m on the eastern flank. The corresponding values for Grace are 100 m on
the western and 140 m on the eastern flank. The GLD100 yields height values of
80 m and 144 m for Diana and Grace, respectively (cf. Fig. 8.35 ). Based on the
telescopic CCD image shown in Fig. 8.21 a, the photoclinometry and shape from
shading analysis yields height values of 70 m and 140 m for Diana and Grace,
respectively, which is in good accordance with the results derived from orbital im-
agery.
For several domes, Table 8.2 provides a comparison between the heights deter-
mined by Wöhler et al. ( 2006b , 2007b ) based on shape from shading analysis using
telescopic CCD images and those inferred from the GLD100. Given the 10 % error
interval derived in Sect. 8.4.3.2 for the shape from shading-based measurements and
the elevation accuracy of the GLD100 of 23 m stated by Scholten et al. ( 2011 ), the
height values are generally consistent.
9 The Lunar Topophotomap series is accessible at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/
topophoto/ .
Search WWH ::




Custom Search