The Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3), a NASA Discovery Mission of Opportunity, was launched October 22, 2008 from Shriharikota in India on board the Indian ISRO Chandrayaan- 1 spacecraft for a nominal two-year mission in a 100-km polar lunar orbit. M3 is a high-fidelity imaging spectrometer with 260 spectral bands in Target Mode and 85 spectral bands in a reduced-resolution Global Mode. Target Mode pixel sizes are nominally 70 meters and Global pixels (binned 2 by 2) are 140 meters, from the planned 100-km orbit. The mission was cut short, just before halfway, in August, 2009 when the spacecraft ceased operations. Despite the abbreviated mission and numerous technical and scientific challenges during the flight, M3 was able to cover more than 95% of the Moon in Global Mode. These data, presented and analyzed here as a global whole, are revolutionizing our understanding of the Moon. Already, numerous discoveries relating to volatiles and unexpected mineralogy have been published [1], [2], [3]. The rich spectral and spatial information content of the M3 data indicates that many more discoveries and an improved understanding of the mineralogy, geology, photometry, thermal regime and volatile status of our nearest neighbor are forthcoming from these data. Sadly, only minimal high-resolution Target Mode images were acquired, as these were to be the focus of the second half of the mission. This abstract gives the reader a global overview of all the M3 data that were collected and an introduction to their rich spectral character and complexity. We employ a Principal Components statistical method to assess the underlying dimensionality of the Moon as a whole, as seen by M3, and to identify numerous areas that are low-probability targets and thus of potential interest to selenologists.
A New Lunar Globe as Seen by the Moon Mineralogy Mapper: Image Coverage Spectral Dimensionality and Statistical Anomalies
KAGUYA/Chandrayaan-1 Cross-Calibration Meeting ; 2010 ; Ahmedabad, India
2010-02-08
Conference paper
No indication
English
ORKG Comparisons | 2021
|