Where the data comes from
Every layer on the map, which instrument made it, how fine it really is, and what it can't tell you. Almost everything here was sensed from orbit. Only the Apollo and Luna sample sites (a few dozen points) are ground truth.
MeasuredDirectly derived from an instrument reading, calibrated against returned samples where possible.
ModelledComputed from other measurements plus physical assumptions (e.g. where ice could survive). Useful for planning, not proof.
Grid vs footprintA dataset can be gridded finer than the instrument can actually see. Gamma-ray and neutron spectrometers see tens of km at once, so a 15 km grid of them is still blurred over ~45–60 km. On the map, coarse layers are shown as blocky pixels on purpose.
DepthOptical/spectral maps see the top microns to millimetres. Gamma-ray and neutron maps see the top ~0.3–1 m. Nothing from orbit sees the 10+ m a mine would dig.
Terrain and analyses (this project)
Resources: rasters
Loading…
Landmarks and features
Loading…
What we don't have
- Helium-3: no instrument has mapped it from orbit. Published maps (e.g. Fa & Jin 2007) are models built from TiO₂ and soil-exposure proxies, with concentrations of a few to ~30 parts per billion. We left it out rather than draw a model as if it were measured. TiO₂ is the best available proxy.
- Ice depth and purity: neutron data say there's extra hydrogen in the top ~1 m of polar regions. Temperature data say where ice could survive. Neither says how much ice is in a given crater or how deep it goes. That needs landers and drills (e.g. rovers like NASA's VIPER, and drilling landers).
- Lava-tube extents: pits are confirmed openings. How far the tubes extend underground is inferred from gravity (GRAIL) and radar, not mapped.
- Metre-scale hazards: boulders and small craters along routes need LROC NAC imagery (0.5–2 m) and NAC-derived DEMs, which cover only selected areas.