Yes I'm aware that it says "known in the solar system", but there is a LOT of "known" solar system that hasn't been measured, temperature-wise.It says, "most frigid places known in the entire solar system," not "most frigid places in the entire known solar system."
Anyway, here is the language from the NASA science page ( note garbled editing ) : "Diviner has recorded minimum daytime brightness temperatures in portions of these craters of less than 35K (-397° F) in the coldest areas. These are to our knowledge, these super-cold brightness temperatures are among the lowest that have been measured anywhere in the solar system, including the surface of Pluto."
... so it is more tentative than the cited article. Check out the infrared images, though. These are quite remarkable. The darker areas in figure 5 are the supercold spots at the south pole:
Once I went back and re-read that paragraph in the article several times - and naturally
after I posted my comment to you [grin]- I finally got what the scribbler was probably trying to get across. [Professionalism (or at least English literacy) in 'journalism' just seems not to exist any more.]
I guess that "These are to our knowledge, these super-cold brightness temperatures (sic) are among the lowest that have been measured anywhere in the solar system, including the surface of Pluto" as written on the NASA page, when run through the 'semi-literate journalism' filter becomes "This means the shadowed floors within Cabeus and its neighbors are the most frigid places known in the entire solar system (emphasis in original). To my mind, there is a pretty vast difference between the two statements-- and just seems to indicate the writer's incompetence, or at least his desire for sensationalism.
But, anyway...
Another thing that struck me when I was trying to visualize the earth/moon/sun spatial relationship was this: Although we only see one side of the moon because it is tidal locked to our planet, doesn't the 'dark side' face the sun during its rotation around the planet as the planet rotates around the sun? So isn't the 'dark side' of the moon just 'dark' to us- or rather 'unseen' by us, while being illuminated by the sun when it is between earth and the sun?
I guess I will have to go find a good online representation of an orrery, as my spatial visualization seems to be severly lacking in that respect.
Then, after straining what few brain cells I do have left on that, another question arose: Why, when the moon is only 1 AU from the sun are places on it colder than places that are multiple or many AU's away from the sun. Doesn't the radiation fall off with the square of the distance, like light, thus subjecting distant objects to even less warming than what could be gotten closer to the solar furnace, i.e., the moon? I guess it's been too many years since those old college science courses.
Anyway, thanks for that picture. It is amazing. Am I correct in assuming that it was one of the ones taken during the suicide plunge of the LCROSS, since it seems so high rez and detailed?