- 22 hours ago
At 32:41, the speaker makes an off-handed comment, “Could be an alien starbase or something, I don’t know” when discussing correlations between experimental data sets.
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:02The areas in black are the total area covered which we obtained from the mission and the areas in red
00:11are the pieces which we missed due to the deletion of the plane change and the day early return.
00:20This little piece down here was an oblique pass which we had planned with the pan camera. It would have
00:27taken place on Rev 72 in order to get photographs of Descendi which is an area of particular interest to
00:35the geology.
00:37So you can see that we did lose some data. On the other hand we did pick up some data
00:42that we would not have gotten and I think overall the effectiveness of the coverage was about 90% of
00:51what we had hoped for pre-mission.
00:54I really want to express the thanks of the photo team to the flight planners here and also to Ken
01:03for his operation of the cameras during the mission.
01:07I know that it was very confusing to be continually changing the flight plan and Ken probably wondered what the
01:15hell we were doing with all these on offs and so on.
01:17But really I think we did a very effective job of recovering almost all of the data that we had
01:27planned for the mission.
01:31May I have the next slide please.
01:34This is a diagram showing what the Apollo 15 coverage was like.
01:40This is the plan coverage for the 16 mission and in the dotted line is the plan coverage for the
01:4817 mission.
01:49The only reason I show this is to indicate that the areas where we did lose data unfortunately are in
01:55the areas that were not covered by 15 and will not be covered by 17.
02:03So that the losses although small were real.
02:06May I have the next slide.
02:10Ken, during the film recovery EVA you reported that the stellar camera glare shield was hung up on the handrail.
02:18I'm not 100% clear as to exactly what that situation was.
02:24This is the stellar camera glare shield and this is a little cover that comes down and covers that when
02:30the mapping camera is retracted.
02:33Maybe you've discussed this with the other people here at the center but for my own information I would like
02:39to know whether this is the cover that was hung up or this is the cover.
02:44Both of them.
02:45Both of them.
02:45The shield at the forward end, that one.
02:48This one?
02:48No, the first one you looked at, yeah.
02:50That was sticking up.
02:51That was sticking up.
02:53Uh-huh.
02:53Yeah.
02:53But the tip out here was mashed against the handrail.
02:57Mashed against the handrail out in along here.
02:59Yeah.
03:00The rail isn't in this picture.
03:01The rail is not installed.
03:02It would have been along here.
03:03That's right.
03:04And this lip was up against it and bent back out of the way.
03:07I see.
03:08It was not in a full extend position.
03:10It looked like it was a partial extension.
03:11Uh-huh.
03:12Could you tell whether this was bent, whether this rail was bent, this extend rail?
03:19No, but I think we have a photo that will probably tell you that.
03:21I don't remember.
03:22The end of the shield was bent.
03:24Now, whether that rail...
03:25Up here.
03:26No.
03:26Here.
03:27Yeah, in the next section of the accordion.
03:29The next section was bent.
03:30Now, whether that rail itself was bent, I didn't notice.
03:34The implication, of course, is that if this had happened early in the mission and this shield were bent down,
03:40we might get excessive light into the stellar camera and our background density would be lower,
03:47or would be higher than we expected, and we might not see as many stars.
03:52The other indication of malfunction that we had, of course, was in the exposure control on the pan camera,
04:00and that would indicate that the pictures away from the terminal may be overexposed.
04:08That situation is also being looked at, and again, we're going to talk about it this afternoon before we actually
04:13process the film.
04:14May I have the next slide?
04:17This is the information which I have with regard to the laser altimeter operation.
04:24The first row across here is what the nominal mission would have been, and the second row is the actual
04:32results from the Apollo 16.
04:34We had planned a total of 20 hours and a few minutes of operating time.
04:39We got 14 hours and a half, so that we are down about 25% in the total operating time.
04:47This is the total revolutions in longitude that we had planned, 10.3, and we got 7.5, so again,
04:55we're down about 25% in that regard.
05:00A total number of firings, 3283 and 2106 is the actual number that was recorded, so we are down nearly
05:1130% in the total number of firings.
05:15Also, the number of valid elevation readings that we got was appreciably less than the total number of firings,
05:25so that the actual mission, in terms of altimeter observations, gave us a little bit less than half of what
05:34we had actually planned.
05:35Now, that's really not as serious a shortfall as it sounds just from the numbers, because the readings were quite
05:46well distributed throughout the mission.
05:47The general operation that we saw on the altimeter, the first several revs were completely nominal.
05:56All of the elevation readings were valid.
05:58Then it began to fall off about 75%, 65%, and down to about 60%, except on the last data pass
06:06on rev 62, where it was only about 10% effective.
06:14Generally, what we seem to observe is that there would be one good shot, then one bad shot, then one
06:20good, one bad, and then maybe several good ones in a row.
06:24So we can talk about the reason for that, but that's more appropriately covered in the systems review tomorrow.
06:34The effect that it will have on the data is simply to give us a larger spacing between data points.
06:41So far as its effect on the reduction of the photography is concerned, that's absolutely inconsequential.
06:49So far as its effect on the correlation between the tracking and gravity data and the profiles, it's a little
06:58bit more of concern.
07:00They do have a little bit more smoothing to do between the data points that they got,
07:04but essentially I don't think that it really hurts us so far as the scientific return from the mission is
07:10concerned.
07:11I would like to say just a word or so about the utilization of the photography.
07:19It has been proceeding much more slowly than I had anticipated in reducing the pictures from Apollo 15.
07:28However, the work which is being done by the ACIC in St. Louis is indicating that the photography, photographic reduction,
07:37will provide positional coordinates of features on the lunar surface with the accuracy of 10 to 12 meters in position
07:47and in elevation.
07:48And that seems to coincide very well with what we had predicted pre-mission.
07:53So we are quite confident that we are getting very good information from the pictures in that regard.
08:02The tracking data generally is consistent within an orbital pass,
08:08but we do find discrepancies of up to a kilometer between adjacent photographic passes.
08:16So that the reduction of the photographs is giving us a much better tie between orbital passes than we get
08:25from the tracking data itself.
08:28Consequently, we do expect eventually to come up with an internally consistent coordinate system,
08:35reference system, figure of the moon with an accuracy on the order of 12 to 15 meters.
08:40That's highly gratifying to me.
08:43So far as the pan camera utilization is concerned, there have been some map compilations done.
08:53The indicated precision of those is on the order of 3 meters, which again is about what we had expected.
09:00But that is a precision and not an accuracy number because of the geometric problems with the pan camera photography.
09:08However, so far as the resolution of the pan camera is concerned, that has held up to just about what
09:13we had expected,
09:15from one and a half to three meters at the sub-vehicle point and decreasing off to about five to
09:21six meters at the limits of the film.
09:25So far as our indications at the moment are that the results from 16 are quite satisfactory,
09:34we do have these problems that we have to resolve in the processing of the film.
09:39And once that is done, we will be able to say exactly what we did obtain.
09:44But again, I want to express the photo team's thanks to you particularly, Ken, for the time and attention that
09:53you gave to the camera operation
09:55and the results that we have obtained.
09:59Thanks, Fred. Any questions before?
10:01Do you have a plot of the altimetry?
10:04You know, last time someone had drawn up a rough hand sketch of the altimetry.
10:10Did anyone do that this time?
10:11The profiles?
10:12Yes, sir.
10:12No, I don't, Ken.
10:13I think maybe Sjogren has one of those.
10:18Is he here?
10:18Bill?
10:19Yeah, Bill.
10:19Do you have a plot?
10:21Yeah, I thought you had one.
10:22Okay.
10:22He'll show that.
10:24These are particles that you found in the mapping camera.
10:28Is that handfuls or a couple of shavings?
10:32I don't know how extensive they were.
10:37They were enough to concern the people in the processing lab.
10:45All I know, that's about all that I know about it.
10:47We're supposed to have a review of that this afternoon.
10:50It could have very serious implications, obviously.
10:56One thing that I seem to recall during the mission is that we had apparently more film
11:05left for post-TEI photography than we had anticipated.
11:09And what that could mean, of course, is that the camera was not passing film when we thought
11:15it was, and things were being chewed up pretty badly inside.
11:18So we're going to have to look that over very carefully before we go ahead with the processing
11:24of the film.
11:25We expect the camera contractor to look at the shavings and tell us where he thinks they
11:32came from, and that may give us a better clue as to what they actually are.
11:36Do you have a processing schedule yet?
11:38I guess it's all in advance.
11:40Yeah, everything is in a hold until this afternoon, yeah, after our meeting this afternoon.
11:44Assuming you determined to go ahead and develop it, will it take you three or four days to
11:48process?
11:49Yeah, yeah.
11:50I think the anticipated schedule was to have the original film processed within this week
11:57and all of the duplicate copies within four weeks distributed.
12:02What is the accuracy of the altimeter?
12:05The least count of the altimeter is one meter.
12:10The accuracy is dependent pretty much upon the slope in the area which is illuminated and
12:20a little bit on the albedo in the area which is illuminated.
12:25In general, I think it's fair to say that the reading that we get from the altimeter will
12:30be correct to within three to five meters.
12:37Have you figured out what to do with the pan camera for processing?
12:41Got a correction for the exposure?
12:43For the overexposure?
12:45I don't know what has been figured out.
12:47We had a group working on it last week and they're going to give us a report right after
12:50this meeting and decide what to do.
12:52Yeah, I could comment.
12:54The photo lab has made their recommendation, you know, brought back
12:58personally and they think that there will be some flight loss in the other
13:03generator if they could do that.
13:06In other words, that they can handle the over exposure.
13:10But at some penalty where we have no right.
13:22The situation is really that near the terminator the pictures are underexposed anyhow because
13:28we can't open the slit wide enough and so on.
13:31So the camera was wide open at the terminator but it was open wider than it should have been
13:37when we were away from the terminator so that the terminator pictures are a little bit underexposed
13:42then they become properly exposed and after that they will be overexposed.
13:50So what we would really like, of course, is a variable processing through each photo pass
13:55but that's probably not a feasible thing to even contemplate.
14:03Thanks, Fred.
14:05The next subject will be the particles and fields of the subsatellite
14:08and I think Jim McCoy is going to cover that. Is he here?
14:12Yeah.
14:14Oh, there he is.
14:26We got a mic right up there.
14:28Can we have anything at all?
14:31Yeah, they'll project it up there in the back booth if you want to.
14:35Dick?
14:37Where's Baldwin?
14:38Could you get this projected up there?
15:08Okay, can you hear me okay?
15:10Okay. I guess quickly, the subsatellite was deployed successfully.
15:19Our spin rate was nominal, about 5 and 8 second spin period.
15:25We want five, plus or minus a couple.
15:28The attitude was good.
15:31According to preliminary indications from the sun sensor,
15:34we have a couple of degrees tip off from the ecliptic,
15:38which is well within the limits we needed.
15:42The operation of all of the electrostatic analyzers
15:47and both solid-state telescopes is good.
15:51We don't seem to have the noise problem that we had on Apollo 15
15:57and a couple of the analyzers.
16:00And we've gotten rid of our accumulator counting error,
16:04the characteristic of 15.
16:05And it's given us some problems in our data analysis now from that satellite.
16:13The quick-look results on our first magnetotail pass indicated, again,
16:19the presence of these rather, is unexpected, rather high fluxes of low-energy protons,
16:28which have also been seen now with a new IMP series I satellite experiment, too.
16:37And on this magnetotail pass, we appear to have the remnants of a small solar event
16:44in the form of some high-energy solar cosmic ray electrons and protons around,
16:52which should prove interesting for our shadow interpretation,
16:57particularly on electric fields in the magnetotail.
17:03Beyond that, if they have those slides there,
17:06I'd like to briefly describe some of the results we got from Apollo 15,
17:12which would hope to be similar for this one.
17:17Our primary experiment was to examine particle shadow configurations in the magnetotail
17:27that, meanwhile, we're passing through this region back here
17:31where we are in the Earth's magnetic field,
17:35and use that to examine the question of openness and access through the magnetotail
17:44to the magnetic field lines and, ultimately, to the Van Allen belts,
17:51where theory generally holds that the Van Allen radiation must somehow come in
17:57and then be trapped and exhilarated.
18:01The degree of connection back here with the interplanetary field
18:06has been in quite a bit of question.
18:09And briefly stated, the Apollo 15 results indicate pretty clearly
18:15that, at least most of the time, at the latitudes where we pass through the tail,
18:22of course, we only have a couple of passes,
18:24that these field lines are, in fact, open out here,
18:30connect directly into the interplanetary field,
18:34and have direct access of solar cosmopolite particles.
18:40We have also observed the existence of a plasma sheet,
18:47which is known to form in closer to the Earth
18:50to extend out to the Moon's distance.
18:55And on at least a couple of occasions,
18:58we have observed cross-tailed electric fields,
19:02which are important to theoretical models
19:08accounting for aurora
19:11and for acceleration of particles into the radiation belts.
19:16An unexpected observation, which we found interesting,
19:23was 30 kV or thereabouts protons in very large numbers,
19:29which we observed quite frequently back in the magneto tail
19:33and also observed outside the magneto tail in very similar fluxes.
19:38Our first feeling was that these must also be some component
19:46of the solar cosmic ray proton spectrum.
19:50They're, of course, very low energy.
19:54It would be stopped by even the thinnest piece of material.
19:58But the numbers of them and the consistency of their flux densities
20:05make them very attractive as probably being indicative,
20:10quite indicative of the source that they come from
20:13and the mechanism bringing them.
20:16Further examination, however, of the locations where we see them
20:21and of the almost constant intensities that we see
20:28almost force us to the conclusions
20:31that they must somehow be protons
20:33from the outer Van Allen belt region here,
20:37which are somehow coming loose from the Earth's field
20:43and moving outward
20:46and then getting on to the interplanetary fields
20:50and then moving out to where we see them
20:52in perhaps an inverse process
20:56of the postulated process
21:00where we bring solar cosmic ray particles in from the sun
21:04to populate the Van Allen belts initially.
21:09We're anxiously awaiting getting our data
21:12and now our computer program is at Berkeley in shape
21:17where we can examine this in detail.
21:19We've unfortunately been delayed in that.
21:24If I have the next slide,
21:26I'll show you one orbit of data from the telescopes
21:30when these very steady fluxes of protons were present.
21:38And during this period,
21:40and actually for a period of a couple of orbits earlier,
21:45these fluxes were almost constant.
21:48There is some changing here.
21:51There is a very, very slight shadowing of protons,
21:55not very much at all.
21:56This is mostly an electron phenomenon.
21:59But then these particles essentially turn off
22:03as though somebody closed a valve.
22:06And this is characteristic of the way they behave.
22:10When they appear, they're suddenly there.
22:12And when they disappear, they're gone just as fast.
22:20And we're very hopeful that we'll be able to make some sense
22:25out of what turns these things on and off
22:28and determine where they're coming from
22:32and what the mechanism is
22:34and presumably now in the magnetosphere.
22:42Okay, I think I'll just throw it open to any questions now.
22:47Okay.
22:49What is the lifetime estimate of the 16th?
22:53I wish you hadn't brought that up.
22:57The next speaker will get that for us.
23:00We had been very hopeful of getting another dozen
23:03or a couple of dozen Magutacal passes out of this satellite
23:06since it works so beautifully.
23:11I think we're going to cover that.
23:13Chris said it was going to stay up there forever, so it better.
23:19If it doesn't crash, we also will.
23:23Then the world's going to come to an end pretty shortly.
23:27We'll see.
23:27Any other questions about particles and fuels?
23:31Okay, let's continue on with subsatellite.
23:33We didn't say anything about it.
23:35I assume that our satellite is sending out good data.
23:39Is batteries charging okay and everything?
23:42It's not running into the problem that the 15 guys had,
23:46or was that normal for the...
23:48It seems to be a little bit better.
23:51The machine is working.
23:53Okay, and all the detectors are operating.
23:55As far as we know, yeah.
23:58It's just that it's got a short lifetime.
24:00Okay, let's see.
24:01I think Larry Sharp is going to take Coleman's place, right?
24:08Magnetometer.
24:09The objectives of the magnetometer experiment are essentially three-fold.
24:13First is to measure and map the remnant magnetism on the lunar surface.
24:18Second is to map the electrical conductivity of the lunar interior.
24:22We finally study the various aspects of the moon's interaction with fields and particles in its environment.
24:28The wide scope of these objectives is made possible by the geometry of the moon's orbit
24:33as it passes through three fundamentally different regions of space.
24:37For example, to get the spatial variations of remnant magnetism on the lunar surface,
24:44one must be in the geomagnetic tail,
24:46where the temporal variations are almost absent in the magnetic field.
24:51It's a very steady situation.
24:53The initial orbit of the subsatellite was somewhat lower than a POW-15
25:00in the inclination of about 11 degrees instead of 28.
25:04And I'd like to show you the predictions of the orbit.
25:16Right over that side.
25:17On the backside.
25:19Back side over.
25:38Okay, we've plotted days past deployment versus the parallel altitude.
25:45We started out here in pretty good shape, about 97 kilometers, or 97 by 123, I guess.
25:51And the prediction was a very rapid drop down to 30-some.
25:57Back up in good shape.
25:58No real trouble until, here's the ground line,
26:04until about 200 days when the probability was 50-50 of a crash.
26:09Here are the error bars here.
26:10You can say the probability was maybe one chance in 10 of a crash here,
26:14and maybe one chance in 5.
26:15We've updated this plot.
26:29And the odds have changed considerably.
26:32This was the prediction.
26:34Notice the timescale has been expanded greatly.
26:38These are hours now instead of days.
26:40Here was the initial prediction at 37 kilometers,
26:47and here are the actual data points.
26:49This one was taken this morning, around in here.
26:52And if you can extrapolate by eye, it looks like we have about four days left.
26:57I guess Bill Sogren's taking 50-50 odds that it will crash if anyone's in the betting mood.
27:02It's possible it will skim the surface and come back out.
27:05But even if we make it through this one, that next dip is going to probably finish us off,
27:12which is most unfortunate.
27:14It might be out of your field, but how come our prediction didn't match the actuality?
27:25We don't know the gravity field that well, and that's the business of this subsatellite initially to determine the gravity
27:32field.
27:33You're going to tell that, though, I think.
27:34Right.
27:37And we've been speaking like it about these paths that don't go long out here at MSC to try to
27:44drive that point home so many times,
27:46and I think we're really seeing it come.
27:50It just goes to show you can't redo six months of planning in two days.
27:57Well, in any event, we have one month's worth of good data, which will add to our Apollo 15 results.
28:04And to get some idea of what we're doing with this data, I'd like to show the first slide,
28:09which represents an average of 17 different orbits taken when the moon was in the Earth's magnetotail.
28:19And we've plotted the moon's longitude along the horizontal and the magnetic field in gammas along the vertical.
28:29These numbers are representative of the Earth's tail field.
28:33And, of course, if you subtract out an average value, this residual would represent the lunar surface field.
28:40And, of course, the big result is this really huge magnetic dip going over the Vondegraaff crater or a region
28:49right near the Vondegraaff crater.
28:52Also, the other initial result we got out of 15 data was that most of the dips in the magnetic
28:58field seem to be clearly associated with craters
29:00lying within a few degrees of the ground track defined by the orbit of the subsatellite.
29:05We've numbered the seven most obvious local minima and named five of them with associated craters.
29:14Initial results from Apollo 16 show the same type of structure, although we don't see anything as big as Vondegraaff.
29:21We do go over Korolev again.
29:23That's where the orbits intersect when we're in the tail.
29:26And we see a few other Hertzsprung and Pavlov-type bumps.
29:32One is with a little tiny crater called Stein and one near Mendeleev.
29:40Now, if you repeat this procedure several times with different lunations, say you cover different tracks over the moon,
29:47and this allows a contour map to be made.
29:49So if I could have the next slide, this shows the ground track from where we found the anomaly.
29:59Here was one over Hertzsprung, Korolev.
30:02Here's Vondegraaff.
30:03You can see we went right close to the northern border, Pavlov, and one over Milne.
30:08So it was a pretty good one-to-one correspondence with large craters.
30:14The initial 11 orbit, of course, is much near the equator.
30:19The inclination goes up to plus or minus 11.
30:22So we saw one over Korolev, and Stein crater is located right about here.
30:27It's not too big.
30:29The next map shows a compilation of a lot of these linear profiles.
30:33Next slide.
30:34Into a contour map.
30:38It's a little hard to read the contours.
30:41You can see this big black blotch here is a result of contours stacked on top of each other
30:47near this Vondegraaff anomaly.
30:50You can see the numbers are hard to make out.
30:55You can see the structure over Korolev, a hint of some structure over Hertzsprung,
31:01and the southern sea over here is actually an enhancement sticking out of the moon, so to speak.
31:07You can see Milne shows a definite structure.
31:10Now, the Apollo 16 results should enable us to expand this map.
31:15We'll get better resolutions throughout this area and be able to extend it along in here.
31:20We'll probably still have a gap down in this region.
31:22Harry, can you give us an idea of a gradient you're measuring there?
31:25Oh, yes.
31:26Okay.
31:28The numbers presented in the chart, if you can see them, are measured in tenths of gamma at an altitude
31:34of 100 kilometers.
31:36So, for example, a good representative value is about 30,
31:40and the zero we've arbitrarily chosen at the bottom of the Vondegraaff dip,
31:44since this is the lowest value of magnetism we observed.
31:48We just call it zero and scale everything relative to it.
31:51So, if you're at 100 kilometers, you'll see a three-gamma dip going over Vondegraaff on the average.
31:59Well, we were fortunate, also the near side of the moon.
32:04Does the gravity profile have any, can you correlate?
32:08I've looked at the gravity profile, and it doesn't seem to correlate at all.
32:14Well, actually, the laser data correlates better with, you don't, there's no gravity on the back side, okay,
32:19but on the front side.
32:20Yeah, I understand.
32:22It correlates pretty well with the laser data, which shows a great big hole here in the back side of
32:26the moon
32:27around Vondegraaff, and that's where we get our big hole,
32:28but I can't see any scientific justification for connecting the two results.
32:34I will add, let me remind you of the gamma ray.
32:36Yes, that's right.
32:37The secondary peak is also in Vondegraaff.
32:39I don't know what it means.
32:40It could be an alien star base or something.
32:43Anyway, the next slide shows the front side of the moon, and it's upside down.
32:52The thing to contrast is the much smoother nature.
32:55Could we do a 180 on the slide, please?
33:05Can you hear me?
33:07Could we have you?
33:07Could you turn the slide around, please?
33:11Oh, he's on a coffee break.
33:12Okay, all right.
33:15Anyway, the front side of the moon is much, much smoother than the back side.
33:19The variations are, oh, an order of a factor of 10 smooth.
33:24We don't see very much structure at all.
33:25It's very hard to even draw contours.
33:34Can you sort out the differences in that and the effects of running through the Earth's magnetic field effects?
33:42Since the front side is always close to the Earth, can you sort out?
33:49Are we really measuring magnetic variations on the back side caused by being on the back side, not due to
33:55our measuring environment?
33:57Oh, right.
33:58The Earth's tail field is very, very constant when you're in the good second, when you're away from the neutral
34:04sheet, and that's where all this data is taken.
34:08Well, I guess we never got the front slide complete.
34:12Okay, this is a blowup of the Van de Graaff region in an attempt to pinpoint the exact source of
34:18this large anomaly.
34:20We kind of suspected it was over the crater itself, since we had always put forth a theory that what
34:26we were actually observing in these dips was some sort of a meteorite impact that caused a rather uniformly magnetized
34:33crust to suddenly have holes in it,
34:35and we're seeing the equivalent dipole of what was left over, and this kind of shoots holes in the theory.
34:41We see this is the BX component, which is the radial component, and a plus number indicates a value sticking
34:48into the moon.
34:49So we see this rather large hole here magnetically in between two craters, and if you look at various models
35:01of double dipoles and stuff, it just doesn't quite fit.
35:04The other components, B sub Y and B sub Z, show that it can't be one of these angling dipoles
35:10from the crater, and presently we're now conducting the same sort of studies over the rest of the anomalies to
35:17see if it checks out.
35:18I just yesterday completed the one over Korolev, and that one is right in the middle of the crater, which
35:24is promising for this Shakti magnetization theory.
35:33How much validity do we have in the ephemers?
35:40How much validity do we have in the ephemers?
35:44I understand there's no chance that we could be off by...
35:47Oh, never, anything like that.
35:48It might be off a kilometer or two, like I said.
35:59So it doesn't seem much chance.
36:03We'll get maybe one more as the subsatellite comes crashing down to the moon.
36:07The last 10 kilometers should give us a good swath of data, which will give us another high-resolution plot
36:13like this.
36:14But other than that, we're kind of out of luck.
36:20Okay.
36:22Okay, thank you.
36:24Question?
36:26Okay.
36:29There's the front side of the moon.
36:31Okay, and our coverage from Apollo 11 will extend.
36:35Yeah, I believe this is the equator across here.
36:42Oh, I'm sorry.
36:43Okay, this is zero degrees.
36:45Okay, I'm going to go from zero to 90 east to 90 west.
36:48It's the terminator.
36:49This is the southern sea region, which is about the only distinctive feature on the front side, per se,
36:53and even that's on the terminator.
36:55And again, these are relatively high values of magnetic fields sticking out of the moon.
37:00So you might say that the southern sea is a highly magnetized region.
37:05Notice the 16th site is out of our coverage, as were all the Apollo landing sites.
37:12You have about three gamma delta on the back side.
37:16What are we seeing on the front side?
37:18Well, most of these values are about 30, 28, 27,
37:22which means they're all three gamma higher than that zero at Vandegraaff.
37:26So I would say the maximum plus or minus is about a half a gamma on the whole front side.
37:31Why do you remember these elongate parallel to the track?
37:36This is a function of not having quite enough data.
37:40Instead of making physical-looking contours, we drew actual contours with the data.
37:45And obviously, if there's a little bit of offset from one orbit to the next,
37:48it's going to result in elongated contours.
37:51If we fixed this up and made some intelligent-looking guesses,
37:56they would be much more circular.
37:59Do you have a data on the Apollo 12 and the 15th and the 16th surface data?
38:07Yes, with 12, 14, 15, yes.
38:09How do you compare it with the information of the surface data?
38:13Well, you see, the surface data deals with much smaller scale-sized phenomena.
38:19And so there's really no one-to-one correlation.
38:22I suppose that the whole 12 size is supposed to be a large scale in several kilometers.
38:32Well, if we could be sure that over a region of 100 kilometers,
38:36that the average field was 38 gamma, which no one would bet on,
38:40then we could make some interesting predictions about other places on the moon.
38:45But I suspect if you went down to Apollo 12 and went 100 meters away,
38:49you'd find a much different value in a magnetic field.
38:52We know this is the case.
38:52Look at Apollo 14.
38:54They went one kilometer, and they went from 43 gamma to 103 gamma.
38:57So who's to say what's a representative value for the magnetic field in a given area?
39:05Apollo 15, they saw a steady field of 6 plus or minus 4 gamma,
39:10which is essentially zero.
39:11But there again, you know, behind the next boulder, probably would be 100 gamma, probably, you know.
39:18And the results on 16, I thought, were tremendous.
39:21The tremendous gradients they got between one place and another.
39:24That 313 gamma field really surprised me as far as getting a value that large.
39:34Yes?
39:35Have you seen any distinctive features about the correlate,
39:40which might make you think that it was, say, a hard spot that would have been
39:46near the surface and the necessary soil covering,
39:53which would change the surface temperature at that point, which would then change?
39:59No, I'm not a geologist type.
40:12It would seem to me that the younger a crater was,
40:15the more chance it would have to produce a good, clean-cut signature on the magnetic field data.
40:24For example, Van de Graaff itself looked like a fairly young crater
40:26because there's very few secondary craters in the bottom of it.
40:30So it looks fairly young, whereas things like Hertzsprung seem to be fairly old.
40:36They're well-blotched with secondary craters.
40:40What is the distance from the center of Van de Graaff to the center of the homily?
40:45It's 80 kilometers from the northern rim.
40:48So from the center of Van de Graaff, it's about 130, 140 kilometers.
40:57Any other questions?
40:59Okay, thank you, Larry.
41:00And, yeah, got a question?
41:03No.
41:04Last subject will be the transponder.
41:06Bill Sogan?
41:09Bill Sogan?
41:15Bill Sogan.
41:17Bill Sogan?
41:35This is a gravity experiment, and we monitor the gravity by just monitoring the velocity
41:43of the spacecraft or the LEM or the subsatellite. Of course, on this particular mission, we lost our LEM data
41:53on impact
41:54because it started cumbling, and so that data was lost. We do, however, have the CSM in the low-altitude
42:02orbit,
42:03which is very interesting data.
42:27Here's the orbital track, and hopefully I can get this aligned about like that.
42:36This profile just below it is the gravity anomaly that was detected.
42:43This line right here represents zero gravity center isostatic equilibrium,
42:50and anything below it, of course, that would be negative gravity deviations.
42:56Here we are at Ptolemaeus going essentially over the center with the track,
43:02and we can see the large negative anomaly again at almost 100 milligals.
43:08Here we see some highland material where we have a positive.
43:13Then we drop down into a relative low in between these two old craters,
43:18Hipparchus and Albatagnius, and then a high in here.
43:22At this point, this is Descartes landing site, and we're actually at about 50 milligal negative anomaly in that region.
43:31There's some nice correlations here with the laser altimeter measurements.
43:36I'll show them in the next profile.
43:39But this is continuous. I've just taken one small section here.
43:42We have this thing from limb to limb, so about 110 longitude plus to 110 minus.
43:52And essentially, three revs from rev 3 through rev 11.
43:59It's about eight revs.
44:00Eight revs of data that are pretty good.
44:03And then they started their station keeping, and data kind of got garbaged up a lot
44:08with all the maneuvering that was going on.
44:14Let me point out one kind of interesting thing here.
44:19Notice that Ptolemaeus here has an anomaly much lower than Nubium.
44:23Although Nubium, which is this region right in here, this Marinubium right in here,
44:28is still at about minus 50 milligals.
44:41Here's an altimeter profile, and going right to the Nubium Ptolemaeus region again,
44:50we see that Nubium elevation here is some, by the way, the scale here is 2 kilometers per heavy line.
44:58So we've dropped down here almost 2 kilometers from the floor of Ptolemaeus to the floor of Nubium.
45:04Yet the gravity anomaly is just the opposite.
45:09The Ptolemaeus is some 50 milligals lower than the Nubium region.
45:15And another interesting point is, Fred, on these ACIC maps, Nubium is shown a kilometer higher than Ptolemaeus.
45:24And here we are 2 kilometers lower.
45:27So we're talking about 3 kilometers of discrepancy in just that little area right there.
45:31So I think some of these guys were talking about the right thing when they said we really didn't know
45:35the altitudes too well.
45:37I think that shows up quite dramatically when you look at the low sun angle view as you approach the
45:46Terminator.
45:46The things that were in Nubium didn't show up until significantly after we anticipated.
45:53We missed our times on those things a great deal, and that could only be called by having a discrepancy
45:58in our relative heights.
45:59Yeah, this is not just, this is Rev 28.
46:02We've looked that there are 5 real good tracking, laser tracking passes over this region.
46:08And we've looked at 3 of them, and all 3 show the same consistency of the drop there.
46:13Another interesting thing here, Procolorum, Tranquilitatis, Fecunditatis,
46:18they all seem to be about on the same level.
46:21Smithii, again, being the low, about 4.5 kilometers.
46:24That was the same thing on Apollo 15 when we passed over it.
46:27It was some 4.5 kilometers below this mean radius here.
46:31And we're still referencing this to a 1738, well, 0.1, radius off the CG.
46:40If you take this stuff and start fitting it to an optical center with a CG offset,
46:49that you do indeed get the 2-kilometer shift again of the CG being closer to the Earth by some
46:552 kilometers.
46:57Let's say that Tranquility is about 2.5 kilometers lower than Descartes?
47:02That's right. Yeah.
47:04And here's the landing site right in here.
47:05And this is, we had a negative gravity anomaly in here.
47:09Well, kind of according to this, maybe that's the situation because it looks like a topographic lobe.
47:17Yeah.
47:27This is the back side.
47:29We had some, these are the limbs where the data was missing.
47:32These are taken from those, this data is taken from that Thrift printout that we get in real time.
47:37And there's some gaps in the data.
47:39These will be filled in once they get the station tapes delivered.
47:43But we can see the crater Hertz sprung here very evidently with the central peak or something in it.
47:49You don't have any data in that 100, 120 degree region?
47:55Not now.
47:55Of course.
47:56We should have it next week or so whenever they get the tapes here reduced.
48:03One of the things that, well, on Apollo 15 there was a definite, well, centered about 180.
48:10There was a definite big trough in here which went down about some 4.5 kilometers.
48:16It was very jagged, but it was centered just about here.
48:19And on Apollo 16 now we do not really see that.
48:22We see this highland material here which we had on 15.
48:28That started about in here and showed a marked high region in there.
48:34And this is holding on 16 also.
48:37So this is kind of consistent with 15.
48:44Here's another, this is orbit 38 on the back side.
48:48I'll just kind of lay it there to show you some of the consistency.
48:53This is 10 orbits later.
48:55And the profile is almost there, Smith the eye.
48:59And, oh, here we have some data in that.
49:02So there's, there's your data.
49:05Okay.
49:06I don't know.
49:07All right.
49:07Were you looking for some particular feature right in here?
49:09Or something around 105.
49:11105.
49:19Not particular.
49:20Okay.
49:25I do have some data on the subsatellite from Apollo 15, but I don't know if that's the time to
49:30really show here.
49:31I think I've shown enough stuff on 16, huh?
49:33Yeah.
49:33Well, I'd like to stick to 16.
49:35Yeah.
49:36Any of the problems we have or any of the data that we got for the crew.
49:39Well, I'm very happy with all the data we've gotten on 16.
49:43And the subsatellite on 16, like Larry mentioned just before me, looks pretty grim.
49:51Although, there was an OD solution just run out about, oh, an hour ago, where the last state vector was
49:58used as the position for running out the lifetime program.
50:06And the lifetime program, if we believe that 15-8 model that we had used initially back there when we
50:12injected that thing, says that this thing should come back up.
50:16Still says it's not going to crash.
50:19But, uh...
50:20This will be a very interesting thing to watch in the next couple of days, I can say.
50:24That's all right.
50:24All the seismometers are up and ready.
50:27Well, it's just...
50:30I asked Kovach about that, and I don't know whether he can speak for length or not, but...
50:35I told him it's 50 pounds and whether he can actually see an impact of 50 pounds.
50:41I think that's all it weighs.
50:43The central station?
50:46Uh...
50:48Let's see, it should hit about maybe some 20 or 30 degrees west longitude and 5 or 6 degrees north.
50:56Is that right, Dick?
50:58Something like that.
50:59About 5 or 6 north latitude and about 30 west.
51:02That's...
51:03That's what it looks like.
51:04That linear extrapolation.
51:06Okay.
51:07That's...
51:10Well, thank you, Bill.
51:12Thank you, gentlemen, for attending.
51:14This concludes our scientific debrief.
51:17And I'd like to thank the crew for giving their time up to come on over to give us some
51:21information and also learn some things of what happened.
51:24Okay, let me say something for the crew.
51:27I want to commend Ken for the way that he operated the sim bay.
51:31I don't think you'll ever find a guy who's either more interested in it or more aware of what the
51:37operational problems were and who could do a better job.
51:41He really did an outstanding job, and I think he's well done.
51:44The other thing I'd like to say is since I've been on this program, I've been continually impressed with the
51:50importance of what we're doing in our support of you guys.
51:56These experiments, they look way out right now, and they're difficult for the man in the street to relate to.
52:04But my feeling is from some of the things I've seen here and from the thrust of science and technology
52:12in this country that in our lifetime,
52:14and I won't want to say when, but I imagine it's going to be a damn sight sooner than anybody
52:20even here in this room can imagine.
52:22There are going to be practical applications of some of these discoveries that have been made that will affect every
52:27one of us.
52:28And I think you're to be congratulated.
52:30The other thing is that I get out of all this that I think the United States ought to be
52:33spending two to three times the amount of money that we are spending on basic research and development and applied
52:39research and development.
52:40And I think that if you really look at the big picture of our energy requirements for clean energy in
52:46the future,
52:47in order to improve the life of human beings on this planet, we ought to do that and get on
52:51with it.
52:58During the next couple of months, we'll probably have an opportunity to talk to a lot of people
53:07that help to have some influence or shape the pattern of our program and related programs.
53:15And I would appreciate it very much.
53:17I'm sure we all could use the data.
53:19As you find out things, we realize that you have preliminary data today,
53:23and a lot of the things are only hints and suggestions of things to come.
53:30I would personally appreciate it very much if you'd give us a call periodically and tell us what you found.
53:36It's too easy for us to go through here and, at the end of a week or so, walk off
53:41and never really know what happened
53:42and never know what kind of data came out.
53:46And I think that makes us very poor salesmen.
53:50I think you could help us do the job to kind of feed back the quality of the data that
53:55you've been getting if you could keep us informed.
53:58And please don't ever feel like you're interfering with our operation or don't be inhibited to call us.
54:04If we can't come to the phone and take the data or talk to you about it, the secretary will
54:09take the number and we'll be glad to call you back.
54:12And if there's any time when you have some question about the data, it doesn't matter how trivial it may
54:17seem to you.
54:18If you want to look at some data and you're curious to know whether we've ever seen a particular observation
54:23or whether the spacecraft was moving at the time your data was taken or I don't care how far out
54:29it might seem to you,
54:30questions are pretty cheap and not asking questions can be very expensive.
54:35And so please feel like our job isn't finished until you guys have all the information you can use.
54:41And I would like for you to feel like you can call any time.
54:44Thank you very much.
54:45I'd like to say, give you my thanks also.
54:49I was very pleased with the way all the gear worked, especially my part on the lunar surface and the
54:55part I saw of Ken in orbit.
54:56It was just a real pleasure to have him placed all this stuff for all you people and glad it's
55:04working so well.
55:06And thanks for the opportunity of going.
55:08If you can gin up another one, I'll be glad to go along again.
Comments