NASA-UAP-D025: “Apollo 16 Scientific Debriefing”

Again , the areas in black are the

total area covered , uh , which we

obtained , uh , from the mission , and

the areas in red are the pieces which

we missed due to the , uh , deletion of

the plane change and the Uh , day early

return . This little piece down here

was an oblique pass which we had

planned with the hand camera , uh ,

would have taken place on Rev 72 in

order to get photographs of ascending ,

which is a , a , an area of particular

interest to the geologists . Uh , so

you can see that we did lose some data .

On the other hand , we did pick up some

data that we would not have gotten , uh ,

and I think overall the effectiveness

of the , of the coverage was about 90%

of what we had hoped for , uh ,

pre-emission . I really want to express

the Uh , thanks of the photo team , uh ,

to the flight planners here and also to

Ken for his operation of the cameras uh

during the mission . I know that uh it

was very confusing to be continually

changing the flight plan and uh Ken

probably We wondered what the hell we

were doing with all these on-offs and

so on . Uh , but , uh , uh , really , I

think we did , uh , a very effective

job of recovering almost all of the

data that we had planned , uh , for the

mission . Uh , may I have the , the

next slide , please ? Uh , this is a

diagram showing what the Apollo 15

coverage was like . This is the planned

coverage for the 16 mission , and in

the dotted line is the planned coverage

for the 17 mission . The only reason I

show this is to indicate that the areas

where we did lose data , uh ,

unfortunately are in the areas that

will . were not covered by 15 and will

not be covered by 17 , so that the

losses , although small , were real .

the next slide . Ken ,

during the film recovery EVA , you

reported that the stellar camera glare

shield was hung up on the handrail .

I'm not 100% clear as to exactly

what that situation was . This is the

stellar camera glare shield , and this

is a little cover that comes down and

covers that when the when the mapping

camera is retracted . Maybe you've

discussed this with the other people

here . At the center , but for my own

information , I would like to know

whether this is the cover that was hung

up or this cover . Both of them , the

shield at the fore and that one , this

one , no , the first one you looked at ,

yeah , that was sticking up . That was

sticking up , uh huh , yeah , but the

The tip out here was mashed against the

handrail , mashed against the handrail

out along here . Yeah , the rail isn't

in this picture . The rail is not

installed . That's right . And this lip

was up against it and bent back out of

the way . I see . It was not in a full

extended position . It looked like it

was a partial extension . Could you

tell whether this was bent , whether

this rail was bent , this extend rail ?

No , but I think we have a photo that

probably tell you that . Uh , I don't

remember . The , the end of the shield

was bent . Now whether that rail , no .

He , yeah , in the next , in the next

section of the accordion , that one was .

Whether that rail itself was bent I

didn't notice . The implication of

course is that if this had happened

early in the mission and this shield

were bent down , we might get excessive

light into the stellar camera and our

background density would be would be

higher than we expected . We might not

see as many stars . The other

indication of malfunction that we had ,

of course , was in the exposure control

on the pan camera , and that

would indicate that the pictures away

from the terminator may be overexposed .

That situation is also being looked at ,

and again we're going to talk about it

this afternoon before we actually

process the film . Uh , yeah , the next

slide . This is the information which I

have with regard to the laser altimeter

operation . The first row across here

is what the nominal mission would have

been , and the second row is the actual

results from the Apollo 16 . We had

planned a total of 20 hours and a few

minutes of operating time . We've got

14.5 hours , so that we are down about

25% in the total operating time .

This is the total revolutions in

longitude that we had planned 10.3 and

we got 7.5 , so again we're down about

25% in that regard . The

total number of firings , 3283 and

2106 is the actual number that was

recorded , so we are down nearly

30% in the total number of

firings . Also the The number of valid

elevation readings that we got was

appreciably less than the total number

of firings , so the actual mission in

terms of altimeter observations gave us

a little bit less than half of what we

had actually planned . That's really

not as serious a shortfall as it

sounds just from the numbers because

the readings were quite well

distributed throughout the mission .

The general operation that we saw on

the altimeter , the first several revs

were completely nominal . All of the

elevation readings were valid . Then it

began to fall off about 75% , 65% , and

down to about 60% , except on the last

data pass on RV 62 , where it was only

about 10% effective .

Generally what we seem to observe is

that there would be one good shot ,

then one bad shot , then one good , one

bad , and then maybe several good ones

in a row . We can talk about the

reason for that , but that's more

appropriately covered in the systems

review tomorrow . The effect that it

will have on the data is simply to give

us Larger spacing between data points

so far as its effect on the reduction

of the photography is concerned ,

that's absolutely inconsequential so

far as its effect on the correlation

between the tracking and gravity . And

the profiles , it's a little bit more

of a concern . They do have a little

bit more smoothing to do between the

data points that they got , but

essentially I don't think that it

really hurts us so far as the

scientific return from the mission is

concerned . I would like to say just a

word or so about the utilization of the

photography . It has been

proceeding much more slowly than I had

anticipated . In reducing the pictures

from Apollo 15 , however , the work

which is being done by the ACIC in St .

Louis is indicating that the

photography , photographic reduction

will provide positional coordinates of

features on the lunar surface with the

accuracy of 10 to 12 m in position and

in elevation . And that seems to

coincide very well with what we had

predicted pre-mission . So uh we are

quite confident that uh that we're

getting very good information from the

pictures in that regard . The tracking

data generally is consistent

within an orbital pass , but we do find

discrepancies of up to 11 kilometer

between adjacent photographic passes ,

so that the reduction of the

photographs is giving us a much better

tie between orbital passes than we get

from the from the tracking data itself .

Consequently , we do expect eventually

to come up with a , an internally

consistent coordinate system ,

reference system , figure of the moon

with an accuracy on the order of 12 to

15 m . Uh , that's uh highly gratifying

to me . So far as the pan camera

utilization is concerned , there have

been some map compilations done .

The indicated precision of those is on

the order of 3 m , which again is about

what we had expected , but that is a

precision and not an accuracy number

because of the geometric problems with

the pan camera photography . However ,

so far as the resolution of the pan

camera is concerned , that has held up

to just about what we had expected , uh ,

from 1.5 to 3 m at the

sub-vehicle point and decreasing up to

about 5 to 6 m at the limits of the of

the film . So , so far as

our indications at the moment are that

the results from 16 are quite

satisfactory , we do have these

problems that we have to resolve in the

processing of the film , and once that

is done , we will be able to say

exactly what we did obtain . But again ,

I want to express the photo team's

thanks to you , particularly Ken , for

the time and attention that

you gave to the camera operation and

the results that we have obtained .

Thanks for any questions . Could you ,

do you have a plot of the altimetry ?

You know , last time someone had drawn

up a rough hand sketch of . Of the

altimetry did anyone do that this time

profiles ? Yes sir . No , I don't , Ken .

I think maybe uh Shogren has one of

those , uh , and I don't . Is he here ?

Do you have a plot ? Yeah , I thought

you had one . He'll show that these are

particles that you found in the mapping

camera that . Is that handfuls or a

couple of shavings or I don't know

how extensive they were . They

were enough to concern the people

in the processing lab . All I

know , that's about all that I know

about it . We're supposed to have a

review of that this afternoon . It

could have very serious implications ,

obviously . One thing that I seem

to recall from during the mission

is that we had apparently more film

left for post-TEI photography than we

had anticipated . And what that could

mean , of course , is that the camera

was not passing film when we thought it

was and things were being chewed up

pretty badly inside . So we're going to

have to look that over very carefully

before we go ahead with the processing

of the film . We expect the camera

contractor to Look at the shavings and

tell us where he thinks they came from ,

and that may give us a better clue as

to what they actually are . Do you have

a processing schedule yet ? I guess

it's all in advance to to hold until

this afternoon , after our meeting this

afternoon , assuming you're determined

to go ahead and develop it , will it

take you 3 or 4 days to process . Uh ,

I think the , the anticipated schedule

was to have the original film processed

within this week and all of the

duplicate copies within 4 weeks and

distributed is the accuracy .

The least count of the altimeter

is 1 m . The accuracy

is dependent pretty much upon

the slope in the area which is

illuminated and a little bit on

the albedo in the area which is

illuminated . In general , I think it's

fair to say that the reading that we

get from the altimeter will be correct

to within 3 to 5 m .

Have you figured out what to do with

the pan camera for processing ? you've

got a correction for the closure . I

don't know what has been figured out .

We had a group working on it last week

and they're going to give us a report

right after this meeting . We'll decide

what to do .

Uh , they think that there will be some

slight loss near the terminator if they

would do that . Um , in other words ,

that they can handle the over explosion .

But at some penalty where we have

minimum rights and the question as to

whether there's anything else you can

say about that penalty like cutting it

up . Which is not fun . The situation

is really that near the terminator ,

the pictures are underexposed anyhow

because we can't open the slit wide

enough and so on , so the camera was

wide open at the terminator , but it

was open wider than it should have been

when we were away from the terminator ,

so that the Terminator pictures are a

little bit underexposed , then they

become properly exposed and after that

they will be overexposed .

So what we would really like , of

course , is a variable uh processing uh

through each photo path , but that's

probably not a feasible thing to even

contemplate .

Thanks , Fred . will be the particles

and fields of the subsatellite , and I

think Jim McCoy is going to cover that .

Is he here ? You know , Oh , there he

is .

We got a mic right over there . Yeah .

I don't have anything at all . Yeah ,

they'll they'll project it up there in

the back booth if you want to . uh ,

where's where's Baldwin would , could

you get this projected up there ?

I guess uh Michael

OK , can you hear me OK ? OK , uh .

Quickly the subsatellite was

deployed successfully . Our spin rate

was nominal , about 58 2nd , spin

period . We want 5 plus or minus a

couple . Uh , the attitude was good .

Uh , according to preliminary

indication from the sun sensor , we're

have a couple of degrees , uh , tip off

from the ecliptic , which is well

within the limits we needed . The

operation of all of the uh

electrostatic analyzers and both solid

state telescopes is good . Uh , we

don't seem to have the noise problem

that we had on Apollo 15 and a couple

of the analyzers , and we've

gotten rid of our accumulator counting

error that was characteristic of 15 .

It's given us some problems in our data

analysis now from that satellite . I'll

OK , that's , The quick look uh

results on our first magnetotail pass

indicated again the uh presence of

these rather , uh , unexpected , rather

high uh fluxes of low energy protons

which have also been seen now with a

new IM Series I satellite

experiment too . And on this

magnetotail pass we appear to have the

remnants of a small solar event .

Uh , the form of some high energy solar

cosmic ray electrons and protons around

which should prove , uh , interesting

for our shadow interpretation ,

particularly on electric fields in the

magnetotail . Beyond

that , if they have those slides there ,

I'd like to briefly describe some of

the results we got from Apollo 15 ,

which would hope to be similar to this

one . I Our

primary experiment was to

examine . Particle shadow

configurations in the magnetotail that

while we're passing through this region

back here where we are in the Earth's

magnetic field . And uh use that to

examine the uh question of openness and

access through the magnetotail to the

magnetic field lines and uh ultimately

to the Van Allen belts . Where , uh ,

theory generally holds that , uh , the

Van Allen radiation must somehow come

in and then be trapped and accelerated .

The degree of connection back here with

the interplanetary field has been in

quite a bit of question . And briefly

stated the Apollo 15 results indicate

pretty clearly that at least most of

the time at the uh latitudes where we

passed through the tail , of course we

only have a couple of passes . That uh

these uh field lines are in fact open

out here , connect directly into the

interplanetary field and have direct

access of uh solar cosmic ray particles .

We have also observed the existence

of a plasma sheet which is known to

form in closer to the Earth to extend

out to the moon's distance .

And , uh , uh , at least a couple of

occasions we have observed , uh , cross

tail electric fields which are

important to theoretical models , uh .

Accounting for uh aurora and for

acceleration of particles into the

radiation belts . An unexpected

observation which we

found interesting was 30 KV

or thereabouts protons in very large

numbers which we observed quite

frequently back in the magnetotail and

also observed outside the magnetotail

in very similar fluxes . Our first

feeling was that these must also be

some .

Component of the solar cosmic ray

proton spectrum . They're , of course ,

very low energy uh . would be

stopped by even the thinnest piece of

material . But the uh numbers of them

and the consistency of their flux

densities make them uh very attractive

as probably being indicative , quite

indicative of uh the source that they

come from and the mechanism bringing

them . Uh , further examination ,

however , of the locations where we see

them and of the almost constant

intensities that we see . Uh ,

almost forced us to the conclusions

that they must somehow be protons from

the uh outer Van Allen belt region

here . Which are somehow uh coming

loose from the Earth's field and

Moving outward and then getting onto

the interplanetary fields and then

moving out to where we see them and uh

perhaps an inverse process of the

postulated

process where we bring uh solar cosmic

particles in from the sun to populate

the Van Allen belts initially . Uh ,

we're anxiously waiting , getting our

data , and now our computer programs

that , uh , Berkeley in shape where we

can examine this in detail . We've

unfortunately been delayed in that .

If I have the next slide , I'll show

you one orbit of data from the

telescopes when these uh very

uh steady fluxes of protons were

present . And uh during this period and

actually for a period of uh A couple

of orbits earlier , these fluxes were

almost constant . There is some uh

changing here . There , there is a very ,

very slight shadowing of protons , not

very much at all . This motion electron

phenomena . But then these particles

essentially turn off uh so somebody

closed a valve . And this is

characteristic of the way they behave .

When they appear , they're suddenly

there . And when they disappear ,

they're gone just as fast . And

Uh , we're very hopeful that we'll be

able to make some sense out of what

turns these things on and off . And

determine what , where they're coming

from and what the mechanism is and

presumably now in the magnetosphere .

OK , I think I'll just throw it open to

any questions , uh , now . OK .

What is the lifetime estimate of

wish you hadn't brought that up . Uh ,

um , will get that for us . We had been

very hopeful of getting another dozen

or a couple of dozen magnetic passes

out of this satellite since it works so

beautifully . Um

I think we're gonna cover that . Chris

said it was gonna stay up there forever ,

so it better . Well

it doesn't crash , we hope it will the

world's going to come to an end pretty

shortly I'm afraid . We'll see . Any

other , any questions about particles

and fields ? OK , let's continue on

with subsatellite and get on the map .

We didn't say anything about it . I

assume that that our satellite is

sending out good data . Is it , is it ,

is batteries are charging OK and

everything ? It's not running into the ,

the problem that the 15 guys , uh , had ,

or was that normal for the seems to be

a little bit better battery charge .

Yeah , the machine is working . OK ,

and all the detectors are operating as

far as we know , yeah . It's just that

it's got a short lifetime . OK , let's

see . I think Larry Sharp is going to

take , uh , Uh , colon's place , right ?

OK . Magnetometer . The objectives of

the magnetometer experiment are

essentially threefold . First is to

measure and map the remnant magnetism

on the lunar surface . Second is to map

the electrical conductivity of the

lunar interior . and finally study the

various aspects of the moon's

interaction with the fields and

particles in its environment . The wide

scope of these objectives is made

possible by the geometry of orbit as it

passes through three fundamentally

different regions of space . For

example , uh , to get the spatial

variations of remnant magnetism on the

lunar surface , one must be in the

geomagnetic tail , where the temporal

variations are almost absent in the

magnetic field , very steady situation .

The initial orbit of the

subsatellite was somewhat lower than

Apollo 15 , and the inclination about

11 degrees instead of 28 . And I'd like

to show you the Predictions

Of the orbit .

Right over there . On the backside

backside of .

Oops .

See . Mm .

OK , we've plotted days past deployment

versus the parallel altitude . OK . We

start out here in pretty good shape ,

about 97 kilometers or 97 by 123 , I

guess , and the prediction was a very

rapid drop down to 30 some , back up

in good shape , no real trouble until ,

uh , here's the ground line . About

200 days when the probability is 50/50

of a crash the error bars here , you

can say the probability was 1 chance in

10 of a crash here and maybe 1 in 5 .

We've updated this plot .

Whoops . And the odds have changed

considerably . This is the prediction .

Notice the time scale has been expanded .

Greatly these are hours now instead of

days . Here was the initial

initial prediction that 30 . 7

kilometers and here are the actual data

points . This one was taken this

morning around in here , and if you can

extrapolate by eye , it looks like we

have about 4 days left . I guess Bill

Sogren's taking 50/50 odds it will

crash if anyone's in a betting mood .

It's possible that we'll skim the

surface and come back out , even if we

make it through this one , that next

dip is going to probably finish us off .

Which is curiosity , uh , might be out

of your field , but , uh , how come our

prediction didn't match the uh the

actuality , I mean we . You have a

gravity experiment . We don't know the

gravity field that well , and that's ,

uh , the business of this , uh . Sub

satellite initially to determine the

gravitysphere you're you're gonna throw

that though I think right . OK , and uh

we've been screaming like about these

pads that I know Bill Wal out here at

MSC has tried to drive that point home

so many times . I think we're really

seeing it coming . Man , just goes to

show you you can't redo 6 months of

planning in 2 days . OK .

any event , we have one month's worth

of good data which we will add to our

Apollo 15 results and to get some idea

of what we're doing with this data ,

I'd like to show the first slide which

represents An average of 17 different

orbits . Taken when the moon was in the

Earth's magnetotail . And we've plotted

the moon's longitude . Along the

horizontal and the magnetic field in

gammas along the vertical , these

numbers are representative of the

Earth's tail field and of course if you

subtract out an average value , this

residual would represent the lunar

surface field and of course the big

result is . Really huge

magnetic dip going over the Van de

Graaf crater , or a region right near

the Vonder Graf crater . Also , the

other initial result we got out of 15

data was that most of the dips in the

magnetic field seem to be clearly

associated with craters lying within a

few degrees of the ground track defined

by the orbit subsatellite . We've

numbered the 7 most obvious local

minima and named 5 of them with

associated craters . Initial results

from Apollo 16 show the same type of

structure , although we don't see

anything as big as Van de Graf . We see ,

we do go over Korolev again . That's

where the orbits intersect when we're

in the tail . And we see a few other

Hertzprung and Pavlov type bumps . One

is with a little tiny crater called

Stein . And uh one near Mendelev .

Repeat this procedure several times

with different lunations , so you cover

different tracks over the moon , and

this allows a contour map to be made .

So if I go to the next slide .

Oh this shows the ground track from

where we . Uh . Found the island .

Here's one over Hertz Sprung , Korolev ,

uh , here's Van de Graf . You can see

we went right close to the northern

border , Pavlov , and one over Milne .

So it was a pretty good 1 to 1

correspondence with , uh , with large

craters . Uh , the initial .

11 orbit of course is much nearer the

equator . The inclination goes up to

plus or -11 , so we saw one over

Korolev and Stein crater is located

right about here . It's not too big .

The next map shows a compilation of a

lot of these linear profiles . Next

slide into a contour map .

It's a little hard to read the contours .

You can see this big black blotch here

is a result of contours stacked on top

of each other near this Von de graph .

Anomaly . You can see the

Numbers are hard to make out . You can

see the structure over Korolev , a hint

of some structure over Hertzprung . And

uh . The Southern Sea over here is

actually an enhancement sticking out of

the moon , so to speak . You can see

Milne shows a definite structure . The

Apollo 16 results should enable

us to expand this map . We'll get

better resolutions throughout this area

and be able to extend it along in here .

We'll probably still have a gap down in

this region .

Oh yes . The numbers presented in the

chart , if you can see them , are

measured in 10th of gamma at an

altitude of 100 kilometers . So for

example , a good representative value

is about 30 , and the zero we've

arbitrarily chosen at the bottom of the

Van de Graf dip , since this is the

lowest value of magnetism we observed .

We just call it zero and scale

everything relative to it . So if

you're at 100 kilometers , you'll see a

3 gamma dip going over Van de Graaf on

the average . Oh , we were fortunate .

Uh , also , the near side of the moon ,

does the gravity profile look have any

can you correlate ? I've looked at the

gravity profile and it doesn't seem to

correlate at all uh we don't actually

the laser data correlates better with

you don't , there's no gravity on the

backside , OK , but on the front side

understand uh . It correlates pretty

well with the laser data which shows a

great big hole here in the backside of

the moon around Fendi graph . That's

see any scientific justification for

where we get our big hole , but I can't

connecting the two results . I will add

the gamma rays secondary peak is also .

I don't know what it means . It could

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.

be an alien star base or something .

Anyway , the next slide shows the front

side of the moon . And

It's upside down . The thing to

contrast is the much smoother nature of

could we do a 180 on the . The slide ,

please .

A job . Can you hear me ? Can you turn

the slide around , please ? Well , it's

on a coffee break , OK , right . Anyway ,

the front side of the moon is much ,

much smoother than the back side . The

variations are on the order of a factor

of 10 smooth . We don't see very much

structure at all . It's very hard to

even draw contours .

Can , can you sort out the differences

in that and the effects of running

through the , The Earth's magnetic

field effects , since you're , the

front side is always , Close to the

earth , can you sort out Are we really

measuring magnetic variations on the

backside caused by being on the

backside , not due to our measuring

environment ? All right , there , there

are scale fields , very , very constant ,

uh , when you're in the . A good second

when you're away from the neutral sheet ,

and that's where all this data is taken .

Uh , well , I guess we never got the

front slide complete . OK , this is a

blow up of the Vander Graaf region in

attempt to pinpoint the exact source of

this large anomaly . We kind of

suspected it was over the crater itself .

Since we had always put forth a theory

that what we were actually observing in

these dips was some sort of a meteorite

impact that caused a rather uniformly

magnetized crust to suddenly have holes

in it , and we're seeing the equivalent

dipole of what was left over , and this

kind of shoots holes in the theory we

see . This is the BX component , which

is the radio component , and a plus

number indicates a value sticking into

the moon . So you see this Rather

large Hole here magnetically in between

two craters . And uh ,

If you look at various models of double

dipoles and stuff , it just doesn't

quite fit . The other components , BY

and BZ show that it can't be one of

these angling dipoles from the crater .

And presently , we're now conducting

the same sort of studies over the rest

of the anomalies to see if it checks

out . I just , just yesterday completed

the one over Korolev and that one is

right in the middle of the crater ,

which is Promising for this shocking

magnetization theory . Uh ,

How much do we have in the ground

tracking and the military ?

How much footage ? How much validity do

we have in the ephemeras ? I understand

there's no chance that we could be off

by .

Uh , but now you're talking about the

finding read there .

So it doesn't seem much chance .

We'll get maybe one more as the

subsatellite comes crashing down on the

moon . The last 10 kilometers should

give us a good swath of data which will

give us another high resolution plot

like this , but other than that we're

kind of out of . OK ,

OK , thank you .

OK , there's the front side of the moon .

OK , and our coverage from Apollo 11

will extend , I believe this is the

equator across here . That's .

I'm sorry . OK , this is 0 degrees . OK ,

we go from 0 to 90 degree east to 90

west , the Terminator . This is

Southern Sea region , which is about

the only distinctive feature on the

front side per se , and even that's on

the Terminator . And again , these are

relatively high values of magnetic

fields sticking out of the moon . So

you might say that the Southern Sea is

a highly magnetized region . Notice the

16 site is out of our coverage . As

were all the Apollo landing sites . You

have about a 3 , a 3 game of Belgium on

the backside . What did you see on the

front sides ? Well , most of these

values are about 30 , 28 , 27 , which

means they're all 3 gamma higher than

that zero bendi graph . So I would say

the maximum plus or minus is about a

half a gamma on the whole front side .

elongate parallel to ?

This is a function of not having quite

enough data . Instead of making

physical looking contours , we drew

actual contours of the data , and

obviously if there's a little bit of

offset from one orbit to the next ,

it's going to result in elongated

contours . If we fixed this up and made

some intelligent looking guesses , they

would be much more circular . You have

a data on the Apollo 12 and the 15 and

16 . Surface .

Yes , with 1214 , 15 , yes ,

well , you see , the surface data is ,

is , uh , deals with much smaller scale

size phenomena , uh , and so there's

really no 1 to 1 correlation , I

suppose . That the Apollo .

Well , if we could be sure that over a

region of 100 kilometers that the

average field was 38 gamma , which no

one would bet on , then we could make

some interesting predictions about

other places on the moon . But I

suspect if you went down to Apollo 12

and went 100 m away , you'd find a much

different value in magnetic field . We

know it's the case . Look at Apollo 14 .

They went 1 kilometer and they went

from 43 gamma to 103 gamma . So who's

to say what's a representative value

for the magnetic field in a given area .

How about 50 ? Apollo 15 they saw a

steady field of 6 plus or minus 4 gamma ,

which is essentially zero , but there

again , you know , behind the next

boulder probably be 100 gamma .

And the results in 16 I thought were

tremendous , tremendous gradients they

got between one place and another at

313 . Uh , Gamma Field really surprised

me as far as . Get value at large .

Yes , have you seen any distinctive

features about , uh , the , uh ,

correlate which might make you think

that it was , uh , say a hot spot that

had been , uh , near the surface

and was That

Soil covering which would change the

surface temperature . The change .

No , I'm not a , not a geologist type ,

uh . Well I already on about 17 .

Uh That would change .

It would seem to me that the , the

younger a crater was , the more chance

it would have to produce a good clean

cut signature . On the uh magnetic

field data . I mean , for example , Van

de Graf itself looks like a fairly

young crater because there's no there's

very few secondary craters in the

bottom of it , so it looks fairly young ,

whereas uh Things like Kurtzprung seem

to be very old . They're well blotched

with secondary graders .

Center of the anomaly . Uh , it's 80

kilometers from the northern rim . So

from the center of Andy graph , it's

about 130 , 140 kilometers .

Any other questions ? OK , thank you ,

Larry , and Yeah , got a question ? No .

Last subject will be the transponder .

Uh , this is a , uh , gravity

experiment , and , uh , we monitor the

gravity by just monitoring the , uh ,

velocity of the spacecraft or the limb

or the , uh , Sub-satellite . Of course ,

on uh this particular mission , we lost

our LEM data on impact cause it started

tumbling . And so that data was lost .

We do have , how have the uh CSM in the

low altitude orbit , which is Uh ,

very interesting data .

These parts on right .

Here's the orbital track and hopefully

I can get this aligned . Uh ,

not like that . This profile just below

it is the Gravity

anomaly that was detected . This line

right here represents zero

gravity central isostatic equilibrium ,

and anything below it , of course ,

that'd be negative gravity deviations .

Here we are at Ptolemais going .

Essentially over the center with the

track , and we can see the large uh

negative anomaly again and almost 100

mgs . Uh . Uh , here we see , uh ,

some highland material where we have a ,

a positive , then we drop down into a

relative low in between these two old

craters , Hipparchus and Alvitgnius ,

and then a , a high in here . Uh , at

this point , there's a Descartes , uh .

The landing site , and we're actually

about a 50 mg negative anomaly in that

region . Uh , there's some nice

correlations here with the , uh , laser

altimetry measurements . I'll show them

in the next , uh , profile . But this

is continuous . I've just taken one

small section here . We have this thing

from Uh , limb to limb , so about 110

longitude plus to 100 110 minus . And

uh , Essentially , 3 revs , and

rev 3 through rev . Uh ,

11 , that's 8 revs , 8 revs of data

that are pretty good and then they

started their . Station keeping and uh

the data kind of got garbaged up a lot

with all the maneuvering was going on .

Uh , I don't even point out one kind of

interesting thing here . Uh , notice

that , uh , Ptolemais here has an

anomaly much , much lower than Nubium .

Although Nubium , which is this region

right in here , this Maran Nubium right

in here , uh , It's still about -50 mg .

Here's an altimeter profile .

And uh going right to the Nubian

Ptolemais region again , we see that

Nubium uh elevation here is , uh , some ,

by the way , the scale here is uh 2

kilometers per heavy line . So we've

dropped down here almost 2 kilometers

from the floor of Ptolemais to the

floor of Nubium . Yet the uh

gravity anomaly is just the opposite ,

that Ptolemais is some 50 milligaus

lower than the Nubian region . And

another interesting point is , Fred ,

on these ACIC maps , Nubium is shown 1

kilometer higher than Ptolemais . And

here we are 2 kilometers lower , so

we're talking about a 3 kilometer

discrepancy in just that little area

right there . So I think some of these

guys were talking about the right thing

the altitudes too well . I , I think

when they said we really didn't know

that shows up quite dramatically when

you look at the . At the low sun angle .

View as you approach the Terminator ,

the things that were in Nubum didn't

show up until significantly after we

anticipated . We missed our times on

those things a great deal , and that

could only be called by having a

discrepancy in our relative heights .

Yeah , this is not just this is Rev 28 .

We've looked at there are 5 real good

tracking laser tracking passes over

this region , and we've looked at 3 of

them , and all 3 show the same

consistency of the drop there . Another

interesting thing here , Procolarum ,

Franklotati , Fecunditatus are all seem

to be about on the same level . Smithyi

again being a low about 4.5 kilometers .

That was the same thing on Apollo 15

when we passed over it . It was some

4.5 kilometers below as mean radius

here , and we're still referencing this

to a 1738 0.1

radius off the CG . If you take

this stuff and start fitting it to an

optical center with a CG

offset , that you do indeed get the 2

kilometer shift again of the CG being

closer to the Earth by some 2

kilometers . Let's say that tranquility

is about 2.5 kilometers lower than

Descartes . That's right , yeah ,

here's the landing site right in here

and uh this is we had a negative

gravity anomaly in here , well , kind

of according to this , maybe that's uh

the situation because it looks like a ,

a topographic globe . Yeah .

This is the backside . We had some ,

these are the limbs where the data was

missing . These are taken from those ,

this data is taken from that thrift

printout that we get in real time , and

will be filled in , uh , once they get

there's some gaps in the data . These

the station tapes delivered . But we

can see the crater Hertz Sprung here

very evidently with the central peak or

something in it . You , you don't have

any data on that . 100 , 120 degree

region , not now . We should have it

next week or so whenever they get the

tapes here reduced .

Uh , one of the things that , well , on

Apollo 15 , there was a , a definite ,

well , centered about 180 . There was a

definite , uh , big , uh , trough in

here which went down about some 4.5

kilometers . It was very jagged , but

it was centered just about here and on

Apollo 16 now , we do not really see