The areas in black are the total area covered, which we obtained from the mission.
And the areas in red are the pieces which we missed due to the deletion of the plane
change and the day early return.
This little piece down here was a blight pass which we had planned with the pan camera.
It would have taken place on grab 72 in order to get photographs of the ascending which
is an area of particular interest to the geology.
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.
And I think overall the effectiveness of the pan of the coverage was about 90% of what
we had hoped for pre-emission.
I really want to express the thanks of the photo team to the flight planners here and
also to Ken for his operation of the cameras during the mission.
I know that it was very confusing to be continually changing the flight plan and Ken probably
wondered what the hell we were doing with all these on-off and so on.
But really I think we did a very effective job of recovering almost all of the data that
we had planned for the mission.
I have the next slide, please.
This is a diagram showing what the Apollo 15 coverage was like.
This is the plan coverage for the 16 mission and in the data line is the plan coverage for
the 17 mission.
The only reason I show this is to indicate that the areas where we did lose data unfortunately
are in the areas that were not covered by 15 and will not be covered by 17 so that the
losses although small were real.
You have the next slide.
Ken during the film recovery EVA you reported that the stellar camera glare shield was hung
up on the hand rail.
I am not 100 percent 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 mapping camera is retracted.
Maybe you have 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 is the cover.
The shield at the forward end that one.
This one?
No, the first time you looked at that.
That was sticking up.
That is sticking up.
But the tip out here was matched against the hand rail.
Mashed against the hand rail out in.
Yeah, the rail in this picture is not installed.
The rail is not installed.
That's right.
This lip was up against it and bent back out of the way.
I see.
That was not in a full extent position.
I will look at it as a partial extension.
Could you tell whether this was bent, whether this rail was bent, which extends rail?
No, but I think we all photo the probably tell you that.
I don't remember.
The end of the shield was bent.
Whether that rail, no.
Here.
In the next section of the course, that was bent.
Now whether that rail itself was bent, I didn't notice.
The implication of course is that if this had happened early in the mission in this
shield were bent down, we might get excessive light into the stellar camera and our background
density would be lower, 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 terminal may be overexposed.
That situation is also being looked at and again we are going to talk about it this afternoon
before we actually process the film.
Here 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 got 14 hours and a half 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 are down about 25% in that regard.
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 number of valid elevation readings that we got was appreciably less than the total
number of firings.
So that the actual mission in terms of altimeter observations gave us a little bit less than
half of what we had actually planned.
That is 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 rev 62 where it was only about 10% effective.
Generally what we seem to observe is that there would be one good shot and one bad shot
and one good one bad and then maybe several good ones in a row.
We can talk about the reason for that but that is more appropriately covered in the systems
review tomorrow.
The effect that it will have on the data is simply to give us a larger spacing between
data points.
So far as the, it is effect on the reduction of the photography is concerned that it is absolutely
inconsequential.
So far as it is effect on the correlation between the tracking and gravity data and the profiles,
it is a little bit more of 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 a positional coordinates of features on the lunar
surface with the accuracy of 10 to 12 meters in position and in elevation.
And that seems to coincide very well with what we had predicted pre-mission.
So we are quite confident that we are 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 a 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 tracking data itself.
Consequently we do expect eventually to come up with an internally consistent coordinate
system, reference system, figure of the moon with an accuracy on the order of 12 to 15 meters.
That is highly gratifying to me.
So far as the pan camera utilization is concerned there have been some map calculations done.
The indicated precision of those is on the order of three meters which again is about
what we had expected.
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 from one and a half to three meters at the sub-vehicle point
and decreasing off to about five to six meters at the limits of the film.
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 and 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 have a plot of the out-temetry?
Less time someone had drawn up a rough hands get you of the out-temetry.
Did anyone do that this time?
No I don't.
I think maybe Shogun has one of those and is he here?
Bill?
Do you have a plot?
Yeah I thought you had one.
Okay.
Particle show that.
These are particles that you found in a mapping camera that handfolds or a couple of
savings 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 where it's supposed to have a review of
that this afternoon.
It could have very serious implications obviously.
One thing that I seem to recall from the...
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 a band to do that.
Are they doing a hold until this afternoon?
Yeah, after reading this afternoon?
Assuming you determine to go ahead and develop a little take you three or four days to process?
Yeah.
I think the anticipated schedule was to have the original film processed within this week
and all the duplicate copies within four weeks of the distributor.
Perhaps you stated what is the accuracy of the ultimately?
The least count of the altimeter is one meter.
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 three to five meters.
Have you figured out what to do with the panchamer for processing?
I've got a correction for the exposure.
For the exposure?
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.
Decide what to do.
I can comment on whether or not it was made a recommendation for back customers and they
think that the movie is quite lost and it is generated and we do that.
They can handle the over-extra but at some penalty we have to be at number like and as
well as the other users about that penalty like carrying it out in the future.
The situation is really that near the Terminator the pictures are under exposed anyhow because
we can't open the slick wide enough and so on.
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.
The Terminator pictures are a little bit under exposed and they become properly exposed
and after that they will be over exposed.
What we would really like of course is a variable processing through each photo pass but that's
probably not a feasible thing to even contemplate.
Thanks Fred.
I subject to be the particles and fields of the sub satellite and I think Jim McCoy is
going to cover that.
Here.
Oh there he is.
We got a mic right over there.
Yeah they'll project it up there in the back booth if you want to.
Dick?
Where's Paul?
Could you get this projected up there?
Okay can you hear me okay?
Yes quickly the sub satellite was deployed successfully.
Our spin rate was nominal by the second spin period.
We want 5 plus or minus a couple.
The attitude was good.
According to preliminary indications on the sensor we have a couple of degrees.
We have a lot of pressure on the air conditioning which is well within the limits we needed.
The operation of all of the electrostatic analyzers and both solid state telescopes is good.
We don't seem to have the noise problem that we had on Apollo 15 and a couple of analyzers
and we've got a new of our accumulator counting error that we have.
We have a characteristic of 15.
We've given us some problems in our data analysis now and that's satellite.
The quick look results on our first magneto tail pass and hit it in the presence of these
rather expected, rather high fluxes of low energy protons which have also been seen now
with a new M series I satellite experiment too.
And on this magneto tail pass we appear to have the remnants of a small solar event of
the form of some high energy solar cosmic ray electrons and protons around which should
prove interesting for our shadow interpretation particularly on electric fields in the magneto tail.
Beyond that if they have those slides there I'd like to briefly describe some of the results
we got from Apollo 15.
It would hope to be similar for this one.
Our primary experiment was to examine particle shadow configurations in the magneto tail
that we all were passing through this region back here where we are in the Earth's magnetic
field.
And I'll use that to examine the question of openness and access through the magneto tail
to the magnetic field lines and ultimately to the Van Allen belts where theory generally
holds that all the bound radiation must somehow come in and then be trapped and accelerate.
The degree of connection back here with the interplanetary field has been quite a bit
of question and briefly stated the Apollo 15 results indicate pretty clearly that at
least most of the time at the latitudes where we pass through the tail of course we only
have a couple of passes that these field lines are in fact open out here connect directly
into the interplanetary field and have direct access of solar calciferate 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 in the distance.
And these couple of occasions we have observed across tail electric fields which are important
to theoretical models accounting for aurora and for acceleration particles into the radiation
belts.
An unexpected observation which we found interesting was 30 KED or thereabouts protons in very
large numbers which we observe quite frequently back in the magneto tail and also the observed
outside magneto tail in very similar complexes.
Our first feeling was that these must also be some component of the solar calciferate
proton spectrum.
There of course very low energy would be stopped by even the thinnest piece of material
but the numbers of them and the consistency of their flux densities make them very attractive
as probably being indicative of the source that they come from and the mechanism bring
them.
Further examination however of the locations where we see them and of the almost constant
intensities that we see almost force us to the conclusions that they must somehow be
protons from the outer Van Allen belt region here which are somehow coming loose from
the Earth's field and moving outward and then getting onto the interplanetary fields
and moving out to where we see them and perhaps at an inverse process of the postulated process
where we bring solar calciferate particles in from the Sun to populate the Van Allen belts
initially.
We're anxiously awaiting getting our data and now our computer program that burply
in shape where we can examine this in detail and unfortunately been laid in that.
If I have the next slide I'll show you one orbit of data from the telescopes when these
very steady fluxes of protons were present and during this period and actually for a period
of a couple of orbits earlier these fluxes were almost constant.
There is some changing here there is a very slight shadowing of protons not very much
at all this is motion electron phenomena but then these particles essentially turn off
as though somebody closed the valve and this is characteristic of the way they behave.
They appear they're suddenly there and when they disappear they're gone just as fast
and we're very hopeful that we'll be able to make some sense out of what turns these
things on and off and determine where they're coming from and what the mechanism is and
presumably now in the magnetosphere.
Okay I think I'll just throw it open to any questions now.
Okay.
I wish you hadn't brought that up to get that for us.
We had been very hopeful of getting another dozen or a couple dozen of my geochale passes
out of this satellite since it worked so beautifully.
I think we're going to cover that.
Chris said it was going to stay up there forever so it better.
The world's going to come to an end pretty shortly I'll be right.
Any other questions about particles and fields?
Okay let's continue on with some satellite and get on the planet.
We didn't say anything about it I assume that our satellite is sending out good data.
Is it better than charging okay and everything?
It's not running into the problem of the 15 guys hand or was that normal for the machine
is working.
All the detectors are operating.
It's just that it's going to short lifetime.
Okay let's see I think Larry Sharpe is going to take a cold place right?
Okay.
The objectives of the magnetometer experiment are essentially three-fold.
First is to measure the magnitude of the magnetism on the lunar surface.
Second is to map the electrical conductivity of the lunar interior.
You're finally studying the various aspects of moon interaction with the fields of particles
in this environment.
The Y-scope that the objectives make possible by the geometry of the orbit is that passes
through three fundamentally different regions of space.
For example to get the spatial variations of the magnetic 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 sub satellite was somewhat lower than a power 15 in the inclination
by 11 degrees instead of 28.
I'd like to show you the predictions.
Can you hear it,BBE.
new backHow Jack Backset.
Back to that.
Okay.
We've plotted days past deployment versus the parallel and altitude.
Okay.
We started out here in pretty good shape.
About 90%.
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 it was the ground level.
And then we went back to the ground level.
Until the ground line.
Tell about 200 days when the probability was 50, 50 of a crash.
You're the air bars here.
You can say the probability was maybe one chance and 10 of a crash here.
And maybe one chance and 5.
We've updated this plot.
Whoops.
And the odds have changed considerably.
This was the prediction.
Notice the time scale has been expanded greatly.
These are hours now instead of days.
Here was the initial prediction at 37 kilometers in here.
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 four days left.
I guess Bill Sorgren's taking 50, 50 odds.
It will crash if anyone's in the bank.
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 most unfortunate.
It might be out of your field, but I'll come our prediction.
Didn't match the actual.
I mean, we...
You got to tell me.
We have a gravity experiment.
We don't know the gravity field that well.
And that's the business of this satellite.
And actually, to come and grab it.
You're at the gravity.
Right.
Okay.
And we're going to screen like that about these paths.
And I'll go along after the MSC.
Try to drive that point home too many times.
I think we're really seeing it coming.
Just goes to show you.
You can't reduce six months of planning in two days.
Well, any event we have one month's worth of good data,
which we'll add to our panel of 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 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 this really huge magnetic dip going over the Vonnegraf crater,
or region right near the Vonnegraf crater.
Also, the other initial result we got out of 15 data was that most of the dips in the magnetic field
seemed to be clearly associated with craters,
lined within a few degrees of the ground track defined by the orbit of the sub satellite.
We've numbered the seven most obvious local minimum,
and named five 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 Vonnegraf.
We do go over Coralov again.
That's where the orbits intersect when we're in the tail.
And we see a few other Hertzbrung and Pavlov type bumps.
One is with a little tiny crater called Stein,
and one near Mendelov.
If you 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,
those are the ground track from where we found the anomaly.
Here's one over Hertzbrung, Coralov.
Here's Vannegraf.
You can see right close to the northern border, Pavlov, and one over Mill.
Those are pretty good one-to-one correspondence with large craters.
The initial 11 orbit, of course, is much near the equator.
The inclination goes up to plus and minus 11.
So we saw one over Coralov,
and Stein crater is located right about here.
The next map shows a compilation of a lot of these linear profiles
next to 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 Vannegraf anomaly.
You can see the numbers are hard to make out.
You can see the structure over Coralov, a hint of some structure over Hertzbrung.
And the southern sea over here is actually an enhancement sticking out of the moon, so to speak.
You can see milling shows a definite structure.
The Pavlov 16 results, should name us to expand this map,
we'll get better resolutions throughout this area,
and be able to extend it along and here.
We'll probably still have a gap down in this region.
I already can do some idea of gradient.
Oh yes.
The numbers presented in the chart, if you can see them,
are measured in tenths 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 Vannegraf dip,
since this is the lowest value of magnetism we observe.
We just called it zero and scale everything relative to it.
So if you're at 100 kilometers, you'll see a three-gamma dip going over Vannegraf on the average.
Oh, we were fortunate.
Also the near side of the moon.
Does the gravity profile, can you correlate?
I've looked at the gravity profile and it doesn't seem to correlate at all.
Actually the laser data correlates better with...
There's no gravity in the backside, on the front side.
I understand.
The correlates pretty well with the laser data, which shows great big hole here in the backside of the moon around Vannegraf.
That's where we get our big hole, but I can't see any scientific justification for connecting the two results.
I will have the reminder of the gamma rate.
Yes, that's the second.
The second thing is also a band of graph.
I don't know what it means.
It could be nailing star base or something.
The next slide shows the front side of the moon.
And it's upside down.
The thing to contrast is the much smoother nature.
Could we do a 180 on the slide, please?
Can you hear me?
Could we turn the slide around, please?
I always have a coffee break.
Anyway, the front side of the moon is much, much smoother than the backside.
The variations are, oh, in 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 you sort out the differences in that and the effects of running through the earth's magnetic field effects?
Since 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?
There is tail shields, very, very constant when you're in the good second, when you're away from the neutral sheet.
And that's where all this data is taken.
Well, I guess we never got the front slide complete.
Okay, this is a blow-up of the vandegraph region, an attempt at 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 uniforming magnetized crust.
There certainly had holes in it and we're seeing the equivalent dipole of what was left over.
And this kind of shoots holes in the theory.
You see this is the BX component, which is the radial component, and a plus number indicates a value sticking in the moon.
So you see this rather large hole here magnetically in between two craters.
And if you look at various models of double dipoles and stuff, it just doesn't quite fit.
The other components, B sub Y and B sub Z, show that it can't be one of these angling dipoles from the crater.
Presently, we're now conducting the same sort of studies over the rest of the anomalies to see if it checks out.
I've just just yesterday completed the one over Corlev, and that one is right in the middle of the crater, which is promising for the Shaky magnetization theory.
How much validity? How much validity do we have in the femurs?
I understand there's no chance that we could be off by...
I think I'm off by a kilometer or two.
But not your talking about the finding of beads there.
So it doesn't seem much chance.
We'll get maybe one more.
This is the sub satellite comes crashing down in the moon.
The last ten kilometers should give us a good swath of data, which will give us another high resolution plot like this.
Other than that, we're kind of lucky.
Okay.
Thank you.
Question?
Okay.
There's the front side of the moon.
Okay, and our coverage from Apollo 11 will extend.
I believe there's a equated crust here.
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. This is zero degrees.
Okay. I'm going from zero to 90 east to 90 west, the terminator.
This is a sudden sea region, which is about the only distinctive feature in 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 sudden sea is a highly magnetized region.
Notice the 16-side is out of our coverage as we're all the Apollo landing sites.
We have about three gamma films on the backside of whatever it is to the front side.
Well, most of these values are about 30, 28, 27, which means they're all three gamma higher than zero at Vendigrath.
So I would say the maximum plus or minus is about a half a gamma on the whole front side.
What do you or not, these do long-eared parable over the track?
This is a function of not having quite enough data.
Instead of making physical looking contours, we drew actual contours with 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 fix this up, we're in Mateson intelligent looking guesses, they would be much more circular.
Do you have a danger on the Apollo 12 and the 15 and 16 surface of that data?
Yes, with 12, 14, 15.
So how do you decouple with the differential data?
Well, you see the surface data is deals with much smaller scales, size, phenomena.
And so there's really no one-to-one correlation.
Well, I'll think it'd be sure that over a region of 100 kilometers of 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 meters away, you'd find a much different value of the magnetic field.
We noticed that, look at Apollo 14.
They went one 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 the given area?
Apollo 15, the steady field of 6 plus or minus 4 gamma, which is essentially 0.
But there again, behind the next polar, it would be 100 gamma, probably no.
And the results in 16, I thought were tremendous.
The greatest they got between one place and another.
At 313 gamma field, really surprised me as far as getting value of that large.
Yes, listen to that.
I think the steeper the features about the magnetic field, the current, which might make these changes,
but it was a hot spot in the beam.
And you said, you know, near the surface, and the beam, the nice surface, the soil kind of, which changes, it says temperature.
And that point, which was n-chain, I think.
No, I'm not a, not a geologist tape.
I don't know why I already know that.
That's the question.
Is that the change?
It seems to me that the younger a crater was, the more chance it would have to produce a good, clean cut signature on the magnetic field data.
I mean, for example, vantigraph itself looked like a fairly young crater because there's no, there's very few secondary craters in the bottom of it.
It's fairly young, whereas things like Kurtzbrunn seem to be very old, or well-blushed with secondary craters.
What is it?
It's a matter of vantigraph, it's a center of the holiday.
It's 80 kilometers from the northern rim.
So from the center of vantigraph, it's about 130, 140 kilometers.
Any other questions?
Thank you, Larry.
Any other questions?
Last subject will be the transponder.
Feel so good?
This is a gravity experiment, and we monitor the gravity by just monitoring the velocity of the spacecraft or the lamb or the subsan light.
Of course, on this particular mission, we lost our limb data on impact because it started cumbling.
That data was lost. We do have ever have the CSM in the low altitude, or which is very interesting data.
Here's the orbital track, and hopefully I can get this aligned.
Not like that.
This profile just below it is the gravity anomaly that was detected.
This line right here represents zero gravity-centric, isostatic equilibrium, and anything below it, of course, I'd be negative gravity deviations.
Here we are at Kalameas, essentially over the center of the track, and we can see the large negative anomaly, and almost 100mg.
Here we see some highland material where we have a positive.
Then we can drop down into a relative low between these two old craters of Parkinsonel vantigneus, and then a high in here.
At this point is the day-card landing site, and we're actually in about a 50mg-al negative anomaly in that region.
There's some nice correlations here with the laser-altymatory measurements. I'll show them in the next profile.
But this is continuous. I've just taken one small section here. We have this thing from limb to limb, so about 110 longitude plus to 110-minus.
Essentially, three revs and revs, three through rev 11, eight revs of data that were pretty good, and then they started their station keeping, and I did it kind of got gravity-stuffed a lot.
All of the new things going on.
I don't even plan out one kind of interesting thing here. Notice that the Tallah-Mais here has an anomaly much lower than Nubium,
although Nubium, which is this region right in here, this Mara Nubium right in here, is still about minus 50mg.
Here's an altimeter profile.
Going right to the Nubium Tallah-Mais region, again, we see that Nubium elevation here is some, by the way, the scale here is two kilometers per heavy line.
So we've dropped down here almost two kilometers from the floor of Tallah-Mais to the floor of Nubium, yet the gravity anomaly is just the opposite to Tallah-Mais is some 50mg of lower than the Nubium region.
Another interesting point is, Fred, on these ACIC maps, Nubium is showing a kilometer higher than Tallah-Mais.
And here we are, two kilometers lower. So we're talking about three kilometers crepancy in just that little area right there.
So I think some of these guys were talking about the right thing when they said we really didn't know the altitudes too well.
I think that shows up quite dramatically when you look at the low sun angle view as you approach the terminator, the things that were in Nubium didn't show up until significantly after we anticipated.
We missed our times on those things a great deal, and I 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 five real good tracking, laser tracking passes over this region, and we've looked at three of them, and all three show the same consistency of the drop there.
Another interesting thing here, Prokolarum, Tranquilotatus, Frikundatatus are all, it seems to be about on the same level.
Smithy, I, again, being low about four and a half kilometers, that was the same thing on Apollo 15 when we passed over it.
It was some four and a half kilometers below as mean radius here.
And we're still referencing this to a 1738, well, .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 two kilometers shift again of the CG being closer to the Earth by some two kilometers.
Let's say that Tranquilotatus is about two and a half kilometers lower than the car.
That's right. Yeah, here's the landing site right in here.
And this is, we had a negative gravity anomaly in here. Well, kind of according to this, maybe that's the situation, because it looks like a topographic low.
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 thrip printout that we get in real time. And there's gaps in the data.
These will be filled in once they get the station tapes delivered.
But we can see the crater hertzbron here very evidently with the central peak or something in it.
You don't have any data in that hundred and twenty degree region.
Not now. We should have next week or so. I'm going to get the tapes here.
One of the things that, well, on Apollo 15, there was a definite, well, centered about 180, there was a definite big trough in here.
We went down about some four and a half kilometers. It was very jagged.
But it was centered just about here. And Apollo 16, now we do not really see that.
We see this highly material here, which we had on 16. That's, that started about in here and showed a marked high region in there.
And this is holding on 16 also. So this is kind of consistent with 15.
Here's another, this is orbit 38 on the backside. I'll just kind of lay it there to show you some of the consistency.
This is 10 orbits later. And the profile is almost there. Smith the eye and, oh, here we have some data in that.
So there's some very few data. Okay. I don't know. Are you looking for some particular?
Yeah. I'm looking for something around the hundred and five hundred and five.
And probably be a particular.
Okay. I do have some data on the sub satellite from Apollo 15, but I don't know if that's the time to really show here.
I think I've shown enough stuff on 16.
Yeah. Well, I like to stick to 16. Any of the new problems we have or any of the data that we got for the crew?
Well, I'm very happy with all the data we've gotten on 16. And the sub satellite on 16, like Larry mentioned just before me.
It's pretty grand, although there was, there wasn't no D solution just run out about an hour ago where the last state vector was used as the position for running out the lifetime program.
And the lifetime program, if we believe that 15 eight model that we use initially back there when we injected that thing says that this thing should come back up.
Still says it's not going to crack. But this will be a very interesting thing to watch the next couple days.
That's right. That's right.
Well, it's just.
I asked a cookmatch about that. And I don't know where he can speak for later.
I'm not, but I told him it's 50 pounds and where they can actually see an impact of 50 pounds.
I think that's all it weighs.
The central station.
Let's see. It should hit about maybe some 20 or 30 degrees west line to two then.
5 or 6 degrees north. That right there. Something like that.
But 5 or 6 north latitude and about 30 west. That's what it looks like. That linear extrapolation.
Thank you, Bill. Thank you, gentlemen, for attending. This concludes our scientific debrief.
And I'd like to thank the crew for giving their time up to come on over to give us some information and also learn some things that would happen.
Okay. Let me say something for the crew.
I want to commend Ken for the way that he operated the Symbay.
I don't think you'll ever find a guy who's either more interested in it or more aware of what the operational problems were and who could do a better job.
He really did an outstanding job and I think he's well done.
The other thing I'd like to say is since I've been on this program, I've been continually impressed with the importance of what we're doing in our support of you guys.
These experiments, they look way out right now and they're difficult for the man in the street to relate to.
My feeling is from some of the things I've seen here and from the thrust of science and technology in this country that in our lifetime and I won't want to say when but I imagine it's going to be a damn sight sooner than anybody even here in this room can imagine.
There are going to be practical applications of some of these discoveries that have been made that will affect every one of us.
I think you're going to be congratulated. The other thing is that I get out of all this that I think the United States ought to be spending two to three times the amount of money that we are spending on basic research and development and applied research and development.
I think if you really look at the big picture of our energy requirements for clean energy in the future in order to improve the life of human beings on this planet, we ought to do that and get on with it.
Thank you.
I hope you do.
During the next couple of months, we'll probably have an opportunity to talk to a lot of people that help to have some influence or shape the pattern of our program and related programs.
I would appreciate it very much and through all could use the data as if you find out things we realize that you have preliminary data today and a lot of the things are our only hints and suggestions of things to come.
I would personally appreciate it very much if you give us a call periodically and tell us what you found.
It's too easy for us to go through here and at the end of a week or so walk off and never really know what happened and never know what kind of data came out.
I think that makes us very poor salesman.
I think you could help us do the job to kind of feedback the quality of the data that you've been getting.
If you could keep us informed, please don't ever feel like you're interfering with our operation or don't be inhibited to call us.
If we can't come to the phone and take the data or talk to you about it, the secretary of the number will be glad to call you back.
If there's any time when you have some questions about the data, it doesn't matter how trivial it may seem to you.
If you want to look at some data and you're curious to know whether we've ever seen a particular observation or whether the spacecraft was moving at the time your data was taken or I don't care how far out it might seem to you.
Questions are pretty cheap and not asking questions can be very expensive.
So please feel like our job isn't finished until you guys have all the information you can use.
And I would like for you to feel like you can call anytime.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to say, giving my thanks also, it was very pleased with the way all the gear worked, especially my part on the lunar surface and part I saw of Ken and orbit.
It was just a real pleasure to have him placed all this stuff for all you people and glad it's working so well.
And thanks for the opportunity to go.
If you can gin up another one, I'll be glad to go along again.
Thank you.