Release 03 UAP Video — DOD_111764902 (AARO, June 2026)

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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. eristic 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 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. llite 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. The orbit incredible. We'll be back to that. Back to that. OK, we've plotted days past deployment versus the parallel and altitude. OK? We started 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 it was the ground line, until 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 in 10 of a crash here and maybe one chance in 5. We've updated this plot. And the odds have changed considerably. This was the prediction. Notice the time scales been expanded. Greatly, these are hours now instead of days. Here was the initial prediction at 37 kilometers say the probability was maybe one chance in 10 of a crash here and maybe one chance in 5. We've updated this plot. And the odds have changed considerably. This was the prediction. Notice the time scales 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 that 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 unfortunately. It might be out of your field, but I'll come our prediction, didn't match the actual value. I mean, we. You're going to tell me. I have a gravity experiment. We don't know the gravity field at well. And that's the business of this satellite initially to come to gravity. You're going to tell that to me. Right. OK. And we're going to spin like that, try to be fast. And I'll go all out here with MSC. Try to drive that point on to me. Time, I think, really seeing a couple. Just goes to show you. You can't reduce six months of planning in two days. Well, in the event, we have one month's worth of good data, which we will 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 tailfield. 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 a 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 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 a 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 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. Now, if you repeat this procedure several times with different Lunations, say 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 of this shows the ground track from where we found the novel. Here was one over Hertzbrung, Coralov. Here's Vannegraf. You can see we went 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 craters located right about here. It's not too big. 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 to contours. You can see this big black blotch here is a result of contours stacking 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, Mill shows a definite structure. Now, the Pavlov 16 results, should name us to expand this map. ers 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, Mill shows a definite structure. Now, 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. Probably still have a gap down in this region. I already can do some idea of gradient. Oh, yes. OK. The numbers presented in the chart, if you can see them, are measured in 1 1 1 1 1 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 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 Vannegraf on the average. Oh, we were fortunate. Also, the near side of the moon, final. Does the gravity profile have any, can you, Coralov? I've looked at the gravity profile, and it doesn't seem to correlate at all. Actually, the laser data Coralov is better with, you don't, there's no gravity in the backside, OK, but on the front side. I understand. Coralov's 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, is reminding you to gamma rate. Yes, that's secondary. Because also a band of graph, I don't know what it means. It could 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, to contrast is the much smoother nature. Could we, do we have 180 on the slide, please? Can you hear me? Could we turn the slide around, please? I always have a coffee break. OK, here. e 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, to contrast is the much smoother nature. Could we, do we have 180 on the slide, please? Can you hear me? Could we turn the slide around, please? I always have a coffee break. OK, here. 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 structured at all. It's very hard to even draw contours. OK. All right, the energy from the air is going to be a lot of effects. OK, 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? All right, there is tail fields, 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. OK, this is a blowup of the vandegraph region in the attempt of 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 crest. 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, piece of Y and B subs Z, show that it can't be one of these angling dipoles in 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. f you look at various models of double dipoles and stuff, it just