PURSUE-RELEASE-03 Serial ea6458ed-49db-49c4-955b-92d6dbc8face

[page 1]
Miss Reeves
x20593

[page 2]
draft

....... a little bit, my skin waswet and it didn't stick the way it had stuck when we tried it out in the trainer and in the capsule on the pad and I finally gave up on it and just kept one eye shut. This is marginally satisfactory, I guess, but I was not well nighted after coming up to the first night. There's a redundancy here but you sure do have the right information or cases so a few of these will be repeats. Now lets start out with the conditions of dark adaptation.

Well, most of these things that we had planned to look into if we could on Astronomy sort of went by the board, and I apologize to the people at the Cape that we didn't get max more (done that we had planned to do but as I think most of you are aware, at the end of the first orbit we start, having some difficulty with control system, sha from then on it was pretty much systems monitoring with some looking around outside and that was it. So a lot of the things that we had planned to do and a lot of the things I had hoped to bring About back just had to go down the drain, but becoming night adapted--the first time around I did get the eye patch out that we had and this was not a very satisfactory eye patch. I was going to try to use it over one eye so that could becomes I was night adapted. I was sweating a little bit, my skin was wet, it didn't stick the way it had stuck when we tried it out in the trainer and in the capsule on the pad, and I finally gave up on it and just kept one eye shut. This is marginally satisfactary I guess but I was not well night adapted coming up to the first night. What it boils down to is that my dark adaptation not was just a result of the sun going down and a normal dark adaptation from being on red light and dim light, which takes some 10 to 15 minutes to get any

[page 3]
2

degree of adaptation out of. I could notice a difference in the numbers of at Just componié to stars I could see first going after the sun first went down sad later on the when I'd be well night adapted at the end of the period). This is some B 37 minutes later when you're approaching sunrise so you'd have a -- I suppose actual my there was a/period there where you're really dark adapts of about a half hour, 33 minutes, something of that order.

Did you have an opportunity to count the stars?

No, this is one of those things that went down the drain. I thought about this on a subsequent orbit but I didn't spend any time on it. I feel that my vision, the numbers of stars I could see was not appreciably increased. Now, I had expected to see a lot more stars. I had thought they'd really a Jump out once you got above the atmosphere but I--like it was in debriefing - - - I think to the being out on the desert on a dark night in summer when the air is very clear and dry, and You know what it is like out around Reno and at Just some of those places; how the sky really comes out and night and you can/see a million stars. and thats what it looked like. It didn't look like any more than that.

[page 4]
3

stars. But a general impression of looking out at these areas was that the muumbers of stars I could see was not greatly increased.

You mention the transmission through the glass be comparable the ··- to atmosphere. That's something you people can check.?

That's right.

MeDonald, through their studies of the window had felt that we probably would not see too many more stars because the transmission of light through the window is cut down by 27 per cent or something like that. The figure that they came up with vas almost identical to what people have computed the atmospheric attenuation of light is. So they felt that when we got above the atmosphere it would probably be about the same looking through the window as it is looking through the atmosphere here, and I think they were just about right. It looked to be about the same to me.

I think it might be wise for you to read the next 3 or 4 paragraphs. I think a lot of these are going to be real quick answers, so why don't you get to it.

Was this bothered or being bothered by moonlight on the windows or was the sky actually bright?

The sky was not bright. I didn't notice the sky being bright at all • nor was it moonlight bothering on the window of the capsule. It was moonlight the surface of the earth back from the clounds when I looked down that Oil Yaw direction I could use as a YAR reference.

Yes, but I heard you say that the moonlight very definitely did bother your ability to see faint areas. I'm trying to find out in what way.

Well I don't--perhaps that was a misstatement. I don't think it really hurt on seeing fainters I don't believe. I was thinking of the more complete night adaptation we would have without any moonlight at all. This is so slight you couldn't--I doubt if you could pinpoint ng differences.

What about daytime stars?

•

didn't seem to be any problem. Looking up fairly close to the moon, I would guess a--counting a number degrees probably, you could see right up to the edge of the moon. The stars would be visible right up--very close, its not like it is when-you observe the moon from the earth's surface]

Patiy faint stars?

Yes, I think so, just like the other--the whole field of stars you're Looking at, you come up and--the only way, when you swing the capsule around and you'd be approaching Zx area where the moon was, you could tell it because there would be moonlight coming in the window and you would see the light moving across on the capsule. Thats the only way you would know that you're really coming close to the moon. You didn't know it by the sky getting real light as you come to the moon like you do here. There was a little area around it where this was true. It wasn't just/complete cutoff, but it was nothing like the buildup we have here where you are looking through the atmosphere and get all this.ac.

Any Comets?

this was very similar. You do the same thing there and I had no--there was no problem with the eyes. The light though, it was very noticable. The light was a very brilliant clear, white light and what it looked like coming in the window and the way it looked on the suit--the best thing I could relate it to were the are lights, the brilliant search light are lights that they have down at the Cape that are out on thebad at night. Its that type brilliant white light coming in--very bright. And it was warm enough that I remember commenting, I put it on the tape I believe at one time that riding along the sun was coming in and it was over on my right arm and I commented about my right arm getting appreciably warmer than the left when the sun vas on it. It was a very intense light but as it come in the window and was on your arm here thats just what it looked like. It looked like being on the pad at night with these real bright search lights on. Sane type light, it wasn't any of the orange-ish yellowish light.

**** (Inaudible).......... in size from the UV?

Oh, yes.

This is the difference.

from there on. Thats what I was prepared to see, I guess, but this wasn't the way it was at all. The sun goes down and its a brilliant display. Theres all the spectrum lined up here almost. Just as the sun goes down--well before the sun goes down you have a broad band ......... down in the atmosphere that we show on the pictures that I took too and I'm sorry we don't have those there to brief you with those but you'll see those later where starting with the sun down on the horizon there a great band that runs way out here maybe I think I estimated some 45 to 60 degrees on each side of the sun, way out. And it gradually get goes down to a point out here like that. Starting from a very bright white band close to the earth and going out to a point out here and the other bands of light going from, oh, yellowish and orange color on up into the blues as you get off toward the black of space. Just as the sun sets that last little sliver of light where I was looking for the green flash that everyone has been looking for, that I had been briefed on, just as I'm watching for that, just as the sun gets down on the horinon, why it joins this long sliver. So you don't actually see that last little sliver of sun. It goes down, you can tell when it goes down but its not a clear ball Just going below the horizon like that. Its out in this broad sliver that goes out toward the horizon.

[page 9]
8

Solar Corona. No. This--once again I think to observe these things properly we are going to have to be night adapted before we get there and thats what we lost by having other complications on the second

To get back to the unanticipated celestial features.

Well, unanticipated celestial features--the little light spots, luminous spots that I saw--I don't think these are celestial features. I don't know what they are. Can we get back to that later?

Uh huh.

celestial I think unanticipated/features, another one to do with sunset is that the sunset lasted--the lightness much longer than I had anticipated. This went on for some 4 or 5 minutes that you could still see bright bands and they then they would gradually go to a more din condition but this occurred--this vas over some quite a lengthy period of time--about 5 minutes. I had expected the light to just go down very shortly after sunset. But it didn't, it was quite brilliant, quite bright for a long period of •

Would you concentrate on It would be a concentration over the horizon but were there many

probably a degree and a half to two degrees wide and it was quite visible once you start looking for it. It ex seemed to go out and taper out. No, it didn't taper as much as the light at the horizon did during sunset. It was more of a solid type a band. It looked like the color of it would be sort of a buff--look like a buff light color--I don't know, something like this rather than a pure white, be sort of an off color, just not a pure white.

(Question by Dr. Roman inaudible)

No. All these things you see are things that we had planned to use at first orbit, mix mainly just hold position, get all the radar date, all the tracking, monitor systems closely and thats what we were doing and then we flew the first orbit then we were going to broaden this out a little bit on the second and third orbit and thats where we got trapped because the second and third orbit kept right on doing what we were doing on the first orbit.

We over time in Astronomy. Lets try to finish up real fast and come back

Important considerations:
* Make sure that for all key-value pairs, you have "key:value" format. Ensure that each value is associated with the correct key.
* Make sure your reading order is correct. Sometimes, the options are numbered, and you should follow the order of the numbers instead of going horizontally.
* In general, circled options or tick marks, or x marks next to the text are checked options. Mark them with [x].
* Also, for checkbox field, we tend to do [x] $value$ and [ ] $value$, basically having the checkbox before the text. Follow this pattern when we don't have an explicit colon between the value and the checkbox in the image.
* We also tend to add a newline between checkbox fields that are grouped together on the same row. So instead of having '[ ] $value 1$ [x] $value 2$', we will have '[ ] $value 1$
[x] $value 2$'.
* Your performance on checkboxes should be perfect. Take time to double check yourself.
* Do not output Markdown formatting. Always output things in key-value format. So for columns, you will have
$Row 1 Name$:
$Column 1$: $Value 1$
$Column 2$: $Value 2$
$Row 2$:
$Column 1$: $Value 1$
$Column 2$: $Value 2$
* Do not output HTML formatting, let's remain with text.
* Do not maintain extra spaces to be faithful to the image. Instead, add a newline.
* Do not drop any information, especially headers or text hanging around.
* Conversely, do not create any new keys that are not present in the image. Even if you understand the context, do not create the keys, just write the values as they are.
* Do not fix typos or grammatical errors. Just write the text as it is.
* You should use Latex formatting for mathematical symbols.
The following is the information that I have obtained and it is my intent to provide it with all honesty and truth to the best of my knowledge and ability. I understand that the furnishing of false information or omission of any material fact in this application could subject me to prosecution for fraud.
I understand that the following is an informal list and I will be provided with formal documents at a later date to complete the application.
This is a correct statement of my financial condition and I am prepared to provide verification of any and all items listed herein.
$Signature$: <signature>

10

identified by the previous shot. I think maybe this one Mercury. Lee xhu check the chart on it.

See any stars <empty>?
Zodiacal light. No. Solar Corona. No. I was not well enough adapted
to <empty> patterns along that line.
Shadow of earth of sky?
No.

To photograph the Orion region, it looked about the same as it does from the ground. This area in the center of the Orion that I was trying to use as a target area, the center star in the belt--we got several pictures of that. These were taken with different drift rates on the capsule. We tried to press the capsule on manual control and get it right on very accurately and then use the camera but there was still some drift in the capsule at that time and I had to keep for it. This is not a stable a platform as you would like for this type photography. Made exposures of about 15 to 18 seconds. I vas counting off the seconds myself without explosion. Thats about it. I been interested though to see whether those came out. I did see some prints and I don't know enough about evaluating those prints to know what we got.

(Question inaudible)

[page 12]
11

rate

of magno control inputs and you'd start a little drift a very slow. Probably the drift rates want out over a quarter of a degree per second during the time that I was trying to make the pictures. But thats enough if you drift off and you have to correct back the line you drift off a line correct back line, you do this for 15 or 20 seconds, its rather a crude way to take pictures.

(Question inaudible)

Yes. Hand held and had it up against the visor to steadiness and turn it very slowly. We had the loose site on the top of it. A loose site with a cross hair and so that I could keep that right on the--lined up on the stars. It will be interesting to see if we came out with anything on that.

Make any other comments about our

12

it visually or on instrument. And since we were having automatic control trouble presentation on the attitude, I was trying to maintain control looking back out the window and to check back and forth between the very brilliant and bright light coming in at sunrise through the scope and look back out into the dark again, I finally just put filter over the scope and go back to looking out at the stars and what I could see on the clouds-- moonlight coming off of them the and that seemed to be easier to hold the position.

The moon look any different to you?

No. Not appreciably. It was brighter--a lot brighter. Just very clear. Once again, clearer than it is around here, brighter than it is around here. Once again, out on the desert on a real clear night, its very similar.

Lets push on to the earth questions on your next page, John. You said you had never used the interference filter.

No.

[page 14]
13

but you see a whole thunderhead light up and and another one would him Light up over here and there would be some light go back and forth from here like this very horisontally. And then you would see another one light up and there was a tit lot of thunderstorm activity particularly in the storm that was to the north, of course. A little less to the one south but the lightening was very visible.

Pretty much the same thing you see frem a high flying jet, isn't it?

[page 15]
14

that the weather would be so that you wouldn't see any of this but you could see little bumps along in the twilight glow after the sunset and this shows up in some of our pietures. You can see these little bumps along. Do you have copies of those up here?

Not up here. I saw some that were first run yesterday down at the Cape.

We had a first look at these out at Grand Turk. I think the copies we got were not the best in the West. They seem to be a little rough. They had a lot of specs on them and I'm looking forward to getting back down there and going over them again. But you could see some of these. You could see a little bump out here, there would be a little discontinuity.

......... angle or altitude...........(question, partially inaudible)...?

No. They were in the lower part of the light band so I assume that they were weather build-ups.

What did you estimate the height of the atmosphere to be under daytime conditions? In fact, this angle of the horizon business?

[page 16]
15

You might be able to try this. I didn't try it that way. You might be able to, holding your head fix you might be able to do something like that. This would be fairly accurate. This would put it down, I think, where you could pick it off within a--our gradations on that attitude control system are fairly fine--about, I guess, three sixteenths of an inch is 10 degrees but you could pick it off to within a degree and a half or 2 degrees with pretty fair accuracy.

secondder

I notice in some of the pictures there is a image of the sun about 10 degrees from the primary image apparently due to the 2 thicknesses of glass.

16
through the window like 2 suns or satellite.....

Did you see any multiple images/....(question partially inaudible)......XX

No, no.

Could I <empty> a question here on the surface?

Go ahead.

I notice on the picture here and also the comet the description of the
<empty> on the horizon in the daytime. <empty>
<empty> around the horizon near the sun.. Was this a uniform thing <empty>
<empty>.

No. It comes out even in broad daylight. It seems to go out to a little more of a pointed area out--way out the horizon if you leaned over and look out the windenwindow way out toward the North, for instance. This would not be as broad a band as it appeared to be when we're looking back directly on the flight path, for instance.

It does appear to exist 350 degrees?

Oh yes.

17

You notice any--very mary clouds or any peculiar cloud formation Yes. We got quite a mmber of cloud risk pictures and you can pick 0 :t the relative types of clouds. We did wonder whether you could tell vertical clouds from SER-08 clouds. You can tell what clouds are vertical development and you get a three dimensional effect. Looking at them you can tell that some are higher than others.

with

Comparing what you said mut what the picture showed, is there anything particular noteworthy that you might have seen that the pictures might not show?

I don't think so other than the things we have mentioned here.
(Question, inaudible)
Is what Now?
Does your window produce any xxxx polarization?
We have a real limited degree of polarization in the window.
How many <empty> do you have in <empty> form?

I will make a note on that one and check the exact polarization of it.
We had---this was checked at the time that we ran some star studies in
when
St. Louis and I took the capsule out <empty>.
The reason I asked <empty>

[page 19]
18

It ran up and looked like it ran off the edge of a Then there were some white areas way up to the North and I imagine these were probably snow fields. I thought at the time they probably were but I couldn't be sure. I didn't specifically go over any area where I could look right down at this cloud and that snow. I was surpoised at my--and another thing, as far as the weather goes, and that is what a tremendous area of the earth was is covered by clouds that day. I don't know whether we're going to find that this is customary or not. But I vas surprised. I had very little view

of land.
Regulatory
X (Statement, insubible)

[page 20]
19

I could see no difference in flying in an airplane at 50,000 feet and looking down and seeing colors on the ground than there is from the capsule.

Lets switch the subject again. Did you have an opportunity to try closing your eyes and seeing the Sorenhoff Radiation flashes?

Seeing what?

[page 21]
20

Thats a good one. That sure is.

Were they all traveling in the same direction and the same velocity? Yes. They all just appeared to be a sitting out here floating and they particular didn't have any interaction with each other. They were-- sone vent running this way and some that way. They all appeared just to be through statie in their field. I was moving te them. The only ones that appeared to move were the ones that seemed to have a little flow characteristic

around the capsule, and this was surprising too because there would be one that

around the capsule, and this was surprising too because there would have
would come
around the edge of the capsule and it would drift off like this
less
and it would just more or less take its place back here. If this
had been just a flash, just a momentarily thing, I don't know, it would
have been--I don't know what I would have thought on one like that.
observed observe
I sat there and examined this thing just as carefully as I could view it for
some 3 to 5 minutes at three different periods. The lights were not very
dim little lights as though reflections from something. They were every bit
fireflies
as brilliant or more so than fireworks out on a real black summer night.
And you've seen fireflies out in the meadow or when they just stand out
like very, very bright stars. They were as least as bright as the brightest
fireflies you've ever seen in a situation like that and the light was very
steady and they were about the same color as fireflies. This was a luminous
yellow-green or green-yellow color. I'd say it was almost an identical to
a firefly and they were just as far at that particular time. I would
look out the window this way and there just seemed to be no end to them
out here, no end back this way, no end on this side, up or down in particular
(Question: inaudible)

[page 22]
20

The density looking perpendicular to your path is about equal to that

I had 2 things came in mind. One was, I thought we found the lost XE Air Force needles, that wad was the first thing. But they weren't-- wasn't like that at all. The other thing, I thought perhaps we were getting freezing of the water coming out of the capsule and we were having snow, something like that. In fact, later on they called me from the ground and asked if I thought that that is what it was. But it wasn't that type thing at all. It didn't appear to be eminating from the capsule. The particles were not closer together--closer to the capsule than they appeared to be further away. The average distance of the particles apart was probably-- I estimated I think some 6 to 10 feet, in that neighborhood. Occasionally one would be right in the shadow of the capsule and would drift up pass the window end it looked rather white like a wee tiny little piece of cotton or a little--it looked like a little snow flake. Some little piece of thing like that. These white mk ones that I saw come up by like that I assume were the same things as the others out here because I never saw anything else outside of the window.

[page 23]
21

(Question, partially inaudible)............. in the shadow of the capsule they were simply white like snow?

Thats right, thats right. They were very liminous. When the first rays of the sun would come--when the first rays of the sun came by the capsule is when I'd see the first ones and this persisted then some--oh, 5 minutes.

(Lengthy question, inaudible).......

It could be. I won't say it was. I won't say it wasn't.

I don't know how you could have much depth perception but do you have any idea about how far away the fartherest ones were?

21a

(Statement, partially inaudible)
advancing a new theory that this might very well be some full
luminescence of areas <empty> around the capsule
we talked about this # night and day
change <empty>. Whether theres anything of this kind
recombination back in the shadow
of the capsule <empty>. Five miles an hour

motions ares of capsule speed and so on. It certainly seen--it seem to be connection with the capsule in some way and not with something coming from outer space.

I estimated 3 to 5 miles an hour differential speed and I--it wasn't over five miles an hour., thats definitely on the high side if we get up to that. They were just very slowly drifting by. They gradually start disappearing as the sun came up and we got up at more of an angle they gradually start disappearing. And I couldn't see anything.

Did you see them before the sun rose?

No.

22

No. These one that would come fairly clost to the capsule I could • Thats where I estimated they were just a very tiny size up to maybe /8 0 an inch or half an inch.

Would you characterize them as sort of irregular like cornflakes, like crystal, like snowflakes?

They didn't appear to have any oblong pattern to them or any particular circular pattern. No real semetry at all.

Were they flat like snow flakes?

These little white things which I think were the same items were right up close to the window in the shade looked a lot like little snow flakes.

Would you say they were speherical or 2

I think more like sort of a sphere.

any distance at all and th they were luminous and the sun was on them and there was no shuts shape to-- Just like looking at a firefly light. That's the nearest thing I can come--I keep coming back to because that's just what they looked like.

(Question, Inaudible).....?

No. No. There was no on and off again type thing at all. This was another thing that going back to the stars it was noticable too as we had expected there wans't any of the--I didn't notice any particular amount of twinkling of the stars, not like they do down here.

Did
you see any of these particles move

No. Its just like you have a big static field like you have gone out here with strings and placed them in this room and if you cane back and through that door and back to way across the room that just what they looked like going by. It just wasn't--

[page 26]
23

They all went by in the direction of

That's right. Now, I turned around once so I could see if they were coming toward me. I got around facing toward the minglight sunlight. As I came around and the sunlight was off to my right I could see far fewer of them at that time than I could see when I was facing backwards. This would be on the side away from the sun is a where I could see most of them. But they--the ones out here were still coming towards me. Now this is--I want to check and see if these were eminating from the capsule. They were not. They were still coming toward me from out there so they couldn't have been eminating from the capsule.

From the direction toward gk which you were moving.

That's right.

[page 27]
How close

Six to ten feet apart.

'

(Question, partially inaudible) .......you said you saw it 3 times. Did This was approximately the same..

Well, this was right at each sunrise. Now this was another thing we talked about. Bill Douglass, I think, fax felt that there might be some possibility if the earth does have its own band around the equator, just as some of the planets do, that perhaps were were at the edge of a little band like that that was appearing each time we came up past the equator on the dark side at that and it just happened to coincide with the sunrise much time. We entered at sunrise each time. We don't have the data--I haven't checked back here to get the data on that yet as to whether was always right at the equatorial a region that we ran into.

(Question, inaudible)....?

[page 28]
25

Did you have the impression they would be there if you they were about 6 to 7 feet apart. The window is only a

certain size-

(Statement, inaudible)

Well, I had the impression I could have sat--I could have been sitting there and watch one particle for some distance as it went on back maybe for a minute or so.

When they were in the shadows of the spacecraft, did they appear to vary any in brightness ?

[page 29]
26

as I could start to begin to see some faint light down below and I glanced back up at the window and my first impression was, well we've gotten way out of attitude and probably come to the because here it was just like looking out on a complete star field, there was no other reference at all and looking backward toward this dark area what had happened, instead of the even horizon back here that I had had with the stars up above and the darker area down below. Now in this dark area down below too were all these other lights pinpointed in. They just looked, at first glance, like a continuation of the whole star field down into that area. I thought we had drifted up and here I am looking at nothing but a starfield and how did I ever get into this crazy attitude. I checked instruments again and checked the periscope again and I hadn't drifted. I was still in the same attitude I was in except this.big darker area here that had been the earth back behind it that I had been looking at was now filled up with all these dots as the first light of the sun surfaced.

[page 30]
27

You can't see them on the film?

No. The ones we had out there at Grand Turk I couldn't very--we had to many scratches and spots on those pictures that I couldn't really pinpoint them. But when we get hold of the original pictures and can project those, I hope that we can see more, I don't know. Those reproductions we had out there were not very satisfactory. I hope the originals are better than that. Did you see the originals? Are they clear?

I saw prints which I think started to develop. They seem

fairly clear.

Did you see any of these spots on them? Did you have the film? Did you look at the film?

I did not look at the film directly. But it not the sort of picture you had in Grand Turk. You had a really get clear print that sata day.

Thats right. And the way they looked they were pretty They weren't the best job I ever saw. I'm afraid I don't know want to tell you except that. I wish I could be more helpful. All I can say is we observed it and it was very clear and distinct. It wasn't a reflection from anything. It was very positive. We observed it a long period of time on three different orbits at exactly the same spot. Beyond that, I have not foggiest the niggash idea what it is.

We they all the same color?

Yes. I Very even colored except that some of them would look a little larger than others, a little brighter than others. The color was think identical.

[page 31]
28
in brightness

Were there any changes/looking out the side cross your and back?

No. I don't recall any. We talked about that too and I couldn't recall that they looked any different in one direction than they did in another.

(Question, inaudible)....?

No.

(Statement, inaudible)...

It might well have something to do with differences in electrostatic potential.

(Question, inaudible)...?

The drift would be like--well if you were looking out--vell if a snow flake come drifting by the window is something goes very rapidly, of maybe course. As I was looking out the window, there be/little particles just come Just come up across the window and maybe

around and then drift away and as it got out there a t little bit it just seemed to assume its position out here.

(Statement, inaudible)...

Oh, no. It was not a thing where the thing just came around on/very smooth trajectory and run off like this. It would drift up around here like that and then it would drift off on it own. It looked very much--it blow like Just looked like snow. It looked like you a would see in a wind tunnel only with a single partiele.

Do you have any on your capsule?

I'm sure there is. I don't know what it is but I'm sure there must be some.

[page 32]
There would not only be an electric charge, there would be a differential charge between the window and the outside of the capsule which could explain

(Statement, inaudible).....

(Question, inaudible)....?

Well, thats a pretty th tough one. I don't know. That would be like-- I hate to be too positive because it might lead you astray but I keep coming back to the fireflies as again. Very, very similar to looking out at this-- a big firefly or little firefly. Looking out on a real dark night in a pasture this might be a small firefly up close and a big firefly farther away. As you drift through these things they go by, they all look reasonably uniform. The ones that are up close and some of the luminous ones were up xxx very close.

Definitely, did that make sense?

As they would be up close and then drift away they didn't appear to diminish their light very rapidly. Just like seeing a firefly again.

Well John you kept your date with us promptly. I think we should let you go promptly.

[page 33]
30

I'd like to get together again because this was the first real honest to goodness business like this we've conducted since I got back here and this is what I want to get back to next week. I'm going back to the Cape Monday night. I'm going to be down there all next week on touring plan and then probably back down in the following week again until we get a lot

of this. I want to go through the fists films and and get back to work and finish this type thing this week. (Statement, inaudible)...

I don't think there's any great urgency from our point of view mainly it was to get the first impression there is always debriefing.

Any time you would like to get even with us
(Conversation, several people, inaudible)

Thank you Glenn.

Thank you.

[page 34]
Date Mar 13

ROUGH DRAFT: 3/13/62
CODE SCG: MD: dd

MEMORANDUM to Director, Office of Space Sciences

Subject: Considerations and recommendations of manned space exploration following the interview ( February 27) 1962
with Lt. Col. John H. Glenn, Jr. Col. Glenn presented a very detailed and factual description of his observations during the MA-6 flight. He answered rather well the many and varied questions presented to him during the limited interview. Despite the fact that he was XXXX seldom if ever, never properly dark adapted, a number of his observations remain of great interest and possible further exploration, furthermore, it is evident that the astronaut can perform various scientific experiments, and has the ability capability of doing compact so despite the many limitations imposed by the Mercury capsule.
Some comments on Lt. Col. Glenn's observations are presented below followed by a number of recommendations.

[page 35]
-2-

The consistency in the observations on the three separate

orbits would require that the particles were associated

with the spacecraft itself (I have heard that O'Keefe suggested that dumped wates many has investigated the life support system which would have been the source of the particles) water into space) Col. Glenn described the

descaphion

Авари
particles and the luminosity. The fact that the coloring
apparent
was a yellow-green and the effective observational pie-

ture described by Clank would indicate that the particles

became fluorescent in sunlight. The particles observed

in shadow were observed in the scattered light from the

spacecraft and were probably illuminated only by visible
portion
part of the spectrum.

2- The change of angles of the particles approaching eam close th the XX spacecraft could be attributed to the since repl plusive charge XX** the polarities of the particles and spacecraft were the same. The ability of Col. Glenn to observe the particles under improper dark adaptation Wand indicate that an astronaut would be in a position to carry through a series of experiments to investigate

Comets the physics of comments in the solar environment. Properly dark adapted the the various gases and dust particles ejected while from the spacecraft during tight conduits. and during abserved with instruments and the spaceraft is in sunlight could be exams by the at he is y darle adapted. astronaut scientist and the results could be recorded

[page 36]
-3-

significant observations of the star starfield or the moon. In the absence of atmospheric scattering the sun appeared a brillant white, but showed no signs of corona. It is of

interest, however, to consider Col. Glenn's observation

I

of a band six to eight degrees

of the twilight indicating a-six-te-eight-degree-band

above the horizon, with a haze layer about two degrees

Although ithas been speculated that

wide at the top.

The coloring of the

observation

mught

the multiple layers of the "window could cause the high

of haze with

angle to the horizon of the air glow and haze layer, this

appears of the may be unlikely because of the variations and angle of d the windows for different omentalions of view allow to Gol Glenn of rotating the space craft, Col Glenn said

and the fact that he did not see any double imageing during An abseing in any of his other observations. Further- state more, he was able to indicate that the stars abserved through the haze layer became less intense while changing angle

Mear below the horizon. The USSR reports by Titor also inė wanit dicated a high angle haze layer. A It is evident that of the ariglow was observed with the 5587 filter, nor 5577 lessed without it. The anglow should be detectable by visual observations after darke adaptation. urther investigations of the air glow and haze layerж

[page 37]
-4=
have become evident
recommendations appear to be sparent following the very

successful flight of the Mercury capsule.

1. The astarnaut-scientist carrying out the ob- describe sureations by servations from a space vehicle should publish under his if desirable a paper name (with an associate) angeneral article in a widely following a sucul slight these first- distributed scientific journal. In this manner, the obj hand servations would have wide distribution, be properly would credited to the observer, and particularly be edited for correctness.

-5-

the study of and twilight scattering and, similar phenomena
6. For air glow and optical studies, the photo-
near detection incorporating a
multiplier for systems and a series of filters
if available, a screen for observing the U.V. airglow visually
(including a possible fluorescent plain filter to study
by fluorescence)
the ultra-violet) should be incorporated into the

spacecraft.

Because a number of scientific experiments appear
reasonable following the success of the Mercury orbital
flight, and in consideration of the presently planned
manned-space-flight-program, some recommendations are
we should take this activity to improve the space science
apparent to take advantage of the improvements in the program.

scientific exploration of the solar system and in consideration may be given to: the following! astronomy. At headquarters, it is recommended that a The assignment of.a Program Chief and supporting staff in the

space science reporting to the Director of Space

~ciences for scientific exploration ei in the!Manned

<signature> Space Flight program and,
b. The formation b. that a committee or sub-committee be formed
including such people as Reehe, oach, Minnaert, Tousey,
e. Sekera, and so forth to include the scientific community

and the in this activity and,
3. The formation of that a branch or division at one of the centers
carrying out scientific experiments
be created as a scientific team for direct support of the
carrying out scientific experiments,
astronaut-scientists who venture into sys-solar? space.

Clerk: <signature> Clerk-

M. Dubin
Idead Rimming Pong on my

[page 39]
Mr. Dubin

In reply refor to: SGA(JRG:aml)

FEB 23 1962

MEMORANDUM for the Files

Subject: Telephone conversation with Dr. John O'Keefe from Cape Canaveral

The following information was gathered from a son- versation with Dr. O'Keefe on Wednesday, Feb. 21, 1962:

Astronaut Glenn reported having seen small Luminous particles during his flight. They appeared to be moving at a speed of about three or four miles per hour. They were apparently not more than 100 feet away from the capsule, and were visible by binocular vision. Their color was golden like fireflies, and they seemed to be more to the rear of the capsule than ahead of it, though they were visible for great distances all around. These particles were visible only at sunrise (not at sunset), and the capsule seemed to be immersed in them. They very definitely had nothing to do with the capsule or its movement.

Glenn also reported that very clear pictures of the stars, including Orion, had been taken with the UV camera, although the capsule motion had caused a "wiggly" view.

Jocelyn R. Gill
Staff Scientist
Astronomy & Solar Physics

V.V camera- 2300-3000° A° - then Vycon window.
в текину сураива of

[page 40]
JUL 17 1982
Dubin

# UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
(CONTRACT W-7405-ENG-36)
P.O. Box 1663
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

IN REPLY
REPER TO: J-16-812

Dr. Jocelyn Gill
Room 62033
Federal Office Bldg. No. 6
Headquarters, N.A.S.A.
Washington 25, D. C.

July 13, 1962

SG JUL 17 1962

ACTION COPY
INFORMATION

Dear Dr. Gill:

- The June 29 issue of Science brought to my attentionJ. H. Glenn's comments

on "The High layer~'. It seemed possible that the layer he described could be . accounted for as a region of relatively large nitrogen peroxide (N0 2 ) concentration, and the past two weeks have been spent in checking this hypothesis • Unfortunately I am not familiar with either photochemistry or upper atmosphere physics so the following analysis leaves much to be desired; the hypothesis seems tenable, however, so I would like to bring itto your attention.

Effective path length and comparison with possible surface observations.

Referring to Figure 1, the height (H) of a point at a distance (L) from a point on the surface of a sphere of radius (R) can be found from the formula

(RH)2 R2+12+2RL sin (1)

which has the solution

H = R [-1 + sqrt(1 + (L/R)^2) + 2L/R sin θ] (2)

[page 41]
L

то

H

R

Figure 1

Vertical path (No. 1)

No. 3

No. 4

Hi

Horizontal path
from surface

Figure 2

No. 2

[page 42]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO:

-2-

DATE: July 13, 1962

Fox- th, followins I will assume that the concentr . ation ot absorbins mo1ecu1es in the region of interest can be described adequate}¥ by an exponential decrease w1th altitude above the bottom, of the layer, hence, can be representedby

H

р - ро е (3)

where Y is the scale height in the layer and H must lie in the layer. Then the number of molecules per cm² is found to be

N molecules es) = √(H)dl (4a)
cm

-1 + √1+ (2 + sin e (4b)
N = po

-1 + 1 + y² + 2y sin e + 2y sin
= RpoSe dy (4c)

(x = 1/1) (5)

where the integral is over the range of y desired (usually 0 → ∞). For a vertical view (sin = 1) path, the solution is simply

N₁ =Ypo

(6)

where Po is the density at the base of the layer.

[page 43]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

-3-

DATE: July 13, 1962

For a horizontal path (sin = 0) tangent to the base of a layer (path No. 3) we note that y << 1 in the contributing region, hence, can get an approximate form

N 2 M Rpo Se dy (7)

which has the value

N=TRY Ρο (8)

Here Po is the density at the base of the layer, as in eqµation (6).

An astronaut's view thru a layer from above would see twice the path computed by equation (7), giving

N3 = Po√2RY molecules/cm² (9)

Aline of sight tangent to the earth and passing thru a layer at base altitude

H  (path  No. 2)  willhave

N = RY pl (10)

and we note that [P P1 e is the density at H₁, the base of the layer, which we set equal to po as in equations (6) and (9),

RY R
Na Po Po 21

(11)

[page 44]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

-4-

DATE: July 13, 1962

Assuming that Y = 7 km in an absorbing layer, we note that a surface observer viewing a layer at an altitude near 100 km will have available the ratio

N2/N1 = 5.5 (12)

An astronaut viewing along path No. 3 would have a much greater thickness, as

N3/N1 = 2πR/Y ≈ 75 (13)

Viewing thru the layer to a point ne.ar the surface and out again the enhancement would be mu.ch less,

N4 / N1 = 2 N2 / N1 = 11 (14)

Light received by an observer from a "point source" in space is attenuated by a factor e^-σN where σ is the absorption plus scattering cross section, giving

I / I₀ = e^-σN (15a)

and

ln (I / I₀) = -σN (15b)

# UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (cont.)

LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

-5-

DATE: July 13, 1962

From the report in Science, I infer that for the layer reported,

1 < σN₃ < 5 (16)

or

σN₃ = 3 ± 2 (17)

giving

σN₁ = 0.04 ± 0.027 (18)

and

σN₂ = 0.22 ± 0.15 (19)

Any such absorbing layer present during the day would result in rapid heating, and

•I

reradiation in the infra-red range from whatever bands may be present. However, the absorbers postulatedbelow would be destroyed by photodissociation and/or heating during the day. Hence, itis not surprising that solar spectra have not shown such an absorbing layer.

StellarJplanetary or lunar spectra might show the existence of such a layer,

ifthe absorption  spectrum  has  sufficient  structure.

Setting X_1ρ_0 = N_1 (20a)
we find the effective path length X_1.

X₁ = 7 x 105 cm

(20b)

X2 3.9 x 106 cm (starting absorption at (20c)
100 km altitude)

[page 46]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS. NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill
-6-
DATE: July 13, 1962

X3 = 5.4 x 10^7 cm (20d)
X4 = 7.8 x 10^6 cm (20e)

Absorbers Present in the Upper Atmosphere

'lliree constituents of the atmosphere near 100 km altitude absorb light through

most or • all of , the visible range, as would be re_ quired to get a noticeable d1mm1ng of starlight.

They are: 1) NO2 (nitrogen peroxide)

2) 0 (negative atomic oxygen ion)

3) 02 (negative molecular oxygen ion)

Of these, I found no cross section data for 02. For 0, Massey (Negative Ions; Cambridge U. Press) gives curves showing absorption cross sections starting at 5620 Å and approaching 2 4 x 10-18 cm m²/ion in the region λ < 5000 Å. There is very little structure (only the onset at 5620 A).

From ecpation (17) we find that

N3(0) 3±2 4 x 10 18 (7.5±5) x 1017

could explain the observed attenuation.

For an effective path length of 5.4 x 107 cm, we have po = (1.4 ± 1) x 1010 negative ions/cm³.

Since the daytime free electron concentration in the E layer is 1.5 x 105 and the night value is ~104 it seems hard to believe such a high nighttime concentration of negative atomic ions.

[page 47]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

-7-

DATE: July 13, 1962

NitroGen peroxide haa been extensive~ studied and two papers were fou.nd

which gave absorption coefficients in the visible region of the spectrum. Wiley ' ' and Foord (Proceedings of the Royal Society Al35, 174 (1932) give a coefficient which I convert to

σ~1-3 x 10-19 cm2/molecule

depending on the wavelengths selected by their filters (the lower value was for the range 4900 < 1 < 5250 Å).

Hall and Blacet (J. Chem. Phys. 20, 1745 (1952) give a curve obtained with a Cary spectrophotometer having ~5 Å resolution. Maximum absorption occurs in the range 3500 << 4500 Å and drops to ~ 1/2 the peak value at 5000 Å. They give no data for longer wavelengths. I convert their absorption coefficients to ~ 6 x 1019 cm2/molecule at 4000 Å, and ~ 3 x 10- cm2/molecule at 5000 Å. -19 Structure produces changes in cross section of ~2 x 10-19 cm²/molecule at wave- lengths separated by a few angstroms.

Taking an average value of 4 x 10-19 cm²/molecule, we find

N3 (NO2) 3±2 (7.5 ± 5) x 1018 molecules/cm²
4 x 10-19

and using X3 5.4 x 107cm

Po• (1.4 ± 1) x 1011 molecules/cm 3

[page 48]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

-8-

DATE: July 13, 1962

Readily detectable structure would produce ve.r1e.t1ons of o-N1 and aNa ot

about half the attenuation figure given in equations (18) and (19) which is near the threshold of detectability.

I have not yet found an author who estimates the concentration of NO or NO2 in the atmosphere; Bates and Nicolet discuss the reactions which lead to it in the book "The Earth as a Planet", edited by G. P. Kuiper (Volume II of The Solar System).

Nicolet calculates the photodissociation time as 200 seconds during daytime,

and shows the concentration must be so low that no effect on solar observations would be found.

As a general conclusion, it seems to me more likely that N02 would be

responsible for an absorbing layer, generated perhaps with the aid of downward diffusion of NO to higher pressure regions favoring oxidation to N~. 'lhe color suggested by Glenn fits very well ', as may be quickly verifiedby looking thru. the vapor space above concentrated nitric acid.

[page 49]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

6-

DATE: July 13, 1962

# UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (cont.)

"pass through" the atmosphere, especially the absorbing layer (perhaps such sequences already exist). At the expected orbital height, I estimate a 7 km thick layer would subtend 1/2 degree and a given light source would "pass 2 through" it in eight seconds. Attempts to derive a density distribution would require a fair number of points in the "1-1/2 or 2 degrees" (divide by 3 ?) so a frame interval near one per second seems desirable. If operated continuously thru the night passage approximately 100 feet of 16 mm film would be required per passage.

As a crude attempt at spectroscopy, color filters could be used on some of the sequences, without too serious light loss. For example, a Corning No. 5030 or No. 5543 filter would limit exposure to the wavelength range of maximum absorption by NO2 (light loss may be considerable) and a Corning No. 3480 filter would limit exposure to the wavelength range where 0 absorption is negligible.

[page 50]
LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO

TO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill

10

DATE: July 13, 1962

field they saw, or to compare the intensity and color changes noted with that thru an absorbing cell containing N0 2 • • 'Ihe required thickness is readily availabl.e. Acknowledgments

# UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (cont.)

The author has benefited greatly from discussions with several associates,

especially as regards references to sources of upper atmospheric .and photochemical data.

Dr. Robert Sherman has assisted in location of data on the absorption cross

section of N0 2 • Dr. Arthur Cox suggested a number of references and confirmed the author's belief that reasonably accurate photometric observations could be made on photographs of a star field. Dr. Ieston Miller has emphasized the importance of even crude control of the wavelengths responsible for exposure. All of the men mentioned·above are members of the Los Alamos Scientific Iaboratory.

Dr. J. A. O'Keefe of the Theoretical Division of the Goddard Space Flight Center generously discussed the observations of J. Glenn and S. Carpenter, and my hypo- thesis regarding NO₂ absorption. He has referred me to the excellent articles in "The Earth as a Planet" and encouraged my submission of this letter.

Future Work

[page 51]
SMC

In reply refer to: SGC:ML:ml

21 February 1962

MEMORANDUM

Subject:

Possible Scientific Visual Information
Obtained by J. H. Glenn

1. Two (2) interesting observations were reported in the Press, as described by Colonel Glenn during the MA-6 flight. It is of vital interest to obtain a more detailed description of these observa- tions in order that the accuracy and the details of what was observed may be properly recorded for scientific evaluation. The two obser- vations were:

(a) The report of the great number of luminous particles apparently travelling with the spacecraft at Friendship-7 sunrise; and

(b) The altitudes or angular view of the upper limb of the atmosphere.

# UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (cont.)

2. The thousands of luminous particles were described as travelling with the spacecraft. It is important that Glenn describe in detail precisely the observational characteristics under which he saw the particles in order to obtain an estimate of the brightness of these particles. The questions that we would like answered are what was the basis of Glenn's determination of that the particles were actually travelling with the spacecraft and whether this condi- tion persisted on subsequent orbits. In addition, the geometry of the observations should be further described in order to derive the geometric distribution of the particles relative to the spacecraft's window. (The precise observational time and the position of sun- light luminosity can readily be determined from the orbit of the spacecraft itself). These particles may be geocentric in origin and may be suspended in the atmosphere. There are at least two hypothesis for explaining partteles travelling with the spacecraft. The intensity compared to starlight should be determined also as this information is of importance in determining further information about the absolute number and cross-sections of the particles and may relate to the dust content of zodiacal light as well as the gegen- schein.

[page 52]
2-

In a similar manner, the observations of the horizon and the extent of the atmosphere are of great interest in determining the distribution of various atmospheric characteristics. The precise lighting conditions regarding the position of the sun and the intensity of the outer edge of the horizon as observed by Colonel Glenn may be used in the consideration of what Glenn actually saw. For example, he may have seen the limit of the atmosphere (based on the 8 degree limb described in the press, the atmosphere apparently extended to over 150 Km) by Rayleigh scattering; he may have seen the airglow; or he may have seen the MIE scattering from dust in the atmosphere. The true limiting angle of his observations and a graph of the intensity drop-off with angle from the earth should be obtained in addition to the lighting conditions.

It is recommended that this information be obtained from Colonel Glenn as soon as possible.

Maurice Dubin
Head, Aeronomy Program
Geophysics & Astronomy Programs
Office of Space Sciences

SG Fellows: <empty>
SG Clerk: <empty>

[page 53]
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

[page 55]
# In reply refer to: SGC:ML:ml

# 21 February 1962

# MEMORANDUM

Subject:

Possible Scientific Visual Information
Obtained by J. H. Glenn

1. Two (2) interesting observations were reported in the Press, as described by Colonel Glenn during the MA-6 flight. It is of vital interest to obtain a more detailed description of these observa tions in order that the accuracy and the details of what was observed may be properly recorded for scientific evaluation. The two obser vations were:

(a) The report of the great number of luminous particles apparently travelling with the spacecraft at Friendship-7 sunrise; and

(b) The altitudes or angular view of the upper limb of the atmosphere.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

2. The thousands of luminous particles were described as travelling with the spacecraft. It is important that Glenn describe in detail precisely the observational characteristics under 'Which he saw the particles in order to obtain an estimate of the brightness of these particles. The questions that we would like answered are what was the basis of Glenn's determination~ that the particles were actua.lly travelling with the spacecraft and 'Whether this condi tion persisted on subsequent orbits. In addition, the geometry of the observations should be further described in order to derive the geometric distribution of the particles relative to the spacecraft's window. (The precise observational time and the position of sun light luminosity can readily be determined from the orbit of the spacecraft itself). These particles may be geocentric in origin and may be suspended in the atmosphere. There are at least two hypothesis for explaining particles travelling with the spacecraft. The intensity compared to starlight should be determined also as this information is of importance in determining further information about the absolute number and cross-sections of the particles and may relate to the dust content of zodiacal light as well as the gegen schein.

[page 56]
-2-

In a similar manner, the observations of the horizon and the extent of the atmosphere are of great interest in determining the distribution of various atmospheric characteristics. The precise lighting conditions regarding the position of the sun and the intensity of the outer edge of the horizon as observed by Colonel Glenn may be used in the consideration of what Glenn actually saw. For example, he may have seen the limit of the atmosphere (based on the 8 degree limb described in the press, the atmosphere apparently extended to over l50 Km) by Rayleigh scattering; he may have seen the airglow; or he may have seen the MIE scattering from dust in the atmosphere. The true limiting angle of his observations and a graph of the itltensity drop-off with angle from the earth should be obtained in addition to the lighting conditions.

It is recommended that this information be obtained from Colonel Glenn as soon as possible.

<signature>
Maurice Dubin
Head, Aeronomy Program
Geophysics & Astronomy Programs
Office of Space Sciences

SG RFF Fellows
SG <signature> Clark

[page 57]
же

DRAFT OF NOTE ON THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVA TIONS

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

Toward the end of the flight, between 16 hr and 47 min (UT) and 17 hr and 03 min (UT), 24 May 1962, Lt. Cdr. Carpenter made a series of observations on a luminous band visible around the horizon. The most decisive observation was made with an airglow filter supplied by Mr. Lawrence Dunkelman of Goddard Space Flight Center. The filter transmits a narrow band of wavelengths, approximately 11 Angstroms wide at the half power point and centered at the wavelength of the strongest radiation of the night airglow, namely 5577 Angstroms The filter cut out all other light, but passed the light of the luminous band, which is thus identified as the 5577 layer.

[page 58]
4. By noting the time when Phecda was halfway from the luminous band to the horizon.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

5. By noting the fact that when the cross of the reticle the horizontal bar. is set diagonally, just covers the distance from the band to the horizon. By method 3, we make use of the time of passage through the middle of the layer. This point is marked by a reference to a mark on the telemetering. It is understood that this mark can only be found on the ground station tapes, and conversation with Lt. Cmdr. Carpenter which are not yet available, but by careful timing of the capsule tape, it appears to have been very close to a 4h 1 m 29s, capsule elapsed time, i.e., 16505. UT. For this instant the capsule coordinates as interpolated from the Woomera tracking data, were - longitude 127° 40:0

latitude = -18° 49:8

height =226 kilometers

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

Sunrlse was observed at about 1m later, while the observation was going on. It follows that the airglow is visible even when the twilight band is very strong. An attempt to observe it in the day is certainly indicated. In this connection, it shou ld be noted that Capt. V. I. Grissom reported a grayish band at the top of the blue sky layer. (Pesults of the Second U. S. Manned Subqrbital Space Flight, NASA, GPO (1961). le remembers this layer as narrow and grayish i n color, representing an actual i ncrease in intensity. He pointed out the approximate position of the layer on one of Lt. Cdr. Carpenter's photographs at the height of 1.7 degrees above the horizon. Grissom may have observed the daytime airglow.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

Carpenter did not note any structures, either vertical or horizontal,

in this layer. He did not observe it completely around the horizon but believes ·1l to be continuous all the way. It does not appear possible that this layer can a ctually absorb starl:ight. Any layer at this level capable of absorbing a not iceable fraction of the light (25i or more) would also scatter light strongly; it would therefore be a very prominent object on the daylight side. In fact, it is not definitely visible on the photographs of the day side. Thl s i s entirely i.n agreement with Lt. Cdr. Carpenter's impression, namely that the decreased visi bility of stars passing through the layer was a contrast effect.

[page 60]
It thus appears that there is a strong illusion which exaggerates angles near the horizon, and which was evidently also present in MA-6, since Lt. Col. Glenn also reports 7° to 8° as the height of the luminous band. The illusion is perhaps comparable to the well-known illusion which makes the moon seem larger near the horizon.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

Carpenter also noticed and photographed the Glenn effect. He reports white objects resembling snowflakes, seen at sunrise on all three orbits. However, he also saw these objects 7 minutes after the first sunrise and again 43 minutes after sunrise; and 2, 11, 23, 26, 36" and 45m after the second sunrise. It is thus quite clear that they are not related to sunrise, except perhaps in the sense of being most easily visible then.

Carpenter managed to photograph a few of these particles. Some of them were very considerably brighter than the moon, which was then very near the first quarter. At this time, the moon is about -10%; the particles may have been be- tween -12.5 magnitude (10 x brighter than the moon) and -15 magnitude (100 x brighter than the moon). The second is considered more likely, in view of the appearance of the full moon (-12.5) as shown on MA-6 photographs. At -15, the particle brightness is consistent with centimeter size snowflakes. The particles were verbally described by Carpenter as between 1 mm and 1 cm in size, and having a strong visual resemblance to snowflakes.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

package in a vacuum. The possibility that it might represent small particles from the fiberglass insulator was also considered;B in view of the smallness of the fibers, it appears likely that they would have been blown away at once, like the Mylar confetti. The dynamic pressure of 1 dyne m² is sufficient to anything remove at once weighing less than about 10 to 100 milligrams cm; which corresponds to a thickness of the order of 0.3 to 1 millimeter for most ordinary substances.

As menti oned in the MA-6 report, there are two plausible sources

withi n the  capsule for  these  parti c les.

(1) Snow formed by condensation of steam from the life-support system.

(2) Small particles of dust, waste, bits of insulation and other sweepings.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

before sunrise, and rising to plus 10°C just after sunrise. During the second day, the temperatures were lower, reaching about -25°C during portions of the day. From about 3h 30m, CET, on the second period of sunlight, the temperatures were higher, and only one particle is mentioned.

If the effect is indeed due to condensation of moisture, then the broad end of the capsule is a more likely source than the narrow end, because the temperatures were 20°C or more higher at the narrow end.

The condensation probably took place inside the capsule, rather than outside, because even at the lowest recorded shingle temperature, around -50°C, the vapor pressure over ice amounts to about 0.039 millibars. Although this pressure is very low, it greatly exceeds the ambient pressure at the lowest capsule altitudes. Accordingly, it is not possible that snowflakes should form under these circumstances, even though it is true that the capsule must be surrounded by an expanding atmosphere of water vapor.

# MEMORANDUM (cont.)

back.

This supports the idea that the partlcles probably are pushed outward by

t he expanding steam from the capsule, before they begin to stream backward. It l s probable that many of the particles lodge on the outside of the caps ule, since Carpenter i s quite sure, from the direction of streami ng across the wi ndow, that the particles came from a point near where the knocking was done.

Carpenter obtained two excellent photographs of the sun when just

above the horizon. These photographs plainly show the flattened, sausage- Carpenter notes that what he saw was like the photographs show with the exception of sume reflection at the cuiners shaped form photographed earlier by Glenn. A Calculations of this theoretical shape are being made at this time for comparison with the astronaut observations.

[page 64]
Dr. M. Dubin
NASA Headquarters. Code SG

# SCIENTIFIC DEBRIEFING

# June 1, 1963

(First Experiment Flashing Light)

John McKee: One of the first questions that I have regards some estimates you made ofthe beacon distance. Were those based ·entirely on the knowle ofhow bright itwas tram p~vious aircraft training· or do ·you feel there was some other distance cue somehow involved in the ·test.

Cooper: No. If I had no previous experience on the light, I don't believe I would have had any possibility of telling how far it was except that on that second night pass after ejecting the light. Apparently the sun was shining on it as I saw this steady glow, up to about my level on the orbital path. At that time I had a little bit more depth perception on it and could seem to note the proper drift on it. That was the first time that I saw it. Other than that, it was pretty well related back to what I saw in the planetarium and to the experiments we did on the aircraft when we had radar measurements.

[page 65]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-2-

Bill Armstrong: Actually Gordo, it turned out, it gave you about a half of a degree per second in the opposite direction. This was very apparent on the post flight record. You can see your thruster action when you start to pitch up and then as you come right to the bottom of the curve you can see this little blip on your rate; and then the attitude started back the other way. It was real definite. Something on the order of a half of a degree per second, or a little more. It was real definite where it occurred. Well what it does. is start your pitch back the other way. If you remember, you never did use any thruster action to go back in the other direction, to pitch back down after you deployed. You went to cage to retroattitude and the attitudes just go and start back over. It was real clear on the records where it went out.

[page 66]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-3-

had not completely set; I'm sure my retro pack area was in the sunlight. I'm sure that is what I saw glowing,--was the sun reflecting off of it. Although I had not seen it from previous viewing on the day side or the night side.

McKee: When you didn't see it on the first night side, did you have any personal feeling that the light wasn't flashing? Did you correct your attitude when you didn't see it or did you have any feeling what the problem was?

[page 67]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-4-

Cooper: Well first I started trying to get my 180° yaw point. This is not the easiest thing in the world to get on the night side, and particularly when you have to go into your star charts 50 minutes ahead of where you had normally been used to using them. Infinally did find star patterns that gave me the proper orientation. I was using, around 15 to 20 degrees pitched down, I was just keeping the horizon in the sort of bottom part of the window and 8 I got around this area, I then tried varying the attitude up and down to look for the light.

[page 68]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-5-

Cooper: The moon was probably ideal. It was down to about a third moon. It was a very distinctive moon when you could see it but it wasn't causing the great amount of light that a full moon would have caused. I could see 1 the glow on the ground, on the clouds and on the land, from the moon. It was not enough to obliterate all the stars, or when the light was sort of in the direction of the moon. It didn't matter. Q. Was the light ever close to the moon? A. No, the light was never close to the moon. The moon came up just at the last part of the night. It was never close to the moon because the moon was just coming,-- the moon came up just at the last part of the night. It had not been up very long before, before I began to get daylight. THEN

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Bill Armstrong: This is a real puzzler. We looked at the temperature traces in the retro pack area; they ran cooler, this flight. Around 60 or 62 degrees. Bill Carmines said that they had actually flashed the light at this lower temperatures without any problem. He talked to Langley people and he says. that if the light had failed to work the first time it would have never warmed enough later in the flight to start flashing. It is hard to visualize it not having been working the first time and then worked the second time. Do you think your attitude ---- could you tell any difference in your attitude the second night when you saw the light. In yaw as compared with the first do you think you had your yaw pinned down better then?

[page 69]
Scientific Debriefing

Cooper: Well, not really. As I went into both night sides I could pretty well estimate 180° yaw. The first night side I was not completely around. I started yawing around and night was suddenly upon me and I wasn't quite in the full 180° position, so I did have to hunt for the 180° position a little bit. On the second night side after I ejected the light, I was already in my 180° position before going into the night side.

Mercer: How high above or below horizon line or window did you look for light? In other words how far down or how high did you go with your pitch attitude?

Cooper: On the first night side I allowed it to drift very, very slowly and changed them as I needed to, very very slightly to keep my yaw on 180° and it varied back and forth very slightly. But I went all the way down to where the horizon would fill the whole window and up to where I just barely had the horizon in sight.

Bill Armstrong: Did you see it come right away when you looked on the second night?

Cooper: I just barely got into the night.

Bill Armstrong: In other words you picked it up right away?

[page 70]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-7-

Cooper: Almost. Almost as it began to get dark. Of course it gets dark just like that. Zam it gets dark. I had just,--it was dark earth background and as I say my first feeling on seeing it was definitely coming from below very very slowly. As I watched it was getting higher in my line of sight to the earth. In other words as I was holding the earth on a fixed place on the window this was coming up. It was coming up in relation to me, and was finally up to my level. And as I saw it coming up it was solid light. My first though on it was that it looked just like the missiles that I have seen launched at night from Cape Canaveral; when you're flying at night at a high' altitude and see them launched. It didn't have the same glow but it was very very bright, and solid and seemed to becoming up.

Bill Armstrong: That is something else we checked into. It would have been impossible for this light to have been steady for you. It is necessary to fully charge the condenser and then get a quick discharge.

[page 71]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-8-

Cooper: It was just still slightly below the horizon. It had come up almost to the horizon. It had been a fair amount below it when I first saw it. In fact I was pitched down to about -34° and I saw it towards the bottom part of the window when I first picked it up. By the time it got up to where it was maybe 15 degrees higher (in relation to me and my line of sight), I suddenly saw it flashing.

Bill Armstrong: That's just where it would have been. If would have been just coming to the horizon.

John Boynton: ·Was this predominantly ~bove the horizon?

Bill Armstrong: In the first orbit, no. On the first orbit it is very' low. That is why he might not have seen it the initial part of the orbit. Somewhere about 20 or 30 minutes thru the night side, it passes through the horizon and then it goes about 25 or 30 degrees high. It goes through a fairly large angle change at first, and the further out it gets of course the smaller the angle change is. The second night after deployment just about at sunset it starts up through the horizon and then all the time during the second night phase it is above the horizon. Then the third one is above the horizon all of the time.

[page 72]
Scientific Debriefing

-9-

Bill Armstrong: You get a 30 degree angle view through the window. From the top of the window to the bottom, 30°. You can see over an elevation variation of 30 degrees.

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

John: How far would he have to pitch down?

Bill Armstrong: He would probably have to be below retroattitude. He had to almost have all earth in the window. Probably about 30 degrees.

Cooper: I had a few comments that I made on the onboard tape about the light: ' "I am at last daylight going into dark" I had been looking for that flashing beacon. "This light in sight is below me. It is quite a brownish reddish brown and considerable altitude above the ground." In other words I was convinced it was not a light down on the ground but it had movement. I mentioned several other items here such as this light being visible among the stars. "The light is flashing, now. It is the light. It is quite bright and quite discernible. It appears to be about 10 to 12 miles away. I'm keeping it exactly in the window. About the order of a second magnitude star now." and that time was 05:11:34. "The light is still in sight in the center of the window.".

Bill Armstrong: Did you,--according to the voice tape it indicates that you may have yawed away a little bit then and then came back. Is that right? Did you yaw away and then come right back to it?

[page 73]
Scientific Debriefing

Cooper: Just once.

-10-

Bill Armstrong: Did you do it twice or just once?

Cooper: No, I kept it in sight for quite awhile and then yawed away from it and then came right back.

Cooper: At 05:13:40 I made some comments on the Milky Way and various things and at 05:16:35 the light was still in sight. Thunderstorms were in under it at the moment but it was still quite distinctive. And this is at 05:18:05.

Bill Armstrong: What brightness do you think you need if you are going to try to acquire some target in space.

Cooper: It was very distinctive both times. At this brightness where it I was on the second night side after the ejection, both times it was very distinctive more than the brightness of course, it was the flashing. On the third night side it was extremely faint but the flashing allowed me to pick it up. I wouldn't have been able to see it the third night but for the flashing.

Bill Armstrong: Do you think that either at the initial acquisition of the thing or even toward the end of the second night phase the brightness would be sufficient if you would be trying to locate a rendezvous target?

[page 74]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-11-

Cooper: I think so.. I think with that brightness, if you know approximately where to look for the thing and with it flashing, you certainly ought to be able to find it pretty readily.

Day: Do you think similar experiments should be carried on or is this sufficient?

Cooper: I think this probably shows us what we really want to see. I think there is going to be problem like there is in aircraft. As you move in closer to it you are going to have to have something that gives a little bit more capability to obtain distance from it at the time; such as perhaps two lights that you could range on; like navigation lights on aircraft.

QuestiQn:

Were internal lights.on in the night observations?

Cooper: On most night sides I had all the lights down completely and used just the glove lights to read. critical items.

Bill Armstrong: On the third night phase you say you had to do a good bit of searching. Were you searching the entire third night, and when did you first see it?

Cooper: Slightly past the middle of the night. I think that on the third night side the brightness was such that it was sheer accident that I found it. If you just happen to pass it in the scan pattern you might see it flashing. It would, however, be very easy to miss.

[page 75]
Scientific Debriefing

-12-

Bill Armstrong: You feel brightness suitable for a rendezvous target would be something on the order of second or third magnitude.

Cooper: Yes.

Bill: That's one of the main things we wanted to find out. Does the brightness of the second night look about right? Was the third night too dim?

Cooper: Yes, the third one is getting a little too dim.

Bill: Do you think you have got to have good sighting information to pick these up even with bright light?

Cooper: Well, it is a pretty big sky at night up there and there are a lot of bright stars. I think you're going to have to have some sighting data to get within a reasonable cone area to hunt for it.

McKee: What about the flash frequency rate?

Cooper: I think the flash rate could be cut down. I think you could maybe halve the flash rate. I would rather see it twice as bright and see it flash half as often. A flash rate, even one every two seconds is still distinctive. Maybe not quite as distinctive as the one per second, but it still would attract your attention.

Bill: How about the deploy marks?

[page 76]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-13-

Cooper: Those deploy marks worked real well. They were excellent for getting in 1·etroattitu de also. They - position your head· to a real positive position,

Bill: We have read the attitude records pretty carefully. You were between 20 and 22 degrees, so you were right in there. Do you think the window smudges, the discoloration of the window, might have had significant effect? Do you think it produced enough attenuation to cause any trouble?

Cooper: Actually I tried and tried to note how much attenuation you get at night. It's just a few seconds until the time you get dark-adapted; I thought you became dark adapted very rapidly, and I didn't see or note any real attenuation. I am sure there was some as there was definitely smudge layers there. But it didn't seem to be.... The bright stars sure seemed bright.

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Bill Armstrong: Did you actually see the light against the ground?

Cooper: Yes. I made this comment here that I even saw it against the thunderstorm.

John Boynton: Gordo, you talked about the flash rate. The flash rate in your debriefing might have been slightly below a flash per second.

Cooper: I did it on the tape. I counted off here on the tape so you could get it off the tape. I counted 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. It seemed to me that it was slightly slower than one flash per second.

[page 77]
Scientific Debriefing

-14-

Question: What did it check out?

Carmines: 62 (flashes per minute).

Bill: Did you make attempts to see it· on the day side'l

Cooper: I sure did. I never saw it then.

Armstrong: It should have been closer on the day side than in the night portion. It came in closer and started out away some time during the first day pass. Before you picked it up it had started out again. It should have been in to about two miles sometime during the first day side.

Cooper: At first I was on 180 degrees yaw, and allowed it to drift off. I didn't find it, but before I got to the next night side, I brought yaw back to 180 degrees. There was a possibility I missed it there.

McKee: Did the flash seem very consistant? Did the brightness vary?

Cooper:

Yes, it seemed to be very consistant .

Carmines: Did you see it tumble?

Cooper: I couldn't tell any tumbling.

Carmines: I'm sure it was tumbling.

[page 78]
Scientific Debriefing

-15-

Bill: The spread of light isn't too great.

Cooper: It is pretty hard to judge the light level.

Mercer: Did you see the stars during this day?

Cooper: Not this particular orbit. No I didn't.

(Second Experiment - Balloon Drag)

Day: Mr. Carmines will you give us a quick run-down on the balloon experiment failure?

Carmines: I talked with Instrumentation people and everyone agreed that we really don't know what happened. We had one relay actuate. There are several possibilities. To me the most likely place of trouble is the final plug. The pins are on the pigtail and in putting this together you can bend these pins and get a misalignment. We checked the plug and in this case the pin is near the case and if it bent it could ground.

Bill: The squibs were in parallel and a number of tests showed either one of the squib would fire the latch. The most probable cause is in the circuitry.

(Discussionoon Ground Light Observation)

Bill Armstrong: How hard was it to pick up the light when you first started. Did you have trouble picking up this ground light at all?

[page 79]
Scientific Debriefing

-16-

Cooper: No. It was just a bit further to the left than I thought it would be.

Bill: More toward the center of the window?

Cooper: No. More slightly to the left of the window. I could have been yawed off a little. I thought the pattern of the little town, it was by was really more distinctive than the light. If I hadn't known the light was there I wouldn't have selected it in preference to lots of other lights I saw on the ground, ---if it hadn't been for the little horseshoe-shape town.

, Bill  Armstrong:

What brightness did you see at thi's attitude?

Cooper: I would say it was about between third and fourth magnitude when I first saw it.

Bill: As you continued to observe it did you notice it dimming?.

Cooper: No. I could see it for several seconds. One falicy of the ground. lights is that you are moving on the ground pretty rapidly. You don't have many seconds to observe any fixed points on the ground. It's moving right on past you and gone fairly rapidly. Of course as it gets on out it gets dimmer and dimmer.

Question: Have you any idea how long you were able to observe it?

[page 80]
Scientific Debriefing

-17-

Cooper: Maybe as long as a minute. I doubt if it was that long, probably 30 or 40 seconds. I lost it because it got too weak. It was a long ways from being straight out on the horizon but as it got on up towards that direction it faded outi

Bill: In checking the plot, it ·1ooks like itvaries from a little over second magnitude when you forst saw itto about a sixth magnitude when the light was turned off.

'

'

McKee:

Do you know what angle you pitched down to'l

Cooper: I believe it was to -40. I was then at the angle we were supposed to pitch to. I apparently had eased off in yaw. However it tracked pretty well right up the window. So the yaw was fairly well on. But thes light was off a little further to the left.

Bill: Did you ever look away from the light and then look back? Were you able to do this and pick it up again?

Cooper: I took my eyes off of it and had them on the photometer and looked through the hole in it and extincted it. Turned the dial the wrong way in the dark, and I did extinct all right. I thought I'd get a good reading on it. I gave that device up. It did extinct.

Bill: Did you ever notice any change in the light?

[page 81]
Scientific Debriefing

-18-

Cooper: Yes, it got dimmer.

Mercer: Could you see lights of cities through layers of clouds?

Cooper: 'I saw a lot of cities underneath the clouds. One of my best retrofire yaw alignments was over Shanghai.

Mercer: Were light patterns more • distinctive than individual bright lights?

Cooper: Yes. I was over the east coast of Australia. I saw three very distinct city light patterns there around the Melbourne area.

Paul: When the light dimmed out did you lose the-light first, or the cities?

Cooper: I lost both in much the same period of time.

Jones: Did the ground-light appear sharp as a point source or was it diffused?

Cooper: It was more diffused. Not a sharp point. You could see it was a single light but it was not like the stars.

Smith: You think a flashing light would be preferable?

[page 82]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-19-

Cooper: Definitely: The ideal would be a series of lights. A better combination would be a series of flashing lights arranged in some pattern. Maybe like a running rabbit strobe pattern. I am sure it wouldn't have to be synchronized.

Bill: You mentioned how fast fast you were moving. Do you think you had enough time to make use of some sighting device such as a sextant?.

Cooper: You aren't going to be able to take very long readings. You're going to have to be set up and ready to go, and you're going to have to have some devices that are really usable. You figure that when you get from the west coast of the United States to the east coast of the United States, the ground is moving under you fairly rapidly in ten minutes. The ground is moving too fast. You need to have some devices that are really usable and you need to be set up and ready to go. I guess you have about 20 to 30 seconds for a reading.

Bill Armstrong: One of the phases of the Apollo mission requires a position fix while still in a holding orbit. Before going into the translunar phase sightings of earth fixed targets for navigation would be about the same as you experienced in the ground light. Would this be practicable?

[page 83]
Scientific Debriefing

-20-

Cooper: You're going to have to be right on in attitudes. You're going to have to know exactly what time it's going to occur. I'd guess you have about 20 to 30 seconds to do your actual sighting and you have to have a good angle off to do it.

Bill: How about the brightness Gordo? How do you feel about this part and leaving the flash part out of it? Was it bright enough light to be seen easily?

Cooper: There were a lot brighter lights on the ground.

Bill: I'm sure ofthat but do you think this is sufficient?

Cooper: You can see it. If you look for it and know it is there and if you're lucky. Knowing where to look for it and no clouds there, you can spot it. (And away from other background lights.) I still think a pattern would be better than going to a brighter light. I don't think the change in the brightness of the light would be as effective as making some kind of a pattern.

Jones: Did the ground lights twinkle?

Cooper: Yes. Just like the stars do looking at them from the ground, where as the stars don't twinkle there.

McKee: I would like to ask. You seemed to have seen our lights as we expected. You saw some objects on the ground better than we expected. Can

[page 84]
Scientific Debriefing

-21-

(McKee continued) you say why you saw such small items?

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Cooper: I was coming from Houston the other day in a 102 and I noted I couldn't see nearly as clear around 40,000 feet, particularly in one area that I was in. There was a lot of haze and it was quite humid and I couldn't distinguish things on the ground very well but yet when I got into the west coast of Florida and got into an area that was somewhat clearer, at the same altitude I could see many things. I think again, that it depends on how much humidity you have and how much haze is in an area. I passed right over the vicinity of Los Angeles and San Diego and never saw them at all. I wasn't very surprised. I could see where they were but I couldn't see them. I passed right over Miami and Miami Beach and I could see that there was a town there. There was a lot of build up and civilization. I could see the streets but the buildings were not very distinct. But yet over areas of El Centro and the Salton Sea and the dry lake areas I could see tremendously greater detail, and individual roads. Over the Himalayas, up in Tibet, of course there you're above a good portion a certain amount of the atmosphere I suppose, I was really surprised what I could see. I found some real details and little villages with maybe 20 or 30 houses I suppose, stood out very distinctly. You could estimate the number of houses and if a house was out individually away from anything else I guess against the right color background, the yard, I could discern individual buildings. I saw a number of them with smoke coming out of the chimney. There was snow on this upper very sandy blowy, dusty Tibetan area. I could see a lot of lakes some partiallyy frozen over and some frozen solid. The visibility was tremendous. I could see vehicles that I assumed were trucks. I could see them kicking up dust.

[page 85]
Scientific Debriefing

-22-

(MIT Horizon)

Dr. Peterson: The purpose of these pictures is that we are trying to find definite information about the earth for Apollo guidance. This is one of a group of four pictures taken in four different yaw directions, one into the sun. Is this maneuver an expensive and troublesome thing to do?

Cooper: It takes control power; it takes control fuel, it takes time. However, it is not real expensive as far as fuel. You have to stay power up. We debated back and forth about the most accurate way of making sure we get these 90° points. We were a little concerned about accuracy and decided to stay powered up and utilized the gyros to locate the 90° positions. But it does take that period of time of power to drive the automatic system, and it does take that fuel to move around.

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Dr. Peterson: I noted you mention 25 hours 20 minutes. At that moment there is a hole in the transcript. 25 hours and 26 minutes.

Cooper: I got those at 25 hours and some odd minutes when the moon was set in the west. It was right where we had planned to get it the first time. We rescheduled them later in the flight if we didn't get them at the original time. But I took them as planned initially. Did those come out all right?

Dr. Peterson: On two of those it was possible to locate the moon. This is not all of them.

Bill.Armstrong: Yes, . these are all of them.

(Looking ·at p~ctures)

[page 86]
Scientific Debriefing

-23-

Dr. Peterson: There is a smudge in the middle of the window. It could have been accidently concealed. Since these negatives are only suitable for microdensitometry there doesn't need to be any discussion of the details of their significance.

(Infrared Weather Photographic Experiment)

Mr. Day: I would like to move on to IR Weather photography.

Soules: This experiment went very well and we got the information we wanted. Thank you very much. Did you have any trouble with the camera or filter holder?

Cooper: None at all. It worked very well.

Soules: And the lens opening of 5.6?

Cooper: It was exactly-on what was marked on the magazine.

Soules: There are six pictures at the end of the series and I can't identify them. Do you have any idea where they could have been taken?

(There was a lot oftable discussion of pictures here)··

Cooper: This was after the Florida series.

[page 87]
Scientific Debriefing

-24-

Soules: You ma.de the remark that you were coming over A:t'rica. Do you have aey more information? There was none in the tra.ns9ript.

Cooper: What base was this on?

Bill: Wasn't one ofthem over the coastline?

Cooper: Yes, I did one right on the coast of Africa. I got one coming right over the coastline. Another one I got almost over the other coast; down toward Johannesburg; it was an inland picture, almost the northern area.

Soules: The last four are a mystery.

Bill Armstrong: It looks like you had about a quarter inch motion on frame. Cooper: I'm sure I didn't. I was holding the camera just like I was before. Soules: We might check the camera.

Soules: What was the dominant color of the earth over Baja California?

Cooper: I found that the green showed up very little. The only really distinct green that I saw which showed up much was in the high Tibetan area. It was a bright emerald green, by some of those lakes. It looked like a copper sulphate mining area. The browns of the Arabian Desert Sand showed up quite distinct. The Sahara was not quite so brown although it did have

[page 88]
Scientific Debriefing

-25-

(Cooper continued) a brown look. Everything predominantly had a bluish cast. All the water, all the sea water, looked very very bright blue. Even the Salton Sea looked very blue. And areas we know were heavy forest areas looked kind of blue-green. The areas that are definitely brown you can tell they are brown.

Soules: I have a question on the thunderstorms. Could you hear static?

Cooper: I could hear. it day or night and on both HF and UHF. It was almost instantaneous. As I would see the lightning and the clouds light up I would get the static.

Soules: What is the frequency band on HF?

Cooper: HF is 15 megacycles. The static was louder in the HF than in the UHF. You could just hear it, it wasn't high magnitude.

Soules:

W as there a difference in loudness between day and night'l

Cooper: I think night side was considerably louder. Of course I noted thunderstorms were louder on night side. There were large masses of thunderstorms out to the east of Australia.

Soules: Did the flash come from below the capsule or could you look off at an angle?

[page 89]
Scientific Debriefing

-26-

Cooper: I could not see distinct lightning patterns. It just all lit up. The whole cumulus mass of clouds would light up.

Soules: Did.you notice thunderstorms between Hawaii and Ce.liforniao

Cooper: Yes, several off the west coast of the United States. I don't remember just how far. There were several cumulus buildups.

Soules: Did they look like the usual thunderstorms?

Cooper: They went on down to a stratus deck on into coast on down about Los Angeles. They stood further off the coast than up north.

Soules: Did you see any long white bands of clouds along the east coast in the tropical areas?

Cooper: Yes. One was over the Arabian desert that was quite distinct. I took a color photograph of that.

Soules: Was it a very sharp line of clouds with build-up in it?

Cooper: Yes.

Number 10 picture is over the Arabian desert area..

Soules: Over the oceans did you notewwide bands with perhaps clear area over it?

[page 90]
Scientific Debriefing

-27-

Cooper: No. I noticed several large cyclonics. I did not notice any very distinct sharp bands. However I did notice tropical thunderstorms. Near the Solomon Island Areas there were a lot of low streets and ridges of smaller cumulus clouds. There were little rows of them.

[page 91]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-28-

Soules: Was the horizon always a sharp line?

Cooper: Yes, day and night the horizon was sharp. In the day you have this bright blue band around it.

Soules:

Some photos show the horizon seemed fuzzy.

Cooper: In the Himalayas on a couple of occasions where the horizon was rough due to the mountains, the horizon was still very distinct.

Squles:

Did you se-e the moon at the time of occultation?

Cooper: Yes, several times. I was sorry I did not get pictures.

Soules: Did you see a halo around the moon?

Cooper:

I saw no sign of a halo. Itwas quite sharp.

Soules: Did you ever see a slight flash? Did the moon's color change at all as it went through the atmosphere?

Cooper: No. I was looking for this too. I was disappointed in the moon scenes., I didn't see anything distinctive at all.

Soules: I made a sketch ofhaze layer. Would you take a look· at' itand tellme what you think?

Voas:

Gordo, would . you draw iton the board?

(Period demonstrating on blackboard of horizon, haze, etc.)

[page 92]
Scientific Debriefing

-29-

Cooper: The stars in the Big Dipper could just be seen. I noted the Big Dipper with the bottom star sinking down into it.

Soules: The top of the layer would be how many degrees above the horizon? Cooper: I figured it was about six or seven degrees.

(Long period of sketching.)

Peterson: Would you estimate any appraisal in terms of stellar magnitude? You explained that the fifth magnitudes could be seen, did the weaker stars go out in that area?

[page 93]
Scientific Debriefing

-30-

Soules: You saw something over South America?

fooper:

Yes, there is this other higher level I saw over South America.

ptanley  Soules:

Did you see different cloud layers at night?

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

'  ~ooper:

Only i:t there was moonlight and ifthere were towns or cities below

them.

On several occasions I could see reflected light particularly through stratus type clouds.

Soules: You could distinguish clouds. Does the earth appear as blue to your eye , ,

as  itdoes in  the  photos?

Cooper:

Yes. The overall color is pretty blue.

Soules: What is the color of the ·twilight zone?

Cooper: It is a baby blue~ It is a pure~ pure blue, very, very_ bright.

Soules:

Did you see any meteor trails?

Cooper:  No~

Soules:

Did you see ·a lot of sun?

Cooper: I sure did. I want to tell you I did!

Soules:

Was there any evidence of a corona?

Cooper: No. In fact, the sun appeared to be like the moon does from the earth. Very bright. You know down here there are all those rays around it. But up there it is just a glob and it is very very whitish bright. It doesn't look the same color. It is a very arc-like color, bluish white.

Question: What about the looks of the ds.y slcy?

[page 94]
Scientific Debriefing

-31-

Dr. Voes: The day sides get a lot lighter, at night they are about the same darkness as the inside of the spacecraft.

Cooper: The night sky and the day sky is about the same as the difference between à jet black and a dark gray. (It is about the same difference between the night sky and the day sky.) It is a softer kind of dark during the day. Not nearly as dark as the night sky.

Dr. Voes: Is it a smooth overall gray on the window? Do you see any chance at all that the grayness you noted could be minute amounts of scattered light from fog on the window?

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Cooper: I don't believe so, Bob, because immediately when you got a faint amount of oblique light on the window it immediately looked like it was iced over. All you had to do was get just a faint amount on it and it appeared to be just like a canopy frozen over.

O'Keefe: Was this scattered light in the window or not? I hoped you could see some kind of a pattern.

Cooper: That's what I'm saying. When you have any kind of scattered light on the window, when the window was in any kind of an attitude (demonstrated) say this is the window and out here is the sun, any time the window was moved around where there was any kind of light shining on the window just a faint amount of it - would completely obliterate the vision through the window. I just went completely IFR. There was just no looking through the window. Of course, the earth gives off an awful lot of light, and you can't see anything as long as the earth is shining in the window. Any time the sun was back here and I was faced away from the earth, regardless of attitude, the sky appeared to be a smooth gray.

O'Keefe: You could see the grit on the window?

Cooper: You could see the light actually impinging on the window. You could see the scum all over the inside of the outside pane.

[page 95]
Scientific Debriefing

-32-

O'Keefe: Somewhat of a pattern? Cooper: That's right. A pattern over the outside of the window as well as the scum on the inside. O'Keefe: If this had been scattered light you would have had this pattern? Cooper: That's right.

(Dim Light photographs.)

Day: Presentation of Dim Light Phenomena: Roach, O'Keefe, Huch. Roach: You had above this haze layer another layer. Would you sketch that?

(Illustration.)

Cooper: This one time I did have it. I am almost certain this was about 24 hours and 30 minutes over South America. I was facing to the east and was on drift, I think. I was looking to the east, northeast area. I was in full drift.

O'Keefe: Reference was on page 26.

Cooper: That was the luminous activity on page 37. "Right now I can make out a lot of luminous activities in an easterly direction." This was at 05 11 34 and on a 05 13 40. The Milky Way was quite distinct. This particular time (over South America) I couldn't make out on this layer. I wouldn't say it was much like a layer. It wasn't distinct and it didn't last long; but it was higher than I was. It wasn't in the vicinity of the horizon and was not well defined.

Roach: More like a patch?

[page 96]
Scientific Debriefing

-33-

Cooper: It wasn't so distinctive as to move back on to it. It was very faint. and definitely lighter than the sky. It was picking up some light of some type. It was light in contrast to the sky.

Rick Day: Could you see this better out of the corner of your eye? Cooper: Yes. Sort of that type of thing. I'm almost certain that this was over South America, just coming up on to the northeastern part of South America. It was around 50 degrees West and about zero degrees of latitude.

Roach:

This reminds me ofwhat Mr. Schirra saw offMadagascar.

Cooper:

He saw . itoffNorth Africa. It seemed to be · quite extensive but not . well

defined. I-twas rather diffused but not covering the whole earth.

Roach:

Could you tell us what happens when you pass from day into night, around

twilight? . We are interested in horizon effect after sunset •

(Cooper draws some more pict~es.)

[page 97]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

-34-

and spread. It doesn't take long. As it goes on down you still have this orange right on the horizon and this area is all considerably lighter although black is coming on down. You do get glow up off it. You could actually swing away and tell right where the sun had set a number of seconds after. It is not ray-like. It is hard to describe. The sky area is lighter but there are not any rays."

Note: At this time there was a general discussion of the night sky immediately after sunset. The transcript is too incomplete in this region to give a recorded account of this discussion. It appears that after describing the sunset and the airglow layer someone Ast. Cooper an additional glow extending vertical above the position on the horizon where sunset occurred. Obviously reference was being made to observation of the Zodiacal light.

Cooper: That's right. After this effect disappears (glow of sunset) and you think you're on complete darkness, I would guess on the order a minute after sunset, you get this other. I guess two different times I saw faint glow but not very far along. It was more on the order of 3 to 4 degrees farther on

and a fainter order.

[page 98]
Scientific Debriefing

-35-

Roach: Is this phenomenon very close to the sun?

Cooper: I had the feeling that this was just a glow off the sun. It was not as bright as the Milky Way.

Mercer: Was it tipped to the right or left of sunrise? Cooper: I was sitting tipped myself and don't remember which way it was. I have the impression it was not vertical.

Dr. Voas : It appears the red and gold you• described at sunset does not occur

at  dawn .

Cooper: Sunset is more of a golden orange.

Dr.  Voas :

Did you notice any of the flattening as the sun rose?

Cooper: N ot as much) but you do get a littlebit.

[page 99]
Scientific Debriefing

-36-

Roach: From that standpoint, is it better to retro in the daylight?

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Cooper: You could probably do it at night, but it is preferable to do it in the day. Note: The next few comments are not interpretable, but it appears someone raised a question about the blue horizon band visible during daylight.

Copper: This is predominantly blue and if you have land masses or things that you know are not blue --- but this is about a two degrees thick band. It isn't. quite as thick as the band underneath the last layer at night is thicker than this blue band and it is a brilliant blue.

Roach:

Then, is there some structure above the blue layer?

Cooper: I never could see pattern structure above that. It is really not black. This is any time you have earth shine. This is not a real sharply defined - - - There is a little blue gray going thru this area here. The overall band is real' bright pale bluw and just faintly diffuse on this side. (Explanation is made using a sketch at the blackboard.)

Question: Is itdiffuse on the upper side?

Cooper: It is not just a real sharp line or two different distinct colors. It does diffuse very slightly.

Question: .How wide is that band in angle?

Cooper: It is about two degrees.

Huch: I understand it gave a little problem in roll and yaw. You said just as the sun was sinking.

[page 100]
Scientific Debriefing

-37-

Cooper: I would guess it was on the order of 20 to 30 seconds after sunset, that is just a guess. And this is all the counting I was doing to give you the timing and there was interference from the ground stations.

Buch: Did you observe capsule stability - did you feel it was holding sufficiently

still for time exposures?

Cooper: Of course, we knew it would be moving. Did better than I thought it would. Huch: For the most part they came out quite clear.

BillArmstrong:

You get pitch up at the rate of 4° per minute.

[page 101]
Scientific Debriefing

-38-

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

~epard:

Did you get any readout on attitudes?

Mercer: We got good attitudes.

Huch: On the pictures, can you relate the airglow band to what you drew on the board? Did you take any exposures into the sunlit sky?

Cooper: No, I didn't. I was going to try and snap one of this planet but couldn't get the camera out in time. After I once got it out of the equipment locker, the planet was gone.

Huch: Was the camera easy to use?

Cooper:

Yes, after I once got itout of the locker itwas easy to use.

[page 102]
Scientific Debriefing

-39-

Warren: Did you take it off prior to retro? Cooper: Yes. I took it off just prior to retro. I stowed it in the glove compartment. Warren: Did you take a reading of it at any time?

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

Cooper: No, I didn't. Warren: Did you place it vertically? Where did you place it? Cooper: I placed it vertically.

Warren. We got from that . and also from film badger you carried on under clothing - - - We got an estimate of 15-20 milliroentgens. I think you would get I more in an X-ray than you had here. Itwas.about what expected.

Warren: Is there any particular reason that the 7th and 9th orbits were left out •

or  were you just  too  busy?

'

Cooper: I don't remember which orbit I missed. I believe one of them I was quite busy trying to get this condensate water situation straightened out and debated turning it on later, but decided I had better not.

Warren: It wouldn't have servedmuch use later.

Cooper:

That was the 5th orbit.

Warren: The 6th and 7th were the ones missed.

Cooper: The 6th one was where I was having the condensate difficulty. I don't know why I missed the other one on the 9th orbit . . We weren't schedule to run one on the 9tht

Bill: He had one at 9 hours and 4o minutes OX} the 7th orbit; then he had another

one on t he 8th, 11:15 to · ll:25. ' And then you go into rest period after that. Warren: We got that.

[page 103]
## Scientific Debriefing

-40-

conservation. It does take a certain amount of power. McKann: That decision was made not to turn that on continuous because it had never been checked out for continuous operation because of some difficulties that might arise because of this.

~heps.rd:

That seems to be a reasonable decision.

Warren: That is all I had.

Cooper:

Did you get anything at all?

Warren: Particul.a.rly on the 7th orbit we got some

date, that gave us quite a

good b:Lt ofbackground. Thank you.

[page 104]
Scientific Debriefing

-41-

(General Observations).

Dr. O'Keefe: I understand the hissing noise was completely negative. Can you be sure it was not then?

Cooper: I didn't ever hear it at all. I had good fitting ear caps.

Dr. O'Keefe: Were you listening for itat the time'l

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

Cooper: Yes, except I had my visor closed and with ~he visor closed you can't

hear  too  much.

Dr. O'Keefe: At one point a rumor circulated in the public mess that you had seen a meteor.

Cooper:

This was a false rumor.

Dr. 0 'Keefe: At one point you said you saw frost on the window. •

Cooper:

This is _ the mat_ erial that turned out to be oil.

Paul Lowman: Have you seen the terrain photos? Have you seen number 8, east coast of Africa? Does it look this blue?

Cooper: Not quite. The film has fairly true 'reproduction but in several cases it might be a little more blue in film, than it actually is.

Paul Lowman: How about the shots over Himalayas?

Cooper:

They look fai~~y true to color.

Paul Lowman: Where you're going over the ocean, could you distinguish different shades of blue?

Cooper: Yes, over GBI, Eleuthera and Euba and right down the whole island chain, you could very definitely tell the shallower water areas. You could see reefs and green water in some of the lagoons. Not real distinctive green as you might think, and you could see sand at about its normal color. If you are looking straight down. on things the color is more true than if you're looking at an angle. If you're looking at an angle, there is more of a bluish tint.

[page 105]
Scientific Debriefing

-42-

Paul Lowman: When you were over the deep ocean could you see any evidence of currents, at at the coast of Africa or the coast of South America. Did you s see different colors? Gooper: There was some slight difference in color. I couldn't determine a pattern and couldn't determine what it was. I thought it might be wave patterns.

Paul Lowman: Were there different colors going over forest areas, over Africa? Were there different shades of green?

Cooper:

Not  too  many.

They looked to be a blue-green instead of a pure green.

Greens didn't come through too well. They were somewhat diffused with this blue color.

Paul  Low man:

[page 106]
Scientific Debriefing

-43-

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

the city of El Pase. I could see some little isolated civilized areas.. I never did see the main part of city.

Paul Lowman: Did you see any distinct shadows from the terrain? Mountains? Cooper: Yes. You could see shadows of the mountains quite clearly. Even more clearly than the mountains in the twilight were the shadows from clouds on ground. Paul Lowman: How did the camera operate while taking pictures? Do you recall shaking the camera at any time?

Cooper:

No:

I don't recall shaking the camera at all:

Paul Lowman: They all look pretty good; I just wanted to make sure. Is there any vibration in the capsule when you are taking pictures?

Cooper:

No.

[page 107]
Scientific Debriefing

-44-

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

the East coast. But there was a quite a bit of clouds up north, broken clouds. Paul Lowman: Were there any unusual terrain features?

Cooper: Dr. O'Keefe: Did you see anything that looked like a crater?

Cooper: No. I sure didn't. I was looking for it too. Paul Lowman: You went over one in Ghana, but I don't know if it was good or not.

Cooper:

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

Over Africa there was unasua.l rocky terrain up in the Atlas mountains.

I  didn' t see any craters.

Dr.  Voas :

Do you--could you see clouds and shore lines at night with no moon?

Cooper: Fairly well. Ifthere was no moon you could see them faintly.

Dr. Voas: Any other terrain features that you could see? At night with no moon? Cooper: No. Not much. You could see the moonlight on the water.

Dr. O'K eefe: You mentioned these small particles.

Do  I  understand  correctly

that  they seemed to ,be pushed outward from the  capsule?

Cooper: If you consider this west and this east and the spacecraft is going east, regardless of spacecraft attitude, if any time I fired one of the thrusters at night, I could see glow from almost every one of the thrusters. The pitch-down thruster I could see and the yaw I could see shortly after they got out of the nozzle. You get tremendous streams of luminous particles of fireflies, and regardless of what attitude you were in, ther appeared to come out from the spacecraft. A great many could be seen for some period and they seemed to go back along flight path.

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

Dr. Voas: Did they actually appear to flow around? Would you say now that they were parallel. As they go back, they will appear optically to come together. But did they actually curve around as if there was a flow field.

Cooper:

I felt they were actuallymoving around. Their relative movement was

[page 108]
Scientific Debriefing

-45-

not real fast. I could see them move right on out. In a matter of 4 or 5 seconds they would be as far away as the other end of the room. (50 feet). Some you could see for maybe as long as 30 or 40 seconds.

Question: Do you mean back from you or back along the flight path?

Cooper: I mean back the actual flight path.

Dr. Voas: Were these paths actually curved? You're of course familiar with the fact that as things go backward they appear to converge. Did they actually seem to curve in?

Cooper: If I would be sitting facing this way, the ones out of the left yaw thruster would move right out and move directly back along the flight path;B the ones out of the right one would go out in front of me and would turn back. John Boynton: Did you note any difficulty in identifying lunar features?

Cooper: I couldn't distinguish anything on the moon. It seemed considerably brighter. And seemed to have more light. I couldn't really distinguish anything. Roach: Would it be practicle to have binoculars aboard?

Cooper:

I  think  it  would.

The moon was much clearer than on the ground.

[page 109]
Scientific Debriefing

-46-

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

Question: Could you determine wind direction and velocity by smoke?

Cooper: I could tell direction - over the Tibet area the wind was from the south. Question: Did you see industrial smoke?

Cooper: I remember one fairly large area there was considerable haze and factory type smoke winding up, but don't remember where it was. It seemed to be like an inversion.

Hanel:

You did not see the motion of the clouds?

Cooper: No I could not determine the motion of the clouds. Oh, you mean velocity by the way the smoke was moving.

Hanel:

I mean the clouds were moving .

Phepard: Your first question was could he tellwind velocity and direction from the smoke?

Cooper:

I don't know whether I could judge velocity or not.

I  could  tellthe wind

was bl ~ ving fairly strongly, because the smoke appeared to c9me out of the smoke stacks flatly, it didn't drift up. But looking at the clouds, I could not tell which direction the wind was blowing.

Hanel:

Did you have difficulty in seeing Cirrus clouds?

[page 110]
Scientific Debriefing

-47-

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

O'Keefe: Yes, they do overlap. They are pretty badly tilted, but they do overlap.

Hanel: Did you have difficulty in seeing Cirrus clouds? Could you estimate how much of the surface was covered with Cirrus?

qooper: Surprising little of surface was covered with Cirrus clouds. I would

I guess nbout half. There were some areas where clouds were fairly extensive. Cirrus were biggest portion, about 75% of all-clouds were Cirrus.

Question: · Did you see any dust storms?

Cooper: At no time did I note a dust storm." I looked for them over Africa. One place I thought I might find them was over Arabia, but I saw no dust at all. John Boynton: You mentioned that particles of dust or water were attracted to the window. Was this rapid or gradual?

[page 111]
Scientific Debriefing

-48-

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

Dr. Voas: You seemed to have the general impression that you were stationary and everything else is moving.

Cooper: That's right. You sort of become the center of everything, and you think how you can move the earth around, when you want it, rather than move yourself. Dr. Voas: Now, as you sat there with this moving picture in front of you, did you have the general feeling you were sitting upright or flying on your back? Cooper: I did very distinctly feel I was sitting upright. A couple of times on account of the way you feel in the straps like hanging upside down. Every time I dropped something, I grabbed at it below. I never had trouble handling pencil. I never had any trouble putting it where I wanted or getting it. One time I made a wild grab for the camera as I thought it was going to fall, but of course it didn't.

[page 112]
Scientific Debriefing

# June 1, 1963 (cont.)

## Scientific Debriefing (cont.)

-49-

Dr. Vous: At retro fire, did you note feelings of lateral motion? Cooper: On the third one, it gave me pretty good little boot in yaw.

Dr. Voas: This is distinguished from what you could see looking out? As I understand it, you felt the retro rockets but they didn't change your impression that you were sitting stationary?

Cooper: All I did was feel them and I stillhad the feeling I was moving right along.

Dr.  Vons:  Did you feel  you were moving backwards?

Cooper: I was moving backwards in retro attitude, then you get quite a motion as I stated over the earth.

Question:

Did you have any sensations of change in attitude _between perigee and

apogee, perhaps as a result ofthe amount of curvature you could see in the earth's surface?

Cooper: No, I couldn't see any noticeable change in that. What was more distinct was whether you had haze or were in a clear area.

Lou  Fir.her:

We identified one of your pictures taken vertical offCalcutta.

Cooper: Did you note the one before that over the Rangoon area, with the little things out over the river; they look like warehouses or something?

Fisher:

Did you see , Calcutta?

Cooper: No.

Fisher :

Did you see any airports?

Cooper: Ye~, I saw numerous airports. The runway patterns show up very distinctly .

[page 113]
Scientific Debriefing

-50-

Boynton: Did you find that later in the flight audio inputs became more startling or more distinct? Did they seem to be more profound?

Cooper: Later in flight, I began to notice the relay panel wiping back and forth whereas I hadn't noticed it before. The music sounded pretty good. If I'd had a radio on board, I could have used it.

John Boynton: Did you find you might look forward to hearing communications, say more so than in the first of the flight?

[page 114]
SCIENTIFIC DEBRIEFING OF LT. CMDR.

# WALTER  SCHIRRA

HELD AT NASA HEAD Q UARTERS, TUESDAY

MARCH 12, 1963

[page 116]
p 1 & 2

Dro Eugene M. Shoemaker, Chairman~· Manned· Space Science Working Group served as Chairman, substituting for Dr. John Clark, Chief Scientisto The following people were present:

Mro Carl Abraham, NASA Headquarters Mr~ Richard Daniels, NASA Headquarters

Oro Winifred Cameron, Goddard . Space Flight Center

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

3

great length and I don't know whether we could be any more

expansive on that subject than we have already. The only thing that I can think of that we didn't talk about is an ef fective color of the planet 1ercury. It was as white to me as any other · star. It was not blue, red or some other color. It was definitely "star-appearing" to me. It would have a definite atmosphere where it would change colors and where it didn't have · any· atmosphere, it didn't change colors. I would say that from that it had no different appearance than if I could see it from the earth as a star. 1ercury itself was plotted on my star chart; which is · a very valuable tool for these flights. There is just no doubt where Mercury has to be and we checked on it and, of course; it was Mercury. I think Larry·called me one day and we all were ·surprised that I saw Mercury longer than I shouid have seen it and I guess this was explained by its being·seen· through the refraction · of the · atmosphere. Is this ~orrect?

Dr. O'Keefe Yes, that's the answer. Mrs. Cameron is the one who made the contribution. This is her theory.

[page 118]
4

Schirra - Again, Larry, do you have that? (Referring to drawing prepared by W. Cameron and L. Dunkelman)

Mr. Dunkelman - We have.

Schirra - We sat down for about an hour and traced this very

carefully.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

Mr. Dunkelman - It happens that the movement of Mercury behind our atmosphere is really not phenomenally related to airglow as such . Mercury is simply a pointer - an index finger. It gave us a chance to see what parts of the upper atmosphere you were looking at and this has more to do with ozone and atmospheric constituents than it has to do with airglow. We think the answer here lies in the fact that the ozone is absorbing the orange, yellow, and green light and leaves this interesting blue which is an ozone blue rather than a Rayleigh blue and we think the reason why Astronaut Schirra saw the several shades of blue is he may have been looking edge - on at the ozone layer. So it is really not so much related to airglow as it is to the way of looking at what produces the color. I think we are interested in finding out what causes the phenomenon, rather than to attempting to learn anything new about the atmos phere .

•

Schirra - I think one of the reasons that · I was so enthused about tracking Mercury through these colors is that I am a fan of blue colors . I grew up with a Maxfield Parish painting; if anybody knows his colors of blues - they are fantastic. Gold blues, electric blues . As a result, these caught my attention. I am

[page 119]
5

not that much of an artist or poet, but I was trapped with this

set of blues and I did expand on it at greath length, I thought. These electric blues -

O'Ke efe - (Interrupting) Subtraction is what it sounds like.

Schirra - So it connotes ozone in that sense - electric blue - is exactly what it looked like, A very, very satisfying color. Dr . Roman - Coming back to the color of Mercury, do I gather from your comment that you feel it was distinctly yellow, yellowish f or example, or was it that you didn't pay a great deal of attention to?

Schirra - No, Nancy, I would say it is very much like any other

star that · I would see, rather than having a color. I didn't detect a color.

Dr. Roman - Astronomers think of stars as having color,

Schirra - I have seen different-colored stars from earth-bound environment and anticipated or, in fact,I was looking for different colored stars or planets and did not detect any colors. Roman - This means that your background was just a little too bright to see colors.

[page 120]
6

is about the best way I can describe it.

I could see more stars,

as Scott Carpenter described it, when back on th~ surface of the e art h and many, many more stars in an airplane cockpit than in or b it al flight.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

Roman - You could see more in an airplane? Schirra Yes. So in the debriefing of the flight I stated that this is not a problem for pursuit of Mercury flights. It is a problem for pursuit of space observation and with the Gemini vehicle, we have solved this by having the windows properly covered and also we hope so well, Gemini doesn't have an escape - rocket for one, which helps us, Now on Apollo, we are plus or minus on whether we can afford the weight of having window covers, but if we do, it does have an escape rocket. If we have covers, then these windows should be protected. And better, be- cause we will need the stars on this particular mission. But to go back and try to cover the Mercury window at this late date would be prohibitive hardware-wise and schedule-wise.

[page 121]
7

off in the vacuum?

Schirra - This might be a way of doing it. Having it sublime

away or something of this order.

O'Keefe  -

That  could  be  done.

If that were done ...

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

Schirra - I definitely feel that th~s should not be a neglected problem; if we, for example, do remove the window cover from the Apollo command module. It definitely should have some type of protection when the star rocket goes. This is going to be a by-product of its own combustion, it won't leave marks on the window. I saw marks on mine as weli as a clouded effect and I feel so strongly about this~- When I had the sun at oblique angles shallow to the window I could see this film much as you describe it. Smokers in the gr~up will appreciate this. On the inside of an· automobile window, you can see the smoke condensa tion on there which you very rarely get washed off until you wash the car yourself . You see this when you have light at very oblique angles across this window. This is about the same type of intensity - it is not enough to restrict your vision although it does affect it at night. This is exactly why I make the point. I think·that is about the easiest analogy I can make for you. Dr. Nordberg - You say this was on the Mercury window after the exhaust.

Schirra - Yes sir, this is the result of this exhaust gas bathing

this window as the rocket lit and left almost instantaneously, but the gas does form over it.

[page 122]
8

Nordberg - Could you, were you able to observe, during the orbital

flight any decrease in the film on the window. It may have evaporated away , or did it just stay?

Schirra I was hoping to see that and I did not observe a decrease. This surprised me too. I would anticipate that that gas would sub- lime away. I suspect that the vehicle itself - we are getting into the fireflies again but the vehicle itself is surrounded by an environment. We have the same problem when we try to run a capsule or spacecraft in an altitude chamber. It is outgassing the water cooler systems and other components even in a man- created vacuum and as a result we can't maintain this vacuum because it is creating an environment all the time. I think this is what we have done in the Mercury spacecraft with the by- product hydrogen peroxide gas and the water coolers and this is where I feel our firefly, frost particles come from. Did you notice by the way- getting into that, that the particles were - observed almost immediately after I was in orbit? - I said, "I see frost flakes."

Mr. Dubin -~ You were in sunlight at that time too •...

[page 123]
9

why I asked the question because we observed this on Tiros tooo

One of the two cameras was just completely clouded for a few hundred ·orbits and then gradually after a few hundred orbits it improved a little bit o

Schirra - I need a little more flight time! I'm all for it. Nordberg We eliminated this by putting a sheet over it in third stage and since then we have never had any trouble. Schirra Sure, that's it. I am sure this is something we can't let rest. We've got to cover these windows to protect them from clouding during the transition to where we are now to space itself.

Dubin Do you ever detect any gas around the vehicle? In sun- light due to shadowing of the vehicle.

Schirra - No, I looked for thato

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

10

of gas like that the ambient pressure - the general ambient

pressure - is quite different from the pressure right around your vehicle o I still wonder whether you can get the pressure up around the vehicle for the level where condensation takes place" I have been trying to persuade some people that the condensation takes place before it leaves these ports of course as it spreads out in space " The pressure is certainly much higher around the bottom of the heat shield, but I do not know whether that is right or not"

Shoemaker Do we have any more questions on the airglow? They are very useful.

Dr. Liddel We have two problems here. One is the pressure and the other is the rate of evaporation.

[page 125]
11

but · I think this is basically why we refer to the white particles as ·frost because it does remind us of this. This is what probably tempts · me • to say that it has to be watero

C ameron - Do you think the chartreuse ones were maybe the ones tha t Glenn ·thought actually glowed, didnvt he? They were lighted wrong.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

Schirra· - I think - well this gets back · to my opinion and I saw myself on film yesterday at the press conference talking about it and said that I guess we need some more opinions but we ha~three opinions now and basically I put two together and made my · own, but the green I feel is strictly the case of the sunlight going through this tremendou~ amount of atmosphere at sunriseo What is left·as a light spectrum is this green- yellow on these particles. You can all explain this better than · I can, I am sure , but what gets through all this atmosphere would probab1y be this green -yellow. I think that in a sense they are not self-illumi nated ·but they reflect as if they were self-illuminated. O'Keefe - Well, if you pass sunlight through a 1:hick layer of atmosphere then, of course, what you will get will be a red - a deep red - however, that doesn't necessarily .prove that you are wrong in what you are saying because the things would be illumina ted in two ways . They would be illuminated not only by the direct sunlight~ but also by the scattered · light around the horizon which ·you have photographed at sunrise and the combination of these two colors might give you a chartreuse as you have said because it is a double·illumination. However, there is another possible

[page 126]
12

explanation. If it is really true that this chartreuse color only turns up only at sunrise, we may be with the explanation that Herzfeld/put forward for it.

Schirra - This is the nitrogen effect?

O'Keefe - Yes.

Schirra - I would like to stamp that one out. We ~an't afford to have·nitrogen outgas in the vehicle. (Laughter) The only nitrogen which we have stored aboard is that which pressurizes the hydrogen peroxide system. If we lose any of that, this is almost fatal. O'Keefe - Well, there is plenty of nitrogen in the atmosphere at that level~ · Still -

Schirra You mean in the external atmosphere?

O'Keefe Yes. Ambient atmosphere.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

13

you just can't purge particles in the interior in that these are angles and trap volume~, but I would suspect that we had a very low order of nitrogen gas within the vehicle that could come out. Now it can come out if the vehicle's leak rate - in the vehicle is excessive - and in this one it was somewhat less than 600 cc. I think it was about 500 -

Dunkelman - 588.

Roman - I think your suggestion, Larry, was that it would be on the outside of the vehicle.

Schirra - That I hadn't had a feeling for and I suspect this is the only way you could get it in contrast to getting it from within. So I won't argue this point. I am well aware of the fact that it could be adsorbed and then passed off in this environment.

Roman - John, (to Dr. O'Keefe) is it obvious that sunlight coming

through ,in the upper atmosphere would be red if you are above the dust layer?

O'Keefe - Well, when you look at the sun in the photographs

which were taken, it looks red.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

14

Shoemaker Any other items on airglow we should take up?

Schirra - We will bring up this other thing I saw I guess? -

Shoemaker - The cloud (bright area) you saw over Madagascar?

Schirra Yes.

Dubin - I was wondering on these various effects on the horizon.

You make some statements about the blue horizon--the different

colors.

Schirra - What time is this?

Dubin - This is at 06 44 GMT (See blue book, p. 104). (Now Report ·of, Third U. S, Manned Orbital Flight.)

Schirra - This was the beginning to what Mrs. Cameron has a sketch

of, I believe. 600

Cameron - Actually you give two·descriptions here. I believe they conflict , I assume that one is an expansion of a part of the other.

Schirra - It is, and as you can see, it's a time span here where it obviously is changing as the sun is setting as well. Not much in time, but my time was pretty fast in relation to sun- sets, I guess.

Dubin - Question is what the heck did you really see?

Schirra - Maybe if I just read it back myself, I can expand on i t. I'll read it out loud. How's that? I guess we can pic k up right at 0604 33 and I say there is a nice interesting hor izon, which rne~nt that I was captured by it. The sun was off to the left and I would say about 40 degrees. This just

[page 129]
15

meant that it was off to the left of my yaw angle - I was in

flight path in yaw at this instant of time - which means you could determine where the vehicle was oriented and then also get the sun-line in relation to the window.

Cameron Incidentally, the sun must have been very close to setting at that time, wasn't it?

Schirra - It was setting, in fact. This is where I went on. There is a dark line at the surface of the earth, orange at the clouds. Now there was a cloud horizon, as well, that I could see. Then a light yellow, a light white, and then a blue band. This was coming from the surface of the earth going up. A very light blue and then I got all excited and said that I had the planet Mercury in sight at this point. Mercury obviously was in the black. It had not come down into the Mercury set. If you want to describe it in the sense of sunset, Mercury set. I think it deserves the term of having the opportunity to set as well. I was coming up from the surface of the earth towards the darkness of space and then I detected Mercury where it belonged, trailing the sun.

Dubin - Well!

[page 130]
16

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

relatively dark blue band right at the surface of the earth. Of course, the orange and light yellow was changing at this point and I then came into seeing this dark blue bando In other words, I had lost the orange cloud effect just above the surface of the clouds. This was the same kind of red-orange we typically see through the atmosphere on the surface of the earth which is, of course, the atmosphere. I realize this cuts out most everything but reds and yellow~orange. But the light yellow wasn't at all unusual either; I had seen this in many sunsets. The sun had set. I wanted to describe this blue band. I realized I had gone through some 34 seconds. When I say describing the blue band, it is some 30 seconds later. Took me, say, 4 seconds to say that. Relatively dark blue banq right at the surface of the earth and a light blue band meaning a next band above it; another dark blue band, a large white band which is the airglow o This is the way I felt it should be. I have not made a careful study prior to the time of the various layers on the earth or above the eartho Then a deep black one and it sort of goes from a grayish blue ·to a dense black, almost looks like the underneath surfac~ of a summer cumulo-nimbus effect, where you have a nice bright earth and then you go into this black cloud and then there is this roll cloud that precedes a thunder storm and it's a very, very choppy underneath surface. It looks very turbulent, to you. This surprised me. I expected to see another sharp line and I did not. This is what

[page 131]
17

I was referring to here as the transition from the last blue band I could see to the total darkness of spaceo I gaess this is the only way I can describe thato This was a surprise to me to see thisp really o

0 °Keefe = Well, it is astonishing, isn't it? Schirra - Yes, it iso I expected to see a nice, sharply delin eated arcp and this was not the case by any means.

O'Keefe - Whatever it was, it was turbulence?

Schirra = Yes, this is the way I would describe it. It has to be or the light in a sense made it look turbulent. I think you have all seen the base of a thunderstorm as it comes towards you and the light starts diminishing rapidly as you get a thunderstorm o Just because it is so thick and almost opaque in contrast to sunlight that can get througho Then we see this vortex effect underneath it and this is very much the way I would describe it myselfo This was the transition from visible to no light o No sharp lineo I think you probably have it fairly well sketched right thereo

Dubin Have you seen the sketches? (Mrs. Cameron's sketches of colored bands around the horizon.)

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

18

Schirra - Yeso Now as we progressed in time to the second drawing, the sun has now really set and the reds and yellows (in the drawing) are fine ooo now just getting the afterlight ooothat 9 s the ragged effect I saw o ooo

Schirra - This isn 1 t as thick as that grey to black band as I saw ito We are stuck with a small circle (radius of curvature used in the drawing) and I had a big circle. Dub i n - Okayp could you re - draw it on the board the way you saw it?

Schirra 1 All it is is a straight line with a slight curvature

to it. I had a broad angle of view, but the whole thing is

flattened out. I don't see that much curvature at all.

O'Keefe -O (to Mrs. Cameron) Put in that remark about this

band is too narrow?

Schirra 9 This is too wide. (indicating drawing) It would be

the grey to black (band).

Shoemaker - It faded out more rapidly in proportion to the white band?

Schirra - It was definitely not something you would like to make with a compass o

Cameron Narrower and wider ... I tried to indicate that, but as to scale, I didn't... I was just trying

O'Keefe We made a first try at it Schirra (Reading in the Blue Book) "I will bring up the fingertip light." This will clue you. This will make it

[page 133]
19

clear to you that the internal lighting was off inside the

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

vehicle. I don't know why I didn't bring that point out. This reminds me that it was dark and it was 0605 52. I had to see what time it wasa We had this counter clock as you know, and to see the numerals I had to bring my fingertip lights up to see them. It was quite dark within the vehicle and this is quite an advantage to this observation. Then I say that Mercury is on the horizon and this meant that it was just coming down through what I described going up, if you can follow my directions here. This is where Mercury was as the pointer or index as it passed through these layers. Now · again, we proceeded through time so that light patterns will change and that's why these descriptions do conflict as we progress on in time. I think this might explain why. As I come back through with Mercury now setting these same light bands are not the identical ones that I described previously and I used the word "airglow" and even the way it came out in the tape I said see the Mercury going through the - and I was searching for a term and so I just said "airglow" just so I wouldn't have to get into a big discussion about what I was going to report on. Actually, I could have said through the -- I was searching for a term -- but this "airglow" I was using simply as a term to describe what I was looking at. I could have said through the lighted horizon.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

O'Keefe - Twilight layer is probably a better way to say it.

[page 134]
20

Schirra - Very good, a better way of saying it.

O'Keefe - "Airglow" is a very complicated term. We don't know what it is all about. That's what we are after. . . .

Schirra - In fact, on occasion I have used airglow through here just out of ignorance. I think what we all are trying to do right here is to try and clear up some of this ignorance; so we need more data, of course. Then,I say (reading from the Blue Book again) "We'll see if she holds up," meaning, can I track Mercury through all this? That was interesting in itself, that I could, I thought.

O'Keefe - This was quite important. This was one of the questions raised by Glenn on his flight whether some layers are opaque or not.

Schirra - I could track Mercury through all of these points

or  layers.

Nicks - Does it change its apparent size like the sun when it

sets?

Schirra ~ I don't recall having observed this.

Roman • Did you see any additional stars ... the fact that it

has a finite disk (Mercury)?

Schirra No, again the window cuts out the fun of that, I

think.

O'Keefe - No, you wouldn't see a disk ....

Schirra - It would have been great to have had some magnifying device at this point to make this observation. No, it just looked

[page 135]
21

like a star.

O'Kcefe - I think when Nicks asked if the sun changed in size, he really - the sun qoesn't change in size as it setso He meant change in brightnesso

Schirra ~ Apparent size - not the size, but the illusion at least . I've got to break off a second here. I don't recall seeing many moon sets on earth~ Have any of you ever seen a good moon set?

Roman - Yes.

Schirra - You have to be on the West Coast to do it; but, of course, I saw a moon set on this flight and that is why I brought it up. To me, it was the first real good moon set

I had seen. (Laughter)

O'Keefe - There is a good solid reason for that.

That  is

t hat a full moon will set at sunrise. Not many people are up at that time.

Schirra I hope you have had a chance to see the photographs I took of this moon set.

## Gill - No.

Schirra - There are two black and white sets of these. The original prints were very good. I understand there is a lot of halat i on around this . I definitely think you all should get these out and examine them. Now the subsequent prints were not very good. They were too fuzzy .

Gill Who would have them? 6

[page 136]
22

Schirra - Paul Backer could trace them down at least.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

He was the film-handler. He could chase them down. O'Keefe - Minnaert has suggested that after moonset, that there might be a lunar zodiacal light. (Minnaert, Light and Color in the Open Air, p. 295.)

Schirra  - Oh.

[page 137]
23

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

blue scout had been launched from Vandenberg (AFB). It had the most fantastic lighting I have ever seen anywhere. It had the exhaust trail and above the horizon it had this fantastic glow - ionization glow (like a vapor cloud) I would describe it as which would best pin down resemble- - the zodiacal light if you ever wanted to do it. It had a band across the horizon about 60 to 70 degrees and it went right up the ecliptic and picked up the moon and the planets. It was just amazing.

Shoemaker - How far could you trace it? Schirra - I could see it right up to the zenith as much as I could see out the cockpit. We were all oohing and ahing. I think you have seen this same glow from a booster ·flight at night, particularly if you can pick up a sunset or ·sunrise when you get above the earth's shadow and get into the lighted area where the booster is. There is a tremendous ·expansion wave that's behind the vehicle and this is basically what it looks like.

Dubin - These pictures of Glenn's Atlas flight show the same

thing. o o o

Schirra - I think it was mine you saw ...

[page 138]
24

O'Keefe - It is not a difficult thing to see the zodiacal light

under  reasonably  favor~ble  conditions.

Schirra - No, I have seen it frequently, but not as brilliantly.

Gill - Have you seen it in Houston by any chance?

Schirra - I have seen it just flying at night. I haven't seen it

from Houston recently, no.

Gill - Well, this is the season to see it. You should see it . . . about three-quarters of an hour after sunset.

Schirra - From an airplane, you can see it better than yoµ can

from a Mercury spacecraft. You don't have this dimming of light through your canopy as you do from the spacecraft~ This is rea lly a spectacular sight. Of course, the pilots were so concerned because they didn't know what it was. This was hundreds and hundreds of miles away, and yet they felt they were in danger . (Laughter) They wanted answers right away.

Gill - They got them, didn't they?

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

25

we are going to see a batch of clouds if it's lighted. (the earth) That's really what I saw a lot of. I was just amazed. Obviously, when I flew over Africa, it was loud and ·clear and you would see this if you were looking at Africa from some vantage point many, many miles away. I suspect that if you looked at earth from a long distance away that there is so m uch cloud cover that it might have an appearance much like Venus in this sense.

Shoemaker - While we are on Africa, would you like to go on and talk about the ... (interruption)

Schirra - You can't match my blues. Maybe Parish ·could help ..• Nordberg - Does anyone have anything on the altitude, parti cular ly on that top that sort of turbulent thing?

Schirra - That's another one you should check into. Through the trajectory tables, you should find my altitude. Now at this point, I was just passed Indian Ocean ship as I recall. O'Keefe - We've done all that. If you say when Mercury went through that we will tell you what the height was. (To

Cameron) You have it?

[page 140]
26

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Schirra - Correct, that's when I came into it.

O'Keefe - What was the height of the layers at this time - 66 kilometers, is that right?

Schirra - Right, that's what I was saying. I hope we can hold Mercury meaning that I'd like to see it · go through this and I did not know that I could, but obviously I proved that I could; I did. This was quite a surprise. Didn~t you say, Jocelyn, that there aren't many people that have seen M ercu ry sets?

Gill - Very true. Mercury, (the planet) period. Very few

people know that it exists.

O'Keefe - Can I point out that you used the word· airglow just in general terms, a faint, glowing light seen · from the · atmospher e without your - What you called the airglow is not what is technically know as the airglow.

Schirra Yes, any time we use airglow I don't use it as we professionally talk about airglow. I was using it merely as an escape clause.

Dunkelman - There is one other point there.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

One  isn't  sure

just in what plane these phenomena took place . They may hav e been ahead or behind this plane (of the spacecraft). We hav e to think of this ... The 66 kilometers might indeed be reflec ted as something that had been before this point, you see. Nordberg - (Comment inaudible).

Schirra ~ My local vertical would be this hand as I show it

and, of course, 40 degrees to the left where the sun and

[page 141]
27

Mercury were traversing was in a plane something ·like ·thiso This is your point I think, Larry, Isn't it?

Dunkelman - That's one •• • Schirra - So they come down this way which mathematically isn't hard to solve, but you should consider this. Dubin - This plane may vary a certain amount and it is very difficult to know which way.

Schirra - The spacecraft at this point was under attitude control and was fairly tight in a sense.

Roman I think Larry's point is that though we don't really know if we are if we are actually taking a traverse straight through the atmosphere, it may be something in front, a tangent line, or behind it.

Dunkelman - The first thought is to put a line right through there, and at this point this may be on the plane but it may not be that. Some may be ahead or behind, or both. Schirra - In other words, these layers in this sense could be all staggered out and this one stacked like a bunch of steps in a sense.

Dubin - And they could be higher in altitude than a simple r i ght

angle  projection.

O'Keefe - It's quite safe.

Schirra - I was looking at two dimensions in a sense. Cameron - The right angles of proj~ction and this·is the twilight zone of the spectrum.

[page 142]
28

Schirra - If there is another one of those coffees, I'll trade this one in. I don't mind it cool.

Break

(General  conversation)

[page 143]
29

Schirra - And the rare occasions that I've had the timing for this.

O'Keefe - There is a nice Delta Flight from Washington down to Houston. The thing goes exactly toward the sun - you can't miss it, Cameron - You'll have to go to the cockpit.

Schirra - Hmm You have to make the Delta Flight, in this particu- lar case, from Dallas to Los Angeles. I passed Albuquerque.

Shoemaker - This peculiar thing you saw over Africa maybe you could tell us about it.

Schirra - That , as I have said, was my biggest surprise.

I

talked to most of you at great length about things we would hope to see or expect to see. This I had no prior knowledge of and I bas ically can say that I was "sucked" in and originally called this airglow, if you recall. I guess it is best to refer back to the record again . This was S hours and 20 minutes.

Cameron - That's the time I got from you.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

30

O'Keefe - _ Yes, he gave me a note. I was supposed to pass that note down to the Manned Spacecraft Center; I don't think I did. I think it's my fault. (Ed. copies were forwarded to MSC~)

Roman - What is this you are referring to?

O'Keefe - There is a very strong magnetic anomaly in this region, and this is where ...

Dunkelman I think the fact that Schirra had not heard of this makes the observation even better scientifically.

Schirra  - Hmm.

O'Keefe - Quite exciting about this thing, but exactly · what region is Cdr . Schirra talking about? ...He's talking about the South ·Atl antic - and the South Atlantic was in sunlight. This is probably as clos e to it as we could get to be in darkness.

Schirra - I think what happened is I looked out as I was drifting

and this happened to be in the right attitude to see this, which probably meant that I was looking toward the North although I can ' t confirm this .

Cameron You said something about you would judge that the width was about a fourth of your window.

Schirra

[page 145]
31

Cameron - Was this a patch, or do you think there was a layer

there?

Schirra CO It was a layer across my whole visible horizon. It

wasn't just a blob in other words.

Cameron = And is that the only time you saw it? Schirra - That is the only time that I recall ever ha~ing see n it. At one particular point - Was it at 5 hours 20 minu tes (in the record)? I don 9 t seem to refer to it too well in here.

Dunkelman

[page 146]
32

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Dunkelman -

We are here to hear yours and I think we should · figure out

some mo r e of this . I don't want to inject my thought into this, but I was trying to quote you in saying that it is brownish smog layers and wasn 9 t sure how to define it.

Schirra - Yes. This is dirty brown, not a pleasant brown,not one you w ould like to see. Sort of like a tattle tale brown instead of a tattle tale gray.

Cameron Venus was just off the edge of it. I have the report of it. Schirra Let's see, where are we there?

Cameron 13 I don't think you are saying anything about that. I was

wondering if you noticed Venus at that time?

Schirra There was some point in here where I miscalled Venus or Mercury, I forget which, but this is wrong. I told them to correct it and they never did. But anyway this is what I did say. I think you could disprove me very easily, because it just couldn't be there. I forgot which one it was I referred to. Venus and the moon were always together is the whole point, and they were to me in a horizontal line which gave me a good reference.

0 °Keefe - Cdr. Schirra, there are some important points here.

[page 147]
33

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

would prove that the stars well could be seen going through the same traverse. This thing I saw - let's just call it the smog belt on this southern pass, to go back and recap the sensation that brought this to mind which is not brought out here other than the fact that I can identify what I saw. I was coming over a land area. (I think I better take a second and break out my orbital map which I have here.)

O'Keefe - If you have the tape, we might replay that.

Schirra This would be better because some of the nine hours there, I have not identified carefully enough, .and I should- have, by going back over the tape and these areas of interest - I thin k we should listen to the original tape again. Let's get down to · where we were.

Cameron - Larry (Dunkelrnan) has listened to it at the Cape, I think.

Dunkelman - Did you see wh~t I call normal airglow at night? That is the soft white band.

[page 148]
34

Dubin - W.as there any color whatever in it? Schirra - In the . airglow that I saw? No, other than during sunset times where you would have sunlight itself.

Dubin No color whatever?

Schirra - I think of white as being all colors and you can see

I've been trapped with painting~ few times. This patch was denser as you came into the middle of this belt. It definitely had tb · have a light stimulus to it or I wouldn't have seen it. I was well aware of this and thought this as I saw it. The initial impression that brought to my attention is, first off, and this is the liabil ity we have; we're wanting to see something that needs to be seen ·with the naked eye when the inside of the vehicle is dark.

Cameron In the patch did you notice any variation in color either horizontal or vertical? Or was it all one?

[page 149]
35

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

everybody thinks that all you see is Perth! (laughter) Well, we see a lot of other places as well." To go back, I was · trying to re - establish this phenomenon in my mind so I had passed over Africa and I was darkened within the vehicle. I was drifting. As I was drifting - we like to say that we can see a city because the people of the city get quite excited about it as we know Perth did - and I was proceeding across the Indian Ocean drifting, so my attitudes cannot be defined, I wanted to say to myself, oh·, · I see some more cities below me. Now I wasn't convinced in my mind that I was over the Indian Ocean, yet with the attitudes·not carefully defined, I might well have seen cities , These I said, ah, those ci ties are quite constellation setups. They looked like c onstellations. Then I said, my gosh! they are constellations. They are stars and this was below what I then, in my mind at least, had planted as airglowo Again, a lump term, meaning a lighted horizon, and I looked above this brown smog effect and saw more stars again. Then I could see through this brown effect, stars, but they were · dimmed considerably by it. Now, I did not have the opportunity in that the attitudes were dynamic to trace an individual star or planet through this particular areao I wasn't at this point too intereste d in knowing what constellations I was looking at. In drifting flight, you don't really have a requirement to navigate, that is, to know where you are in relation to a star field or surface. Roman - So you don't know what you were looking at? Schirra - So any particular star or constellation, I could not ident ify at this timeo If I needed to, I would then have to destroy

[page 150]
36

my dark adaptation and light up my star chart and then identify these things. This is the problem we have.

O'Keefe - One of the classic problems in astronomy - one of the solutions for it is to illuminate with a red light, because you don't destroy the dark adaptation so quickly.

Schirra -> This is why we went to these fingertip lights which are red. I started out, and this might interest you, I went to the planetarium in Chapel Hill and took both gloves with me. One had white lights and one had the red lights. This was my test of these lights. We used them while working in the planetarium. We lit up the white lights and the whole dome was just brilliant white. These are tiny little peanut bulbs, really minute. This was the last time I used those white lights. That very day - they were painted red as a result of this. You need very, very low orders of light to - Dunkelman - I had the impression the first time we talked about this that you had not seen any stars through the patch, this brownish -

patch, but you feel that you had seen

[page 151]
37

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Schirra I feel that I was looking up at it now in relation to my local horizon.

Roman - You were actually looking up at it? Have you any idea how high it was above the apparent horizon at that time? Schirra - That is where I am in trouble, Nancy, because there is no direct repeated knowledge of what this attitude is.

Roman - Well, the other question is ... Sch irra - But I saw a good batch of stars below it which meant that my axis had to be fairly well above the horizon.

Roman - Any _ structure either turbulent or wave-like? Schirra - No, this was a very soft - we best describe this in clou ds as being a cirrus layer rather than a cumulus layer; a stratus would be a better term, I think.

Nordberg Sort of diffuse?

Roman - I am still not quite sure I have the answer to my question then.

I'm not a meteorologist.

Schirra - If I were to do it, I'd take a chalk eraser and just ' make a streak across the blackboard, it would be more intense in the center of the eraser and then diffused as I got -

Roman - But no other structure?

[page 152]
38

mackerel effect that you see in clouds.

This is very much a -

well, I would say if you·really wanted to do it - well, do· it in water colors rather than chalk.

Nordberg  - Did  it  cover  your  entire  field  of  view?
Schirra  - It  covered  my  whole  field  of  view,  yes.  That's  where I
"suckered -in" thinking  that  I was looking  at  "airglow - " what  we
have  used  now  - I  think  you  understand  how  I  have  used  airglow  and
that  there  were  cities  below  it  and  stars  above  it.  Then,  these
cities  were  defined  rapidly  as  stars  and  then  I -
Dubin - You  actually  saw no horizon  then?  And  you  saw  none  of  th e
regular  airglow?

[page 153]
39

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

could look down at the different angles.

Schirra - We had a mirror on there. This permitted me basically to look toward the heat shield. Something like a rear view mirror, except it was a front view mirror in Mercury. But in any case, you almost need - we need something like a dental mirror to move around . I think again you get in trouble with a mirror; I con sidered this. In fact, I had a mirror on my hand which was a flat plate much like the woman's cosmetic mirror. It was about the same size, and when you use a mirror you lose so much just by the fact that you change distances. Your image has been ranged differently. So I found that I didn't have any luck at all.

Tennyson - It was just your disorientation.

Schirra That itself was another problem. (Cameron showing Schirra

a drawing)

Cameron - I have a drawing here of what I think you saw out your

window  at  S  hours  20  minutes.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

40

Cameron - I was wondering if you recognized this pattern here that

you saw below  it?

Schirra - What really flipped ·me--this is where I got in trouble-- I said somethin$ about the Pleiades and I know I could not see ·those.

Cameron - You see according to this the Moon was up at the top (of the window) and Venus was off to the left. Did you see them? Schirra - I did not see them during this period, no. O°Keefe Where is Delphinus? Delphinus is somewhere.

C Roman - I was just thinking about that . . ..

Cameron - Well, he's in Ophiuchus and Hercules and (General discussion which is inaudible)

Schirra - Delphinus does look something like the Pleiades in a sense , yes .

Roman - It's a little larger, but I'm sure that ...

Schirra - At one time I tried to trace this down and see what · I really was looking at and I frankly have not done it. This is typical of everything we do, we always rushed into something else. O°Keefe = (to Cameron) Can you find Delphinus? It's right next to the (Northern) Cross.

Cameron I don't see it. I don't think it's on here. ...

Schirra B Did I identify - when I said Aldebaran, I may well have been

talking about...

[page 155]
41

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

(Conversation inaudible)

Schirra I used to carry my little star chart slide rule thing around with me.

Roman - Alternatively, there are some (star) clusters - well, if

it ' s the Pleiades, it would be well enough defined and you wouldn't confuse it - there are some clusters in a star field which·at ·fir s t glance give you the same haziness that you get from a cluster like the Pl eiades .

Cameron - It's the wrong direction, of course. Roman Well, but he is down in the Scorpio region if you think of it. Schirra - One of those things I do recall very vividly was that I talked about Aldebaran and it just couldn't have been there at the time I. 000

Gill O, well maybe you didn't have the Pleiades then.

Schirra - I know it wasn't. It wasn't the Pleiades.

Gill 19 Because you've got Orion here. Orion, the Pleiades and

Aldebaran go nicely together.

Schirra They sure do, but they shouldn't be there.

Gill But those were the wrong ones. (Laughter) They can't be there. Dunkelman I think Voas corrected that at that one time. You see Aldebaran wasn't there.

[page 156]
42

Schirra - I don't think they are in this area. We have to expand this star chart . Now if I were yawed around 90 degrees, this star chart is absolutely worthless because this only goes a plus or minus 60 degrees .

O'Keefe - I know, I know ° ° °

Schirra Maybe I could have ...

O'Keefe But, your flight path did go over Aldebaran, Orion -

the plane of the orbit.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

43

surface of the earth; physically, I just couldn't see ito

Roman That's what I meant when I said at best you-d see those just before sunrise--if at all at this time of year.

Schirra - Right. It was just impossible for _ me to see it at thi~ point way back here, so it was occluded by the surface of the earth, frankly, I just couldn ' t - physically I couldn't see it. What really would be fun, by gosh, would be to go back up and have Tony Jenzano (Director, Morehead Planetarium) lay this out in the planetar i·, filJl = Yes, yes, you ought to be able to solve that.

Schirra = I would be able to tell exactly what I saw.

[page 158]
44

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Shoemaker - Why don't we say we'll plan on this and then we can make

the arrangements

Schirra G I am afraid that I can't do it rapidly, but I'd say the first part of April would be okay.

Shoemak er _~ Jocelyn, would you like to take this on to set it · up and follow it through?

Gill Certainly.

Schirra I would like to nail this one down. It has been bothering -O me for a long time and I just don't seem to be getting any answers that I would like to have as well.

[page 159]
45

in the airglow and I did not see it?

Dunkelman - We are trying not t~ ~ (influence your reply). Schirra - ~laying one (response) against the other is indeed.. a good way of doing it.

Dunkelman Another think is that this was indeed brighter. Schirra But, well below.....

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

46

anything else . So I was strictly looking, if you could almost say, I could even be looking straight up, which I know I wasn't. The stars were equally bright and equally in number almost on either side of this band.

Dubin - It was about through the middle of the window?

Schirra - That is correct . I went even as far as to say that it wasn ' t a third of the window and then I modified this down·to a fourth, but ~twas more than a fourth and less than a third. This means, in any case, that it's approximately ten degrees thick and this is a very rough estimate.

O'Keefe - It wasn't the Milky Way?

Schirra - No. No, ~ like to look at the Milky Way so I've seen it enough to say ". no."

O'Keefe - Because you were facing according to your picture to - well - no - Sculptor, Fornax - no - Roman - The Milky Way in that part of the sky, should have a very distinct rift down the middle, it wouldn't be brightest to the center and shading off.

[page 161]
47

back to the planetarium (to reconstruct his flight path.) •.. Schirra - I sure wish I had thought of this a long time ago when I was fresher on this.

Gi 11 - It would fix things in your mind too - you'd be able to see them

again right away to pin them down.

Dubin - How long did you see this?

Schirra - I would not say seconds, I would say minutes, Nordberg - Did this go away simply because of your progression in orbit or because of your drifting?

Schirra I think more because of the drifting, perhaps. Dubin Did you see the stars through it?

Schirra There again, I didn't have time to track stars through it. When I say minutes, I don't mean a whole bunch of minutes, I mean one or two or three minutes.

Dubin - Yes, but do you know whether you saw stars moving relative to

the  band?

Schirra - No, they weren't .

[page 162]
48

than beat this any further, it's circumbent on us to go to the

planetarium and really nail this down. All I have to do is just take this window box we have and just move it around and - ah ha - there it is.

Dunkelman - Something we would like to know is the dimming effect.

Schirra 6 Uh huh.

Dunkelman You say that this patch was quite bright, that's one thing, and then was it quite bright because it appeared bright or because there are many, many fewer stars. This is the question we have to answer.

[page 163]
49

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

capsule?

Schirra - We have answered that with the fingertips.

Shoe. maker - Did the light of the "time-correlation clock" shine in your eyes throughout flight?

Schirra - The answer is no. They put in a switch to turn that off and I turned it once and it was never turned on again. This was a very great annoyance. This was my prediction that I would turn i t of f and never turn it on again.

Gill - You were responsible for having the switch put in, weren't

you?

[page 164]
50

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

became a liability, because we had then to bring on light again (I brought on the finger tip lights to do this). Gordon knows how strongly I feel about the star chart device. This is a valuable tool. But it required two tools and a slider. Actually, two tools, with sliders on each to use them. I had to take one tool which gave me a reference in the time that had elapsed to come back to the star char t which had a reference for one time - I think it was an hour's worth. So I had to come over here and compute. For example, say I had S hour J and 20 minutes, so I'd run down 5 hours and 20 minutes and look acro ss and this is equivalent to say 53 minutes. So then I would say, Ah, 53. minutes; so then I would race over here and set the little window thing on the index of 53 minutes and this thing is floating around and I would stamp it off and get it out of the way. This is quite a chore. It really is. So now we have included this on the flight plan itself, what index of the star chart to use. So we have simplified this task quite a bit.

Cameron - As far as the star charts are concerned, fluorescence

[page 165]
51

and you could see what you needed on the chart. Schirra - Now this could be practiced in a planetarium. O'Keefe - There are plenty of fluorescent inks.

Schirra This star chart thing was a real problem even to get it to the degree of refinement that I had.

Gill - It has a white background now?

[page 166]
52

Dun ke iman - The Navy has done this very carefully.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Schirra - It can be destroyed very rapidly. It turns out quite frequently when you are in a cockpit and you're time -critical, more so than when you are on a carrier deck fo r a night launch than when you are on the pad . Things are in a f r an tic tempo . You make a very rapid checkout of the cockpit and you really don't care about light adaptation. You just want to be sure that everything is in its proper position. So all of a sudden--boom--you are shot off into the black and surprisingly you are very well adapted. I feel-- I know Scott has made a test on this--I think you come down to a very rapid adaptation in seconds and then you progress getting better dark adapted over many, many minutes. I know this has been documented. It is not worth trying to adapt to this exponential curve that you are trying to get hold of.

Gill - Five minutes certainly helps a great deal.

[page 167]
53

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Cameron - I saw the zodiacal light once doing that in Chicagoo I came out of a lighted building. It was the first time I had seen it. It was in a part of the sky where I didn't expect to see it. Schirra - I think that our test, frankly, that have been conducted to determine dark adaptation are not done well enough. I don't think we can really justify how fast we adapt b:y the tests we have run . I have yet to see that quan~itative analysis made that shou ld be made. Intuitively, I feel that I ad apt faster than the test has ever proven to me. We had very complicated system s , suc h as th at at Pensacola where you pick up the horizon and objects, trucks and airplanes and ships,--I'm sure you remember this routine-- and I never was sympathetic to this study. I think there is a bet t er way of defining it, however, by having you in an opaque room or rat her going from a lighted room into an opaque room seeing what can you s ee. Have these measured light sources there and then identify them as rapidly as you can . Of course, you've got to keep identifying because you are adapting all the time.

[page 168]
54

it on. I think they are trying to trace that through. It wasn't Aldebaran, that's for sure.

Dubin You say that you never saw your fluorescent numbers on your watch?

Schirra No, I did not. This bothered me. Dubin Did you look at it? Schirra Yes.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

55

Nordberg - I am curious if you ha<l a chance to observe variations

of brightness around the horizon; around as far as possible (during) both in day and nighto

Schirra - Again, the field of view isn't that big o

I know just

what you are asking faro I didn ' t take the liberty of making these, what would amount toi large yaw changes. I did not have the opportunity to observe that transition. The field of view I had did not show these various changes .

O'Keefe - You see, this is like 30 degr e es, that's half a radius. I d on't

t hink he could see much more than you could see overhead at night. Schirra - Yes.

ovKeefe - It means that if he doesn't see patterns in the airglo w

from a single place at night, unless he has the freedom to yaw al l around, he doesn't have the opportunity of tracing out the rather large patterns which must be in the airglow. They are of the orde r of a thousand miles in diameter .

[page 170]
56

pitchJ like this, rollj pitch o

In other words~ you step your way

around o It is not a smooth maneuver as you would anticipate in an airplane where you just roll and come around and cut a swathe without changing attitudeo

Nordberg - In daytime, it should be really a striking thing, the horizon looking toward the sun and, on either side of the sun , and also looking straight away from the sun it co uld be extremely bright ooo and at 90° 0

[page 171]
57

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Gill - No. (cont.)

Schirra - These things you can't define by numbers. In spite of what my philosophy was for this flight you can't resist making scientific observations. That's taped? I think it's legal. Gill - That's what I thought--You wouldn't be human if you didn't. Nordberg I would like to get away from the horizon now for a moment. This is going to clouds. There have been reports by all five of you on seeing cloud patterns and the like%;B is there any good indication when you look down of on depth cloud? Schirra CO Very much so. You can get Paul Backer (try Charles Coler, MSC, better) to give you the Weather Bureau photos I took. It' fantastic what you can see. It is the meteorologist's dream to see this depth, cumulus effect, high cumulus, etc. As an example, I saw the Sierras, I could very definitely see the rising terrain. I was very much pleased. I can best say this by saying, if you've flown at 30 thousand or 40 thousand feet, which you must have, in a jet transport, you see this of course. Now, if the horizon itself is not visible to you when you are looking more towards the surface of the earth, if the curvature of the earth is not visible, you feel that you are at about 50 thousand feet. Nordberg And is this because of some sort of stereoscopic view that you can still see shadows and brightness? Schirra 0 I think you take every cue that you've got and you differentiate colors by grays, blacks, whites, but there is no doubt in your mind that you see depth and there is one striking picture, this Weather Bureau picture, that shows ten different types of cloud structure. One is a big towering cumulus, almost a cumulus

[page 172]
58

nimbus that stands out like a ruler in relation to tpe vertical

plane. I think it might be here (in the record).

Nordberg - I have seen some of the films. I don't know if they were your flight or previous ones. I am just curious whether the eye sees something better than what shows up on the color film .

Schirra Yes, they do. You use every cue available.

O'Keefe He doesn't have the stereoscopic effect in the ordinary sense, but you remember that he is in motion when he sees that the peak of the clous moves at a different rate so he gets a sort of pseudo-stereoscopic effect like you get when you are driving along in a car by the fact that they are moving relative to the capsule. Schirra Take page nine here, and put a sheet of paper on the top of it to cut off the curvature of the earth and you've seen this from an airplane. Haven't you?

[page 173]
htning

59

This was sort of interesting because I described the thunderstorm flashes of discharges as blobs of lightning.

[page 174]
60

BEGINNING OF THIRD TAPE

Schirra - I could not pick up cloud structure because I was looking down and at this pointp you don't have time, and I don't think your cues are good enough to separate elevations . Nordberg ~ You don't recall seeing any clouds when there was no lightning?

[page 175]
61

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

Schirra - No, that was only during this area. This could best be described as the eastern half of Australia.

Dubin - Did you notice any lightning while looking down - you couldn't see the flashes away from the capsule? Schirra - No, oh no, no, I didn't get any light fed into the capsu le. It was just my eyes that captured this light. Dubin - In the daytime did you also see lightning the same way? Di d your ...

Schirra - I don't recall having seen lightning in the daytime. I t 1s a good question, though, and I don't recall it. I'm sure I woul d hav e noted it if I had seen it.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

62

yet to do this - in aircraft - in all the times I've been out

there - see all of the Pacific. I have never had that opportunity, and I don't know that anybody ever will.

Tennyson - I think what he was getting at is when in the TIROS satellite ~ the cottonpicker goes over and takes a picture perhaps of stratus deck which to a continual extent runs right up against the mountains that we know are snow-covered - wh ere one stops and the other begins, the snow and the stratus. It is difficult or impossible to tell.

[page 177]
63

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

Nordberg There are some thoughts that by polarization and so, - one can distinguish it over a uniform surface; of course, the eye doesn't have this, but I'm just looking for a clue that the eye might have which we hadn't thought of in an instrument such as depth, because it's interesting when you say you can see all this depth in the clouds themselves.

Schirra Yes.

[page 178]
64

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

do with spare part items or items like that.

Nordberg - It's again the depth.

Schirra Well, we are working a movie camera where TIROS is taking stills, is what you are saying.

Tennyson - Exactly, and you imply a height which the eye in itself

in a still picture mode can't see, but as it goes you say, ah, ha - this moves at a different speed, and therefore, it had to be higher.

Schirra - I would accept that, except ~or the photograph I have

here which shows this depth. Or is it reminding me of it? I do not know. Do you see the depth I talk about in that photograph on page 9?

Tennyson - To some degree (perhaps), b~t, no, not as directly.

I found that picture interesting, but as indecisive as a good many of these prints are.

Schirra - Well now, do you have all of the~e Weather Bureau

photographs?

[page 179]
65

the best print available, and I definitely have this group on

that list. For one, I am disappointed that this occasion where I pu~led this Weather Bureau filter out of the back to take these two pictures of the moon, I have heard and I have yet to have seen the graphic results of those two black and whites on the moon, which are quite interesting to a lot of people. I have heard this. Now where they've gone, I don't know. Although I know they can be obtained ag ain, I thou ght this w as a shame.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

66

don't have the 70 mm. yet, but as soon as they become available, they'd send them to us, but actually we haven't really received anything from them since and the only time that I have seen some of these photographs that you are talking about .•.

Schirra - Well, Kleinknecht doesn't have control of this, M SC doesn't have control of these pictures I took, obviously,. or actually I would have been able to se e them.

G ill - Who does?

T ennyson - The person involved with this (at least in th e past) is Stanley Soules.

[page 181]
67

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

opportunity to see a highway, for example, and trace it, because I wasn't over those populated areas such as the Southern United States long enough or had the clear weather to just sit there and observe them. In contrast, I think what you would do if you saw something and wanted to look at it, I think what you would do is that you would pitch down more - to look almost straight down and see it which Scott had the capability of doing and he could really take a careful look at it. O'Keefe - One curious fact that I haven't seen anybody take advantage of is this. It is quite common in triangulatio n - that two stations which are a couple of hundred miles apart, or a hundred miles apart, and that therefore as far apart as you a re from the ground and along a light path which is much inferior - it's nearly parallel to the earth. In order for one of those stations to see the other one - to measure on it - they provide one of them with a 6-inch heliotrope, that's enough. That means that somebody on the ground with a six-inch heliotrope who knew how to point could point a light that you could see even in the daytime if they had a dark background; and conversely, if you had a heliotrope, you could also be seen from the ground. I have nev er seen this possibility discussed. Of course it also goes with the fact that instead of these tremendous flares, if they knew how to point, they could make a much stronger light where you are with a search light.

[page 182]
68

on the axis which is easily the equivalent of 800 million candle poweroo o single flare on the ground ooo

Schirra 6 uh huh O'Keefe Well, I think 2 or 3 million is the biggest thing they ever tried to use. So the directed beam has quite a big advantage over the undirected beam, if people's orbital work is good enough. Schirra 8 Agreed. Our problem of course, is unless we have the window, meaning, of course, attitude, fairly vertical in relation to the surface of the earth, you can't take advantage of this. This is just the confined attitude that we've been flying in.

[page 183]
69

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

the man to brief me on it, and I since have read up a little bit further on this exposure meter and there is a little soft, white cap that goes over the eye of the exposure meter which takes diffused light. It doesn't change the light meter reading, but it basically then takes an average of all the light it sees. Now when I was using it, I didn't have this cap on there and I then got the brightest light of some area and that's why we overexposed the film. Nordberg Yes, yes... it's very simple...

Schirra It's as basic as that, and that's why I over-exposed these light values that I came back with and which were recorded are really of no great value because of this, I think. It's a small focus - the exposure meter is just about that size cubed (demonstrating) it's a beautiful little piece of equipment and quite accurate. We had a calibrator, but it should have been (capped) 000 Gordon Cooper knows this and will have a cap on his, I might add.

Nordberg - Have all pictures been overexposed?

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

70

lot of information about these flights. Schirra = That was my intent in taking the exposure meter and the Hasselblad because you took light values rather than F-stops and shutter speeds and this means nothing ... those numbers. The light values connote exactly what you want to know. Dunkelman - And a few of those and you've got it all made and

you  know  all  the  circumstances.

Schirra - Cooper will have this very same type of light meter.

Nordberg - You know why I asked this question, Larry, because we are measuring visible radiation in one c hannel of the TIROS satellite which is essentially the same thing as an incident light meter measuring in one direction and when we compute the reflected energy from the earth, it always comes out too little which is the same thing as overexposed pictures .

Schirra = Sure, Sure. It just depends on how much it sees. I f it sees the horizon, it's going to have some black in there relative to the bright surface of the earth, so it avera ges it out. Shoemaker = I ' d like to add some questions of my own to this. You were over Africa during daylight on part of your flight, were you not?

[page 185]
71

ground  as  to  structure.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

Could you infer anything about it?

Schirra - Amazingly enough I felt I saw every bit of what I see here. The terrain changes, the rivers - one of the best shots - this is of course, South America, that's the one I'd like to use in fact = when I came across South America, her e we are, on the sixth orbit, in this area it was all clouded, and I finally broke into the clear - in this sense - just before I got to Rio de Janeir o , and I could see, I think it was the Corono River, I am not sure. This is about where it started clear again. I could trace that river out very easily. Just follow it all the way through there .

Roman - To the ocean?

Schirra - No, I could not do that. I thought I could, but at this point, it's sort of a local sunrise, so you don't have good vertical lighting on it at this point. Now in Africa, I had vertical lighting almost. This was almost its local noon when I crossed i t . I would like to have seen this large lake right here almost in the center of the mass of Africa , and I don't recall seeing it.

[page 186]
72

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

O'Keefe - I think this is swamp and it's very shallow. Gill - You never would see it then.

Shoemaker - In photographs I've seen from previous flights, both

Glenn's and Carpenter's flfghts, I think we got some pictures on Africa, and I was quite interested in these because they begin to show up the structurep the bedding, etc.

Schirra ~ Yes, I was looking for this particularly over Africa and South America because this was supposed to be real prime in transi tion on the northwest part of South America which was really a beauty when you visualize how you hit that with the 6th orbit, and I did n't have that prerogative either. Yes, when you come down to it, this was all primed for geologic study, I thought ... Even Cuba was hard to see. (Laughter)

Cameron - Did you see anything -on the order of craters?

Schirra - No, this is not the map I flew with by the way - sort of blocked out for specific attention. I frankly was very disappointed about the cloud cover. I think you've detected that anyway. That doesn't go too far North and South you are in this tropical zone which is the cloudiest part of the earth. >

Schirra Yes.

O'Keefe - It is most systematically cloudy.

[page 187]
73

Schirra As an example, I was hoping that I could look up at Japan after retrofire, and I couldn't see it at all. It was clouded in too.

Tennyson Japan, this time of year, looks like it would be cloudy. Nordberg Particularly at this time of year this was October, so - that was already in the Northern Hemisphere and should be out of the tropical convergence zone.

Tennyson - But still Japan by nature is .... (cloudy)

Schirra - There was quite a bit of weather in the Pacific at that ti~~. O'Keefe - Still, if he goes 28 degrees N to 28 degrees S, he was in the tropical convergence zone most of the ti me. So things aren't quite as bad as they would appear from this flight.

Shoemaker The point is that this also is in the area which is mostly extensive deserts; these are the precise areas where you would see the geology best.

Schirra - Yes.

[page 188]
74

estimate it to be about 80 to 90%.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

When I went over - the United

States was clear east of the Sierra's, but it "sacked in" (clouded over) again by the time I got to the Gulf of Mexico, so I just had a small band when you look at this part of the United States . This is not very much percenta ge-wise. South America, I didn't get to until the 5th and 6th orbits, so I was over water all the other time. The northsic portion of the contin en t was cloudy and finally I got into the clear on the 5th and 6 orb it s by the time I'd just left South Am eric a. Australia, of course, w as night, so it turned out that there wasn't much I could s ay about it. other than the fact that it was clo u ded over too. I saw lig htn in g as I got to the eastern half of Australia.

[page 189]
75

0 1Keefe - There's a 10,000 foot peak (Haleaki) or Maui.

Dubin - How were you overall set for time? You were up to the sixth orbit and you had some trouble with your suit, so we found out. Did you have time to basically do more scientific work

than you had the privilege of doing?

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

Schirra - I think as we - and this is the trouble with Mercury because this is just about phasing out - as you get your confiden ce in the systems to where you don't need to monitor them as of te n, yo, could take time for observation. But you continually, at this st age of the game, cannot rely on the systems running themselves and so you keep carefully monitoring these things. This draws your attention away from, say a five minute observation. The only t ime that you could make a lengthy observation would be when you are under this automatic control when the capsule is maintaining its attitude for you rather than you trying to maintain it. This is very hard to do; to maintain a capsule attitude. In that it ' s a three -axis motion everytime you make one motion because each one is influenced by another axis thrusting. So as a result, it gets qu ite expensive fuel- wise to point your field of view at an object. You have to sit there and just steam around like mad to do th is. Gill= Would you say that you ever had as much as five minutes at a time to look out of the window?

[page 190]
76

was that really Mercury? Well, I knew it was Mercury just by having had the opportunity to have Mercury projected on approximate launch day, so I knew it had to trail the sun, and everytime we ran the planetarium, we had Mercury projected tracking the sun, on the same path, of course.

Gill So it is a great help to know what things are there and where they are before you take off.

Schirra  - Yes .

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

77

to me. I said, "Well I, that means I must go left," and as I came left, I started picking up other stars which became known to me through the starfield that I had rehearsed. Then the moon and Venus showed up and that was here.

O'Keefe - It must be very difficult to pick up constellations when

you have a starfield to look at that is as small as through your wind ow.

Gill - It isn't ....

Schirra - No, Orion, for example, wa s not included in the window, so you might see the belt and that's about i~, or maybe one or two others in the constellation. That's about all. W hen you see something like Aldebaran, and the "v" (Hyades in the Constellation Taurus) - if you just saw that alone, you might very well get trapped, thinking it was the Pleiades , particularly, if you don't have an attitude. You know how well, I know you got trapped (turning to Dr. Gill) when we went into the Planetarium for the first t ime - things were inverted for you?

Gill - Oh yes yes, indeed.

Schirra - When you have an unknown attitude, the star picture is bent out of shape. You can get into trouble fast.

Nordberg I had a heck of a time the first time I was in Australia; - it was difficult to recognize anything.

Schirra  - Isn't  it!

[page 192]
78

chart, bending it around. (Laughter)

Gill - It's very hard to get oriented.

Dubin - Did you or Glenn or Carpenter see any meteors?

Schirra - No, and we were naturally anxious to see them. I understand some little Japanese boy picked up one recently (Comet Ikey~). Isn't that right? That was a comet and we were looking for mbteors and comets and we never saw any.

Dubin - And so you never saw any?

Schirra - So I suspect that you have to see the meteors from t he surface of the earth.

Dunkelman - No, again the field of view is too limited.

Schirra - Again the odds are pretty grim. You take this little window and you project it through 180 degrees, and it's prett y hard to see anything. That's why I say this lab (lunar module) is going to be fabulous. It really will ... That's practically a bird cage.

[page 193]
79

Nordberg How about color? Was it very dark blue? Schirra Oh it went from blue to black. Not an appealing blue by any means.

Dunkelman - Well, really to be fair to an astronaut, one ought to take a replica of the window and go in the dark room and illumina te it side-wise with a xenon arc or a solar simulator or somethi ng that will come near it and then look out and see what you can ' see, and I am afraid that it is going to be pretty miserable.

Nordberg - It worked well in an experiment.

Dunkelman - I think it should be done ...it's the sort of thing you

should do.

Schirra  -

[page 194]
80

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

gleaming thing.

Schirra - The only opportunities I had for looking vertically were during boost and re-entry and a lucky chance while drifting.

O'Keefe - If you are going to observe during the daytime, the whole window has to be turned so that the window doesn't look at the sun and so that it doesn't look at anything that looks at the sun and so that it doesn't look at anything that looks at something that loo kJ at the sun.

[page 195]
81

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

Schirra That's our liability with the window being on an external surface. You are that close to the top of the well, so you get incident light all over the place.

O'K eefe - We don't want to create artificial problems here. That smoke scum on the window would not rea lly distur b a s~ella sp ec trum be cause the absorption would be broad hand and would not be confuse d with the stellar lines.

Dunkelman That's right.

[page 196]
82

just look at the night sky and then again, having a low level source coming up and even if the window is absolutely clean what happens with these eight reflections .

Schirra Sure.

[page 197]
83

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

I admit this is my old pitch, but still he will have a lot of time

to do things. So he has a number of experiments on his flight and he definitely will perform these . Now, in my case once I solved the suit circuit problem, I really didn 9t have many problems. Frankly, none to speak of. But, again to conserve the energy to stay in orbit meaning the control fuel and the electrical powerp I had to thro w away control attitudes. Once you try to get a control attitud back again, you 0 ve got to bring all electrical power back on the lin e. You have to use a sizeable chunk of the control fuel. This cost us dearly with this weight-limited system. The way to get around this, of course, is to have a larger field of view, since you don't need to move the vehicle as much, and this is, I can already see, the first salvation on this and this is the lunar module in earth orbit. The Gemini has even less field of view than Mer cury. Apollo has possibly as much per man. To get a large field of view in space the first time, we can do it with the vehicle that isn°t going to re-enter (lunar module) - basically that 0 s what it amounts to .

ordberg = I think it 0s really fantastic that you fellows have

[page 198]
84

We don't like to let things go on without knowing at what they are; and you explore them pretty thoroughly, maybe with limited know- ledge, but at least you try to get it down. I have been fighting like mad to get this continuous tape recording. This was invaluable to get answers just like Larry and I and Mrs. Cameron went back and traced out some of this like the smog layer. I would have remembered this, but I probably couldn't have told you when I saw it without referring back to this continuous tape. This is some- thing we are not getting.

O'Keefe - Ites quite a fascinating thing to l i ste n to t he se tape

recordings; undergoing this is a tremendous experience . You can hear what the person is - I think that is a debt to humanity that it ought to be done.

[page 199]
85

the Indian Ocean Ship.

Dunkelman - Yes, but the point is this is the return, what I'm trying to get at -- the moment you saw that which no one saw at the time on the ground is the beginning of a new period which we have to take advantage of on the next flight.

Schirra Oh, of course.

[page 200]
86

Tennyson It's good to have somebody else who isn't constrained to -

party lines.

Gill - It's a privilege to meet with you, really.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## Nordberg Yes. (cont.)

Tennyson - Something that shocks me is that the discussion from Scott Carpenter and your discussion is the picking out of clues from about, heaven knows, how many scientific disciplines from your general experience etc., and integrate them all together and be able to present them; frankly, I just find this very interesting that anybody can do that. The wide range of experience.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## President

he can observe and make plans judgments that no instrument | Apollo or animal can accomplish.

As an example, Douglas said that Glenn, on his own initia- tive, had turned his space- craft around 180 degrees on his second orbit to see whether the mysterious "fire- flies" he had noticed on his perts. first orbit might be paint or other particles from his craft.

Glenn,
tried to
terious "fi
held 35-mi
filled with
Force docto
tives showed
ible but they
larged for clos

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## President (cont.)

The astronaut found that the
unknown objects streamed
past his window in the same
direction as on his first sight-
ing, proving they were inde-
pendent of the spacecraft.

Scientists here believe the
still unknown luminous par-
ticles, when further explored,
may lead to important new
knowledge of space phenom-
ena. No unmanned satellite or
observation from earth had de-
tected anything like this be-
fore.

In reloading
Douglas said, G
grip on a film ca
floated in front
weightless flight.
for it, the tip of h
it and it "sailed a
never could get
again."

he had no trouble The astronaut r The astronaut r
tablets and a
squeezed from a
Douglas said

Glenn reported they were small, but as he lacked any checkpoint, it could be that the particles were more distant and larger than he thought.

## MILK-From

Similarly, scientists are much
interested in the luminous
haze belt Glenn saw about 7
to 8 degrees above the horizon
over the dark part of the
earth Tuesday. Soviet cosmo-
naut Gherman Titov reported
seeing about the same thing,
but there has been no expla-
nation of it as yet.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## No Need
For Ant

wards year's end an
again next spring.

If the estimated level
to be those actually

below the "permissible
els set by Government

These observations, say Mer- enced, they will still

cury officials, are an answer to those who have opposed sending man into space when cials. vations better and cheaper.

instruments can make obser- No Marked Strontium Rise

Astronaut Glenn, himself,
believes that the most signifi-
cant technical result of his
flight was to prove the im-
portance of man as a pilot in
space travel.

"We have piped man aboard as the pilot of spacecraft," he said in nautical lingo. "Now we can get rid of some of that automatic equipment."

Much of the weight of the
Friendship 7 capsule includes
duplicating systems put in be-vember.
cause it was not known
whether man could function in
a weightless state.

The fact that man can be
an active pilot and not largely
a passenger on a spacecraft
will have its impact on future
Mercury flights and later

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## No Need
For Ant (cont.)

The PHS yesterday also
ported that radioactive stro
tium measurements from Se
tember through Novembe
1961, do not "differ material
from those found prior to
sumption of Russian nuclea
weapons tests." Milk sample
from Washington, for exam
ple, averaged seven micro
microcuries per liter during
September and 10 micromicro-
curies during October and No-

These figures do not vary
greatly from those reported
for other American cities,
with the exception of Port
land, Ore., which showed 3
micromicrocuries per lite
during November. A P
spokesman said the Portl

s

CORRECTION

Inadvertently, a price was omitted in Food Fair's a in this newspaper yesterday. The Post regret and publishes the complete listing below:

FRYERS or WHOLE
BROILERS lb

[page 202]
Duct Span Sam
some considerations and reccomendations of Manned
Span Explicatum Kolloway Lt. Col. Jeden & Glen Jr. the Interven (Feb. 27) with

Recommendatimes.
Publication Sei Jamal.- Dstment Observation.
Additumel spent to Actionants
Follow-on descustuse tooth blu and
repeat and webiste of his obsworten.
Dark adaptotine & fenther experiments
Antifurial coucts fealitys
Photo clusters plotiaters and Suro dumasin filter
with some ling to flammes desafes

MOSA Administer
- Coordinator of Asteroid Response
= Direct support of asteroid - scientific team - branch admin
= Committee or subcommittee -
~Reach Minaeus Terry Schara
By - Program Chief -

[page 203]
Memo Glenn

Some consideration of Manned Secentefice Space Exploration Followay the Tuteronce with Jokes #Glenn Jr

- Glenn scientific paper

M.

ORIOR ~ nabula

-

-discovery - hanyone but - notion doo.

Lumans particles - Velvety A
Pean
"Artificial comits"

~Riemenbooten
#Support. Selbstmord.
=Committee - Sub-committee
-Deputy - Rach, Munnert, TBusy, Scharrer -

=Responsible supervisor group
Headquarters -
-> Eurocommittees
->

= Paper - by Glenn.
-Follow-up meeting
= Artificial creatinine - sample - analysis

[page 206]
- Glenn

10-15 min normal dark adaptation 727% window cut down -day dune dans. > min a duplations

-draw-
~60-window 300

= Sun not two 6. blanding. could lookatat.
Sunset Very clear bulliants relate light an leke are с від вво
= broad band on atmosphere. 1 45 to 60° and -
Yellow-ge blu - black..
На 5 лжно -suvre jours luy savez -at dampen t
- was sure- Zodiacal lights.
– solar comma.

-blage layer - dins star then -Coriglets-
band. 64.80 above the hosegen
about 2" wide
about buss white beiges
1/4" Isec- drift rate- ? spittery thrusters

n no ainglow land-
"could see big beatening!
discoiduistics 1 in dealight arche-
- probably weather buult up
? 150 hp - gran band - 24 fsun - ~ Cuse -

Mr. will fore Woodfest

[page 207]
Nordhavn
H6 - RDX and composition A.
and TNT - and AP

NO

30% Potassium perchlorate 30% Barium nitrate

50 km to 150 km

6 oz 7 rockets

~ED Dyer Dyer Debsis 13-

~Wok - directly NASA ->

~Edtaoid ~board ~met ~ June 1

~Waxler

[page 208]
a་་ འ་ may A་ད་ན་ །

some to flow mounds

= bulliantu mu so-on un night

- very steady light

- yellow greens

~ no end to them ell duudumis

-white pest window. -press of cotten.

all med at sanse

speed-

noblate spheroid

~no change

in mamity

doohen durned around

-far fewer

1

-

abouts minutes

could see

500'?

samu number each

dun.

dounty-

same.

-

looked leti

-au

odgmann – flow.

[page 209]
"Meteors" (A Symposium on Meteor Physics): Special Supplement (Vol. 2) to J. Atmosph. Terr. Phys. (1955)

Meteor Ionization in the E-region

MAURICE DUBIN

ABSTRACT

Air Force Cambridge Research Center, U.S.A.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## No Need
For Ant (cont.)

The theories of meteoric interaction with the atmosphere have been reviewed to determine the total contribution by meteors to the ionization content of the E-region. From Herlofson's theoretical treatment of this interaction, and Watson's distribution of the size and numbers of meteoric particles entering the atmosphere per day, the number of electrons produced at various altitudes in the E-region was computed. These computations indicated that most of the ionization at higher altitudes resulted from meteors of large visual magnitude. Since, as Whipple has shown, the ablation process would probably not occur in the case of micrometeorites because of heat loss by radiation, the collision processes for ionization were reviewed; it seems that the ionization process is mainly a function of the relative energy of the collision, and therefore ablation prior to ionization would not be required for small particles. Using the value (of GREENHOW and HAWKINS, 1952) for the efficiency of the ionization process and the recently revised value for the amount of meteoric material entering the atmosphere per day, the rate of production of electrons was found to be 20 electrons/ce sec. From this value and the recombination coefficients in the E-region, the equilibrium electron density in the E-region was found to be between 2 x 104 and 7 x 104 electrons/cc. It is therefore proposed that the night-time value for the electron density in the E-region results from meteoric bombardment, and that sporadic E is caused by the same process on the assumption that the distribution of meteoric particles in space is non-isotropic and contains centres of high density. Perhaps, also, the interaction of charged micrometeorites with the earth's magnetic field, may be considered as a mechanism for the production of magnetic storms.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## No Need
For Ant (cont.)

1.  INTRODUCTION

METEORS, as commonly known, are extra-terrestrial particles of only a few milli- grams, which enter the earth's atmosphere at relatively high velocities. In their interaction with the air, they are vaporized by the heat generated and are respon- sible for the emission of light and production of ions along the meteor trail. The major portion of the kinetic energy of the meteoric particles is absorbed in the altitude region between 80 and 120 km. It is attempted below to consider whether the integrated effects of this meteoric interaction might contribute to the structure of the E-region.

[page 210]
112

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

MAURICE  DUBIN

Since the velocity distribution of meteors is over the range from 10 to 70 km/sec, for the purpose of computation an average velocity of 40 km/sec was used. Pmax and nmax were determined accordingly.

From equation (1) and WATSON'S (1941) estimate for the number and size distribution of meteors entering the earth's atmosphere Table I was computed. The computation has been made for three altitudes, 85 km, 100 km, and 115 km, using the following rocket pressures:

| Altitude (km)   | Pressure (mm of Hg)   | Number density of<br />air molecules (em-3)   |
|-|-|-|
| 85              | 4 × 10-3              | 1014                                          |
| 100             | 4 x 10-4              | 1013                                          |
| 115             | 4 x 10-5              | 1012                                          |

Thus equation (1) becomes

9 7 x 1023 1 P
n = 4 × 4 x 10-2 Pro² 34 x 10-1

1
n85 1.6 X 1023 2 8 30r 8

100 = 1.6 × 102 (1-3 × 10-)* X 2 88 x

115 X 1.6 × 10(1-3×10%)".

The number ofelectrons per cm ofpathbecomes, from HERLOFSO

(1948),

[page 211]
Table I. Calculation of the number of electrons produced per cm of path per meteor and per twenty-four hours as a function of visual magnitude. (number in upper right is power of 10)

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

|                       |                                   |                             |                             | Radius<br />em                | Height 85 km                           | Height 85 km                       | Height 85 km                             | Height 100 km               | Height 100 km      | Height 100 km                    | Height 115 km<br /><br />No. of<br />atoms n, cm-1 Total<br />per cm n, cm-1   | Height 115 km<br /><br />No. of<br />atoms n, cm-1 Total<br />per cm n, cm-1   | Height 115 km<br /><br />No. of<br />atoms n, cm-1 Total<br />per cm n, cm-1   |
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
| Visual<br />magnitude | Observed<br />No. of<br />meteors | True<br />No.               | Mass, g                     | Radius<br />em                | No. of<br />atoms<br />evap.<br />cm-1 | No. of<br />electrons<br />n, cm-1 | Total No. of<br />electrons<br />n, cm-1 | No. of<br />atoms<br />cm-1 | n, cm-1            | Total<br />ne cm-1               | Height 115 km<br /><br />No. of<br />atoms n, cm-1 Total<br />per cm n, cm-1   | Height 115 km<br /><br />No. of<br />atoms n, cm-1 Total<br />per cm n, cm-1   | Height 115 km<br /><br />No. of<br />atoms n, cm-1 Total<br />per cm n, cm-1   |
| 3                     | 2-8+4<br />7-1+4<br />1.8+5       | 2-8+4<br />7-1+4            | 4<br />1-6                  | 6.5-1<br />4-83-1             | 6-022<br />3-022                       | 1-514<br />7.513                   | 4.218<br />5-3218                        | 6-721<br />3-721            | 1-6813             | 4-717                            | 6-720                                                                          | 1-6812                                                                         | 4-716                                                                          |
|                       | 4.5+5<br />1-1+6                  | 1.8+5<br />4.5+5<br />1-1+6 | 6.3-1<br />2.5-1<br />1.0-1 | 3.54-1<br />2-60-1            | 1-7222<br />8.321                      | 4-313<br />2-113                   | 7-7318<br />9-518                        | 2-121<br />1-121            | 9-2512<br />5-2512 | 6.5617<br />9.4517               | 3-720<br />2-120                                                               | 9.211<br />5-311                                                               | 6-616<br />9-516                                                               |
|                       |                                   |                             |                             | 1-92-1                        | 4-021                                  | 1-013                              |                                          |                             | 2-7512             | 1.2518                           | 1-120                                                                          | 2-811                                                                          |                                                                                |
|                       | 2.8+6<br />6.4+6                  | 2-86<br />7-16              | 4-0-2<br />1-6-2            | 1-41-1<br />1-04-1 1-04-1     | 1-8621<br />8-020                      | 4-6512                             | 1.119<br />1-3019                        | 5-620<br />3-120            | 1-412<br />7-7511  | 1-5418<br />2-1718 2-1718        | 5-819<br />3-219                                                               | 145 1-4511                                                                     | 1-2517<br />1-6017                                                             |
|                       | 9.0+6<br />3.6+6                  | 1-87                        | 6.3-3                       | 7-6-2 7-6-2                   | 2.920                                  | 2-012<br />7.2511                  | 1-4219<br />1-3019                       | 1-620<br />8-519            | 4-011              | 2-8418 2-8418                    | 1-719                                                                          | 8-010<br />4-310                                                               | 2-2417<br />3-017                                                              |
|                       |                                   | 4-57<br />1-18              | 2-5-3<br />1.0-3            | 5.6- 5-6-2<br />4-19-2 4-12-2 | 8-019<br />9-1718                      | 2-011                              | 9.018                                    | 4-419                       | 2-1311<br />1.111  | 3-8418 3.8418<br />4.9518 4-9518 | 9.218<br />5-018                                                               | 2-310                                                                          |                                                                                |
|                       |                                   | 2-88<br />7-18              | 4.0-4                       | 3-03-2                        | 1-4618                                 | 2-4310<br />3-659                  | 2-718<br />1-0218                        | 2.319<br />1-1519           | 5-7510             | 6-3218                           | 2-718                                                                          | 1-310<br />6-89                                                                | 5-612<br />7-417                                                               |
|                       |                                   | 1-89                        | 1-6-4                       | 2-24-                         |                                        |                                    |                                          | 5-7518                      | 2-8810<br />1-4410 | 8-0518                           | 1-4618                                                                         | 3.79                                                                           | 1.0218                                                                         |
|                       |                                   | 4.59                        | 6-3-5<br />2.5-5            | 1-65-2<br />1-21-2            |                                        |                                    |                                          | 2-8218                      | 7-19               | 1-0219<br />1-2719               | 7-817<br />4-217                                                               | 1.96 1-969<br />1.06°                                                          | 1-3918<br />1-9118                                                             |
|                       |                                   | 4-511                       | 2.5-7                       | 2-6-3                         |                                        |                                    |                                          | 1-2018                      | 3.0°               | 1.3519                           | 2-1617                                                                         |                                                                                |                                                                                |
| 20<br />25            |                                   | 4.513                       | 2.5-9                       | 6-0-4                         |                                        |                                    |                                          | (1-0816)                    | 2-77               | 1-2119                           | 8.215                                                                          | 5-48<br />2-057                                                                | 2-418<br />9.218                                                               |
|                       |                                   | 4-515                       | 2.5-11                      | 1-21-4                        |                                        |                                    |                                          |                             |                    |                                  | 1-1614                                                                         |                                                                                |                                                                                |
| 30                    |                                   | 4-517                       | 2.5-13                      | 2-6-5                         |                                        |                                    |                                          |                             |                    |                                  |                                                                                | 2.95                                                                           | 1-3019                                                                         |

[page 212]
114

MAURICE DUBIN

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

consideration of long-duration meteor echoes it has been suggested that the electron density in the trail is greater than the critical density for the radio wavelengths employed in probing meteors, and has led to a revision of the Herlofson ratios for the production of heat, light, and ionization. GREENHOW and HAWKINS (1952) thereby found that a meteor of visual magnitude +6 would produce approxi- mately 1012 electrons per centimetre of path. This is one hundred times greater than HERLOFSON's estimates, and leads to a discrepancy of roughly five stellar magnitudes between his theoretical estimate and the experimental determination of electron-line density in meteor trails. GREENHOW and HAWKINS conclude that meteors produce more ionization than was originally estimated. Instead of the kinetic energy of the meteor being divided between heat, light, and ionization in the ratio 104: 102: 1, the ratios are probably 104: 102 10 for bright meteors, and 104 10 10 for faint meteors. These revised estimates imply that the visual magnitudes corresponding to an echo of given characteristics is about five magni- tudes fainter than given by HERLOFSON. This means that the majority of echoes of short duration must arise from meteors which are below the limits of naked-eye visibility, and conversely, that all visible meteors must produce radio echoes of long duration a well-known observational fact.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

A further consideration in the model of HERLOFSON is the fact that unmelted meteorites have been found on the surface of the earth. WHIPPLE (1950, 1951) has shown that the micrometeorite, if below a certain size, can dissipate the energy gained sufficiently rapidly to permit these particles to be stopped by the atmosphere without melting. Recalling that the Herlofson model required that ablation of the meteorite was the initial step in the production of light and ionization, this point warrants some discussion. GREENHOW and HAWKINS (1952) have indicated that for radio meteors the amount of light produced is correspondingly reduced for small meteoric particles but the relative ionization is not reduced, but rather is generally larger than indicated by HERLOFSON'S treatment.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

It seems worthwhile to review briefly the physical process involved in the interaction of a micrometeorite with the atmosphere. Since it is not believed that ablation results for these very small particles, one might question whether or not the ionization efficiency would become correspondingly poorer. The physical problem is one of considering a collision of the micrometeorite with a molecule or atom of air, with the relative energy of collision in the range from 10 to 800 eV. The mean free path of the air is much greater than the diameter of the micro- meteorite, and thus the problem may be treated by kinetic theory rather than fluid dynamics.

[page 213]
Meteor ionization in the E-region

115

the micrometeorite and the subsequentionization by thefreed particle _ Experi mental information on collisions ofneutral particles and the resulting excitation andioniz ation is verylimited. Much ofthe available informationis containedin MASSEY andBURHOP (1952).

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

Although the ionization efficiency is much greater for electrons than for heavy ions, as long as the ion energy is greater than the threshold value for ionization, the possibility of ionization exists. For example. a recent technique for obtaining velocities for neutral particles near the range of meteor velocities is the shock-tube method of RESLER et al. (1952). It was found that the extent of ionization as a function of Mach number was rather large. In the case of argon at Mach 18, argon at 1 cm of Hg pressure was 50 per cent ionized. Mach 18 corresponds to a linear velocity of 18 x 0.350 = 6 km/sec, somewhat less than meteor velocities. For this low velocity there also was a highly luminous region associated with the shock fronts in both argon and air.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

BERRY et al. (1942) investigated the ionization of gases by collisions of their own accelerated molecules. They found that the onset energies observed for such ionization were roughly only three times the ionization potentials of the atoms. They also concluded that in the range of speeds for argon between 48 eV to 1,000 eV, relatively little change had occurred in the kinetic energy delivered to the newly formed argon ion, and therefore it seemed unlikely that the mechanism of ionization was one involving a transfer of kinetic energy. Also at energies of about 2,000 eV the cross-section for ionization of argon was greater than for N, by only a factor of 2. In fact the arrangement of the cross-sections for ionization in decreasing order was found to be A, N2, H2, and He.

An estimate of the order of magnitude may be determined (for a few of the reactions) from MASSEY and BURHOP. Although most experiments have been made with positive ions, it seems that the cross-section for ionization in the case of neutral atoms is at least the same order, but usually somewhat higher.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

The secondary emission coefficient for surfaces, y, is the number of ejected electrons per incident positive ion. Some observers have found a higher value of y for surfaces which oxidize readily, implying that higher values arise from the oxide layer. PAETOW and WALCHER (1938) reason that since the electron emission cannot depend much on the work function of the adsorbed atoms, in the case of a monolayer of oxygen on caesium, it would follow that the extra electron emission came from the absorbed layer itself. The value of y for the low-energy range in the case of micrometeorites and based on positive ion bombardment would probably be in the range from 0.02 to 0.5. Allowing for an energy absorption of 10 eV for a secondary electron, these coefficients are in themselves sufficient to give a ratio of kinetic energy absorbed in ionization for 200 eV of better than 103 1.

[page 214]
116

MAURICE  DUBIN

found by HEALEA and HOUTERMANS (1940) was in the range from 0-2 to 0.05 for ions of He, Ne, and A at about 400 eV.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

The impact of ions on a solid surface results also in a process known as sputtering, wherein atoms or clusters of atoms are ejected from the surface as a result of impact. The threshold for sputtering is of the order of 40 eV, and most values given for rate of sputtering lie between 1 and 10 gm/amp hour. For incident ions at 200 eV the sputtering rate would probably fall to one-third this range of values. For a surface containing atoms of mass number 60, one gram per ampere hour is equivalent to approximately 0.5 sputtered atoms per incident ion. Thus the sputtering rate for metallic meteorites might be of the order of one atom per incident air particle and possibly higher for stony meteorites.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

Basically, for all these processes the important parameter for ionization is the relative velocity. The relative amount of energy absorbed by ionization should not be different, whether or not ablation of the meteoric particle occurs. Because of the long-mean-face path of air compared to the size of the meteoric particle, the air particles must act independently of each other, Effectively the cross-section for ionization might increase during evaporation, but this is equivalent to increas- ing the air density to allow for a larger number of collisions. Indeed, one may, as a gross estimate, expect that on the average a fixed percentage of the kinetic energy absorbed by the air is transmitted into ionization with an efficiency given by GREENHOW and HAWKINS' correction of HERLOFSON'S treatment.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

Recently WHIPPLE (1952) has investigated the amount of meteoric material entering the earth's atmosphere. From experiments of BURNIGHT, and BOHN and NADIG, using rockets; CROZIER and SEELY on air pollution; VAN DE HULST and ALLEN by observations of zodiacal light and eclipses, and PETTERSSON and ROTSCHI from observation of deep-sea sediments containing nickel: WHIPPLE noted that data from these methods generally agree as to order of magnitude of the amount of material falling into the earth's atmosphere. From this, the frequency of small meteoric bodies encountering the earth's atmosphere should exceed the older estimates based on meteors and meteorites (WATSON'S) by a factor of possibly 104. The result is perhaps 103 tons or more per day on the entire earth.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 2. THEORY (cont.)

Earlier the value for the number of electrons formed per cc/sec was found to be 2 x 10-4 electrons per cc/sec, based on WATSON's estimates and HERLOFSON'S theory. Since GREENHOW has indicated that HERLOFSON'S value should be increased by a factor between 102 and 10, and the number of micrometeorites should be increased by a factor of 104 to 103, the rate of production of electrons should be multiplied by a factor of about 105, giving an average production rate of electrons of twenty electrons per cc.

Having determined roughly the rate of production of electrons, the rate of disappearance of electrons must be considered in order to calculate the equilibrium electron density. The rate of loss of electrons along the meteor trail is given by

In
DV2n an2ynno
at

Where D is the diffusion coefficient, <J. the recombination coefficient, y is the

coefficientofattachment ,.n 0 is the neutral atomic or molecular density, andn is

[page 215]
Meteor ionization in the E-region

117

now the electron density. For small particles, where the number of electrons formed per centimetre of path is small, the diffusion term is predominant, and the train quickly decreases to the equilibrium electron density, which is thus given by

an2 rate of production of electrons.

The effective recombination coefficient for the E-region is (O) 5. 10-8 cm³ sec-1, when O, is present, and (0) 4 x 10-9 cm³ sec-¹ if oxygen has been dissociated. Thus n is approximately equal to 7. 104 and 2. 104 in the upper and lower E-region, respectively.

## 3. CONCLUSIONS

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 3. CONCLUSIONS (cont.)

The above is applicable to three effects in the E-layers. First, the diurnal variation of the E-layer is found to agree fairly well with the (cos x) law for the variation of the simple Chapman region (x is the zenith angle of the sun). The variation is found to be almost symmetrical with reference to the maximum at noon (MITRA, 1952). However, with the accepted value of the recombination coefficient, the E-layer ionization at night should fall to a very low value. The residual ionization density as observed is much greater than it should be. It is therefore suggested that this night-time value results from the bombardment of micrometeorites.

Secondly, measurements of effective electron density obtained by rockets (LIEN et al., 1953) indicated that a bifurcation, or two maxima, in electron density were present in the E-region. It is suggested that one maximum results from solar radiation, the other from micrometeoric bombardment.

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## 3. CONCLUSIONS (cont.)

And finally, it is proposed that the sporadic E-clouds of ionization result from micrometeorites. Although some correlation with meteor showers is found, the major portion of the ionization results from micrometeorites with a fine structure undetectable by radio probing. The cloud-like structure of the E-layer very possibly results from clouds of micrometeorites. The amount of micrometeorites, the penetration depth, the ionization efficiency, and the distribution of the micro- meteorites are all consistent with the conditions required for such an explanation. Granted the laboratory evidence for the ionization process is not adequate, but the general physical reasoning based on ionization density measurements by radio methods of lower visual magnitude meteorites leads to an order of magnitude that seems very promising.

In conclusion, it may be possible also to relate the meteoric bombardment of the upper atmosphere to the high-latitude magnetic storms and aurorae. For this process it is necessary that sufficient photoelectric effect from solar ultraviolet radiation be present to charge the micrometeorites and thereby allow some control by the earth's magnetic field. This investigation will be described elsewhere.

[page 216]
118

# FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (cont.)

## MAURICE DUBIN

MASSEY, H. S. W., and BURHOP, E. H. S. (1952) Electronic and Ionic Impact Phenomena (Oxford, (Clarendon Press)

MITRA, S. K. (1952) The Upper Atmosphere (The Asiatic Soc., Calcutta)

PAETOW, H. and WALCHER, W. (1938) Zeits. f. Phys. 110, 69

RESLER, E. L., SHOO-CHI LIN, and KANTROWITZ, A. (1952) J. Appl. Phys. 23, 1390

WATSON, F. (1941) Between the Planets, pp. 140-177 (Blakiston)

WHIPPLE, F. L. (1950) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.A.) 36, 687; (1951) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.A.) 37,

19; (1952) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 33, 13