{ "slug": "nasa-uap-d015", "title": "NASA-UAP-D015 Astronaut-Scientific-Debriefings 1962-1963", "agency": "NASA", "year": "1963", "page_count": 216, "source_page": "https://wearenotalone.space/document/nasa-uap-d015/", "original_file": "https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/061226/release_03/documents/NASA-UAP-D015_Astronaut-Scientific-Debriefings_1962-1963.pdf", "license": "U.S. Government work — public domain. Text is machine OCR from the original scan; the page image is authoritative.", "pages": [ { "n": 1, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p01.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 2, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p02.jpg", "text": "....... a" }, { "n": 3, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p03.jpg", "text": "ittle\nra\nr" }, { "n": 4, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p04.jpg", "text": "··- to\nat\n•" }, { "n": 5, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p05.jpg", "text": "➔\nVu W..\nt.Mrtid. or\n=--~--===L-...::::actnaU7 .Dll\":l.,IID1~\n•\nOil\n----. I' ~to\nitlllN tMt 11U a ..tataala .\n~\n•tat-it\n~etanI\nrtson,\ntbe\n&'tall.\nC\n11.gbt.\ntll&t\n,,\nC\nCOIie\nt I\nbo\n•\n•\nat\nboti.\n,tbeil\nl ltlQ'ecl 1n\n1\nj(\ntbe\n~\nont.bento\n•\nDee'" }, { "n": 6, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p06.jpg", "text": "•" }, { "n": 7, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p07.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 8, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p08.jpg", "text": "•" }, { "n": 9, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p09.jpg", "text": "•" }, { "n": 10, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p10.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 11, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p11.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 12, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p12.jpg", "text": ")" }, { "n": 13, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p13.jpg", "text": "t hit" }, { "n": 14, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p14.jpg", "text": "•" }, { "n": 15, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p15.jpg", "text": "•••••• •••••••••••••\n4" }, { "n": 16, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p16.jpg", "text": "5" }, { "n": 17, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p17.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 18, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p18.jpg", "text": "0 :t" }, { "n": 19, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p19.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 20, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p20.jpg", "text": "9" }, { "n": 21, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p21.jpg", "text": "•" }, { "n": 22, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p22.jpg", "text": "_______......,___." }, { "n": 23, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p23.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 24, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p24.jpg", "text": "•\n•" }, { "n": 25, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p25.jpg", "text": "•\n/8 0" }, { "n": 26, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p26.jpg", "text": "•" }, { "n": 27, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p27.jpg", "text": "a\n'\nre.\nt" }, { "n": 28, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p28.jpg", "text": ". ." }, { "n": 29, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p29.jpg", "text": "\" ." }, { "n": 30, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p30.jpg", "text": "' ." }, { "n": 31, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p31.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 32, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p32.jpg", "text": "~--...........--......................,..__.\nt" }, { "n": 33, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p33.jpg", "text": ")" }, { "n": 34, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p34.jpg", "text": "ROUGH DRAFI': l/13/62\nCODE SCG: MD:dd\nMEMORANDUM to Director, Office of Space Sciences\nSubject:\nConsiderations and(tecommendations of'Mtwmed\n0\n'},pace~lorationYollowing the~tJ rview ( February 27)\n~\nwith Lt. Col. John H. Glenn, q7coi{\"i(i_erm presented a\n~\ndetailed and factual description of his observations\nduring the MA' 6 flight.\nHe answered rather well the many\nand varied questions presented to him during the limited\ninterview. ftespite the fact that he was ~\nit~ e v e1 , 'n ~\n1\n\\\n~·t\"· l..,\nproperly Q~\"- o.\na number of his observations remain of\n~.~\nJV?\n~\ninterest aad ~\nfurther explorationJ\"1further~re,\nit is evident that the astronaut can perform various scien­\n~\ntific experiments,~has the aeiil~y capability of doing\ncom act\nso despite the many limitations imposed.by the. Mercury capsule.\nSome commezits*on f£01. Glenn's observations are presented\n\\) u\nLL ... IA.~ t N.,c~~- clc--+'\"\"\"\"'\"\"!\nbelow ~• •~ •-, -\nr·\n\"\\\nkun.inous ~ rticles :\nIn response to~ a series\nof questions, Col. Glenn described the velocity field of\nii.- QM~\nthe luminous particles, their brightness 8'1./i. outside the\nin\nshadow of the spacecvaft, the coloring aBa sunlight and\ntheir shape.\nFor the velocity field, the particles !all.\nin\nmoved at preeise)y the same speed and !!.ll,.moved a~ precisely\nthe same direction except for particles coming very close\n_,_ ....\n~\"'~•\"<- f .-L\nto the spacecraft.\nThis occurred similarl:i, :i,Q, all three\n, . ..~d'f¥t.....~\norbits. From t.l¼e~-eie Vconsiderations alone, it may\nbe stated that the luminous Jparticles observed by Col. Glenn\nwere not extra~errestial particles but were particles asso­\nciated with the spacecraft or ~fte la~@Mftg e~ the booster." }, { "n": 35, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p35.jpg", "text": "-2­\nThe consistency in the observations on the three separate\norbits would require that the particles were associated\nwith the spacecraft itself ( I have heard that O'Keefe\n~....~ ~~ ~\n6\\ANI&~~ -..,..laA, ,,_-,\nhas i;c;r,r9~9d the life support system which ~\n~ ....~\n~ ~\n\\'\"\"~\\~)\n\\wM. ~\n\\:\nwat9z: i;a:t;e apaee) Col. Glenn iJjf described the\n~ .,.,\nparticlei and the luminosity.\nThe fact that the coloring\na,~aPen~\n~~~,~\nwas a yellow-green and the eiiee~ive observational pi,e­\nbecame fluorescent in sunlight.~e particles observed\nin shadow were observed in the scattered light from the\nspacecraft and were probably illuminated only by visible\n~­\n~~f the spectrum.\n- ;l-\nThe change of angles of the ~particles approaching\ne.\"\"'1ft,­\nclose th the~ spacecraft~ be attributed to the\nsince\nrepJesive charge HD the polarities of the particles\nand spacecraft were the same.\nThe ability of Col. Glenn\nto observe the particles under improper dark adaptation\n~\nindicate'that an astronaut would be in a position\nto carry through a series of experi'1nents to investigate\nC.o~.L\"\nthe physics of Q.QmROMS\nin the solar environment.\nP.1wpe1 ry\n~d°\\he various gases and dust particles ejected\n~\nwhile\nfrom the spacecraft during~!\nc~.~nd ~tH'l,BS,!\n.o-\\,,..U\\..c.l, ~\n~~~\n~\n>\nthe spacheaft is in sunlight could be ~\nby the\na.\\~........ c\\M,\\t.~~'\nastronaut- scientist ~ 1&.,\"U!S...lt'emld!.r.sr--~~~09...~~~ed\n~\nObservati~ns of.~low ana:-/iaze:\nLimited by poor\ndark adaptation, Col. Glenn was not able to descibe any" }, { "n": 36, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p36.jpg", "text": "-3­\nsignificant observations of the sta/ ield or the moon.\nIn\nthe absenf e of atmospheric scattEring the sun appeared a\nbrillant white, but showed no signs of corona . It is of\ninterest, however_, to consider Col. Glenn's observation\n-.'t\no{ '-\nband six to eight degrees\n9'f t~e twill\na-eix-~e-eiga~-aegPee-e&Ba\nabove the horizon, with a haze layer about two degrees\nAlthough it has been speculated that\nwide at the top.\n~5'~~1!:irl~-.eilli-il~e\nobservation\n=\n~\\:­\nthe multipa~wl:l:,ers of the1'window\ncause the high\n0~\nangle~ the horizon ~ ~ ti&..,.a;l.la-~l'O\"l~tm~te2:~~~, this\n~\no~~~\n~\nlikely because of the variatio~ a.ad angle of\n\\Jw&. ~--.>-\"I ~Ill'\\. ~ ~~w.-\\ 0\n:\\.,:u.~ •\nview a;i,10w :ee Sel '-l.lina.._o& P0'5ft'D1 Bi& the space craft,- ~.\\ t.e'-M'\" \"~••:~\n~ that he did not see any double imag~ing\n~\n~\n~ :La any of his ~\nobservations1'1:rurther­\n_.,'4'4.\nmore, he was able to infii.is8a:ec that the stars e»serveI' :fJ\no\\~t.. ...~,..... ~'-u\"~ .t.,.a4!d.,. ~\n-sm rJ.-.uL,,:.,,. •.,.\\.\n•\n~\n~l ~-.llt.,dicated a high angle haze layer . ,. n i'1 e,v:ia.ewe ~het\n.sf\n7~~~\n-4-.,.\n&.·\\u.~ ~~\\AM ~U\\~c.~Ch4.,, ...p. 4~\"-\"-'1--f.a~-,,.\nAu-6her investigations of the air glow and haze layerKiG£\nshould be carried out .\n~~\nMeteorology:\nThe strikinJ~ of lightning dis­\ncharges as observed by Glenn point the way to consideration\nl~.,\\\nof an\nj ■ I · on system for monitoring lightning storms over\nthe earth using the meteorological satellite .\nThe mapping\n~......~.l. ~\nof the distribution of thunderheads i(Ji)oG. lightning during\nthe night appears to be relatively straightforward while\n)\nthe similar :mapping during daylight appears feasible because~\nof the short time constanu of the lightning flashes .\n-..3-\n.A\nRecommendations : 'l!bere &ve ,..,.~-ot!- number of" }, { "n": 37, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p37.jpg", "text": "-4=\n~~ kehwc..4Ack~\nrecommendations ~paeP te ~a eperen+, following the very\nsuccessful flight of the Mercury capsule.\nfi.\nThe astqrnaut-scientist r.a,;rryi ng g,.i,;t \"iB:e ob­\n~..\"'-<;\\-,. C,~V\\·~ bt\ns-e,~:rt..lreD.~~:im...,a....~ac.~~~le should publish~der his\n•\n:\\.a..\n\"\n~1~~-'\"\"\nA...~\nname{with an associat~)ai111s0Heral M~ie--lc in a widely\n?'\"', •!) •\nbre ♦ eMSars• Utt- ► ,\nthese first­\ndistributed scientific journal•. In this manner, '4;a.e obd\nhand\nservations would have wide distribution, be properly\n~\n...C2.A.-._\ncridited to the observer, and pePtioala¥ly be edited\nfor correctness .\n. . Additional support to the astronaut in carrying\nout scientific observations is warranted particularly\nin consideration of Col. Glenn's attiftude and interest in\ncarrying out such observations.\nSeveral instruments may\nbe added to the spacecraft, within engineering limitations~\neJ.,\nto assist in obtaining further detail~data.\nQ.,\n-~\"\"'­\nCol. Glenn suggested that t.ae follo\ndiscussioms\nwould be to his interest.\nSuch follow-on discussion is\nstrongely recommended for further questions and exchanges) ~\ninform the astronaut\naihalysis\nto ova~~ate-~eP-tao-astPeRa~t of the results of the~\nand study of his observations.\nC . It is of se.e:~\na:t-importanli\" that proper dark\nadaptation methods be incorporated into the spacecraft system\nso that the astronaut may optimize his visual observations.\nc o\"'tl'le\\.s\nInvestigations of the physics of OQB!!fteft~s and the\nfeasibility of the ~l \" th-tificial ~omet \"experiment\nmay be carried out directly by the astronaut in a relatively\nstrai-ghtforward way. ~\nThese experiments should be\n'\"t.- ~---\\; .,;.. -o.\\.u.~~ ~\n~'(W\\-~•\ncarried out ae eB Bi@eM ~~ the feasibility of this ~\n." }, { "n": 38, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p38.jpg", "text": "-5­\n1 ~~\n~ ~~~ ~ ~&Ao..~ ~\n~\n-,14-.~0- tlM Q..\n. .\nForVai:r ~low aea. optieal etttd:ies, .the photo­\n.,,.... A..~,:......\n>MC,--. p .,..c,,h ...~ o...\nmulti lier :Be! \"b\nsysteml ~\nseries of filters\nr:­\n4,-~J ►\"'-> --~c.~... ~-- .t..~--~ ~\nu.v. ~\\_,..,, -\n...~\n(including~a J;,Oii~e flaorceeent ~lain fi]:l;er to stuely\n½\n~t-..Av,.u.,,,-.o:..c.. )\ntac ultra viole:!T) should be incorporated into the\nspacecraft.\n~iUJ£e -a :au.ml:lal' ef eeicntifie exper i:tJ.c:nto appear\nreasanabl.e--f'o-l:leri~ncces£ of :ehe Me1cwy or'eito~,\n:] I'\n~J1~h~~ consideration of the preseno/~lanned\nmanned-space-flight-program, some reeommendatiGns are\n.,..__ ~,.....,,_.\\..,. lo.\\u.\n~,c:r-\\N·~\n'\"'Q ,_.f\"•'ltC..~ ,..,Q.U.. .oc.~41•,u&..\napparent ts\" take advantage of ,tae im~eYement& ;L;e tac ~•~~.\n~gj ent1 f1 c expJ oration af tbe saJar £ystem and in\n~'-h;;:t_~ ~\nIn. ~ ¼..~;~\\ S(, a'.., ,'\nastJ?efl:Ofl\\Y •\nAt headquarters, ;U; i.r. recomme:ee,e,4 that\n•\n_ ~\n~~\\\n£)• A. \\t,rogram (ahief and supporting staff i;e ~ae\n~reporting to the G.irector of ~pace\n~ciences for scientific exploration ei in the !Manned\n~pace°Tliiht ~ rogram as:111.,\n~o ~-~'YI. ~-~t a committee or sub-conmdttee QQ forwed\noa.e.~\nindluding such people as RGefte, ~Utt, Minnaert, Towsey,\ntn.\nSekera, asg £0 forta- to ~ the scientific community\naB.e. i;a.e ~Y and,\n• ')/\nc\n..,.....\nrl.\n.:that a branch or dividion at one of the centers\n-::,-, \"',_\"\"~o..,.\n,>-UV\\....~\n--t-A:,-~i.; _,£.,,.r~-..,...,s.\nastronaut-scientists \"ao oei-e into sys-sola1Y spa~e.\nV\\A.. Y),,J.~\n\\~ u L t),, \"\" 7 '2.-; .,.,_,_" }, { "n": 39, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p39.jpg", "text": "B 2 3 196?\n0\nU.\\h\ne, NllW Mll:XICO\ntO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill\nJuly 13, 1962\nNitroGen peroxide haa been extensive~ studied and two papers were fou.nd\n'\n'\nwhich gave absorption coefficients in the visible region of the spectrum. Wiley\nand Foord (Proceedings of the Royal Society Al35, 174 (1932) give a coefficient\nwhich I convert to\n-l.9\n2/\ner ~l - 3 x 10\ncm molecule\ndepending on the wavelengths selected by their filters (the lower value was for\nthe range 4900 < ). < 525·0 A) •\nHall and Blacet (J. Chem. Phys. 20, 1745 (1952) give a curve obtained with\n'\n.\na Cary spectrophotometer having ~ 5 A resolution.\nMaxinrum absorption occurs in\nthe range 3500 < ). < 4500 A and drops to ~1/2 the peak value at 5000 A. They\ngive no data for longer wavelengths. I convert their absorption coefficients to\n~6 x 10-ia cm2 /molecu.le at 4000 A, and~ 3 x 10-ia cm2 /molecule at 5000 A.\nStructure produces changes in cross section of~ 2 x 10-ia cm2 /molecule at wave­\nlengths separated by a· few angstroms.\nTa.king an 'average value of 4 x10-ia cm2 /molecule 1 ·we find\n• and using X3 • 5.4 x 107 cm\nPo• (1.4 ± 1) x 1011 molecules/cm3\n. •." }, { "n": 48, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p48.jpg", "text": "LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY\nUNIVIEll81TY OP' CALIP'OIINIA\nLOIi ALAM09, NIEW MUICO\nTO:\nDr. Jocelyn Gill\nDATE:\nJuly 13, 1962\nReadily detectable structure would produce ve.r1e.t1ons of o-N1 and aNa ot\nabout half the attenuation figure given in equations (18) and (19) which is\nnear the threshold of detectability.\nI have not yet found an author who estimates the concentration of Ne or\nN02 'in the atmosphere; Bates and Nicolet discuss the reactions which lead to it\nin the book \"'lhe Earth as a Planet\", edited by G. P. Kuiper (Volume II of\nThe Solar System).\nNicolet calculates the photodissociation time as 200 seconds during daytime,\nand shows the concentration must be so low that no effect on solar observations\nwould be found.\nAs a general conclusion, it seems to me more likely that N02 would be\nresponsible for an absorbing layer, generated perhaps with the aid of downward\ndiffusion of NO to higher pressure regions favoring oxidation to N~.\n'lhe\ncolor suggested by Glenn fits very well', as may be quickly verified by looking\nthru. the vapor space above concentrated nitric acid.\nExperimental Proposal.\nIdeally, one could ask for the absorption coefficient as a function of wave­\nlength (over a very wide spectral range) and time after sunset on the air volume\ninvestigated.\nIt seems possible to get very useful data with a relatively simple experiment\nperhaps possible of inclusion in one of the manned orbital flights.\nUsing a slow-speed movie camera, photograph the star field and such planets\n(including the moon) as opportunity permits, with approximately a 10° field of\nview and enough exposure to pennit photometric measurements as the light sources" }, { "n": 49, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p49.jpg", "text": "LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY\nUNIVERSITY OP' CALIP'ORNIA\n. . . ' . .\nL.09 ALAM09, Nl:W MUICO\n1'0: Dr. Jocelyn Gill\nDATE:\nJuly 13, 1962\n\"pasa through\" the atmoaphere, especially the abaorbill6 layer (perhap\nauch\n• •••\nsequences already exif:>t). At the expected orbital height, I estimate a 7 km\nthick layer w~ld subtend,.., 1/2 degree and a given light source would \"pass\nthrough\" it in eight seconds. Attempts to derive a density distribution would\nrequ.ire a fair number of points in the\n111-1/2 or 2 degrees\" (divide by 3 ?)\nso a frame interval near one per second _seems desirable. If operated continuously\nthru the ni.ght passage approximately 100 feet of 16 mm film would be required\nper passage •\nAs a crude attempt at spectroscopy, color filters could be used on some of\n✓ the sequences, without too serious light loss. For example, a Corning No. 5030\nor No. 5543 filter would limit exposure to the wavelength range of maximum\nabsorption by N02 (light loss may be considerable) ·and a Corning No. 3480 filter\nwould limit exposure to the wavelength range where 0- absorption is negligible.\nRelatively broad band interference filters would be useable on the brighter\nstars and planets. Direct visual observation through such filters would also be\nuseful, especially if photography is impractical and the astronaut tries to\nreproduce any attenuation noted by neutral density filters in combination with\nthe same filters and stars used in space.\nPhotometric observations of some of the \"intense\" airglows mentioned by\nvarious authors would also be very instructive • The increased intensity due to\nJ\nexternal tangential viewing woul~ help a great deal, and precise height de­\n.\nterminations could be made •\nIt may be useful to ask Glenn and Carpenter to reproduce the dimming (as well\n' /\nas memory allows) by narrow strips of neutral density filters against the star\n1\n•\nI\n1" }, { "n": 50, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p50.jpg", "text": "LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY\n. '\n..\nUNIVERSITY OP' CALll\"ORNIA\n. .\nl.09 ALAMO., NIEW MUICO\nTO: Dr. Jocelyn Gill\n-\n10-\nDATI:\nJuly 13, 1962\nfield they saw, or to compare the intensity and color changes noted with that\nthru an absorbing cell containing N02 • • 'Ihe required thickness is readily availabl.e.\nAcknowledgments\nThe author has benefited greatly from discussions with several associates,\nespecially as regards references to sources of upper atmospheric .and photochemical\ndata.\nDr. Robert Sherman has assisted in location of data on the absorption cross\nsection of N02 •\nDr. Arthur Cox suggested a number of references and confirmed the\nauthor's belief that reasonably accurate photometric observations could be made on\nphotographs of a star field. Dr. Ieston Miller has emphasized the importance of\neven crude control of the wavelengths responsible for exposure. All of the men\nmentioned·above are members of the Los Alamos Scientific Iaboratory.\nDr. J. A. 0'Keefe of the Theoretical Division of the Goddard Space Flight Center\ngenerously discussed the observations of J. Glenn and S. Carpenter, and my hypo­\nthesis regarding N02 absorption. He has referred me to the excellent articl.es in\n\"'Ille F.a.rth as a Planet\" and encouraged my submission of this letter.\nFuture Work\nI would, of course, be interested in your opinion, and that of other experts in\nthe field, of the above hypothesis. If your group recommends inclusion of such\nJ\nobservations on a future flight, we may be ·able to help on some points in data\nacquisition. I am sure the project would deserve review and .control by a panel\nof men such as Bates and Nicolet.\n--- ..........\nRespectfully submitted,\n~y--~\nBOB E. WATI'\nAssoc. J-Div. Ldr.\nBEW:jo\nand Grp • .Ldr. J-16\nDistribution:\nl - Dr. Jocelyn Gill.\n.I\n'" }, { "n": 51, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p51.jpg", "text": "In ~ly refer to: SGC:Mt:llll.\n21 Feb~ 1962\nMQl)BANDt){\nSubject:\nPoeaible\n1eritit1c Viaual IIitoruat1on\nObtained 1>f J. H. Gl.enn\n1.\nTwo (2) 1ntentl'ting obaervationa re~ in the Pree ,\nas ddcribed by Colonel GJ.enn ~\nthe NA-6 flight. It 11 ot\nVit4U. 1ntereat to obtain a more 4ataUttd deacl'iption at tbfte ob e~\nt1ona in order that the &ccur&cy Md the detail• ot 'What,.. obseried\nmay~ Pl'Ol*.rly Neoi\"decl for ,oientitic eriJ.:uat1on.\nThe two obaer­\nvatioDB wre:\n()The~ ot the ~t m.Jl!lbW or lUIJliriowl particles\nap~tl.y travelling Vith t\n1Pt,Cecratt at 1'r1endlhip-7 euifri1t ;\nand\n(b) Th altitudel or angular view o~ the -upper limb\not the tmo•ph&re.\n2.\nThe thouunda ot 1Ulll1n0ul parttcl.• •\ni'bit . In .a.dition, the ge.-.(\n!\ni s set diagonally,~ just covers the distance from the band to the hori zon.\nBy method 3, we make use of the time of passage through the middle\nJ\nof the layer.\nThis point is marked by a reference to a mark on the telemeteri ng.\nenl:y: ee found on ~he gr ottae. etatiea ta:r;,e s,\n.:i. ~\n'-\"'' .;i.--,c.:h •\" .,.;.~1\n)..\"f' cn\\:!r . L\\ t r f e,, 4er\nv a:'.. efl 1:,Pe Mt yet svail:a:til.e, ~\nl,y careful timing of the capsule t ape'/\\it\n,,.\nappear s to have been very close to a 4h \"1,m j.9s, capsule elapsed time, i.e.,\n16h5cPl/5s.\nUT.\nFor this instant the capsule coordinates as i nterpolated from\nthe Woomera tracking data, were - longi tude - 127° 40:0\nlatitude = -18° 49:8\nhe i ght\n= 226 kilometers\nAt thi s moment, the l i ne of sight to ( Ursae Majoris was t angent to\nt he l ayer of maxi mum thi ckness of 5577.\nThe angular zeni th distance oft U Ma\nat t hi s time was found to be 101°42 1 •\nA line of this zeni th distance i s t angent\nt o a spherical shell of the proper radius whi ch i s 137 ki lometers below the\ncapsule or 89 ki lometers above sea level.\nAccordingly, thi s observat i on should\nbe i nterpreted a s i ndicating that the densest part of the 5577 l ayer i s at a\nheight of 89 ki lometers, which is in good agreement with rocket measures.\nThe lower limit of the visible light appeared to be near 78 ki lometers;\nrt / ht 5/derrmtat1f . i3/no. t pnie1d aysif1fi,/ bt,j~i n1 a 1/1111io/u~ / hell\n/1 s /ex-p/c~ to/dim/nisVgragla11r d~wara i/a6arentlbri~~e9i , e4en} r /4 is\n.\n,\nfaf~8}1/ _v}r/ ¢1/1•\n.\n#J.JJiJlliJJJlfl:!J°Y:!iJJJ,~v.~ir\nThe f i lter observati on on the airglow was made at 17h 0~ 6s, UT." }, { "n": 59, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p59.jpg", "text": "Sunrlse was observed at about 1m later, while the observation was going on.\nIt follows that the airglow is visible even when the twilight band is very\nstrong.\nAn attempt to observe it in the day is certainly indicated.\nIn this\nconnection, it should be noted that Capt. V. I. Grissom reported a grayish band\nat the top of the blue sky layer.\n(Pesults of the Second U. S. Manned Subqrbital\nSpace Flight,\nNASA, GPO (1961). le remembers this layer as narrow and grayish\ni n color, representing an actual i ncrease in intensity.\nHe poi nted out the\napproximate position of the layer on one of Lt. Cdr. Carpenter's photographs\nat the height of 1.7 degrees above the horizon.\nGrissom may have observed the\ndaytime airglow.\nCarpenter did not note any structures, either vertical or horizontal,\nin this layer.\nHe did not observe it completely around the horizon but believes ·1 l\nto be continuous all the way.\nIt does not appear possible that this layer can\nactually absorb starl:ight.\nAny layer at this level capable of absorbing a\nnoticeable fraction of the light (25i or more) would also scatter light strongly;\nit would therefore be a very prominent object on the daylight side.\nIn fact, it\nis not definitely visible on the photographs of the day side.\nThl s i s entirely\ni. n agreement with Lt. Cdr. Carpenter's impression, namely that the decreased\nvisibility of stars passing through the layer was a contrast effect.\nA remarkable feature of this observatton is the discrepancy between\nthe eye estimates of 8',.10° for the alti tudes above the hori zon, on the one\nhand, and the results of timed observations on the other.\nThe latter i ndicates\naltitudes of 2° to 36 .\nThe latter are clearly correct; f or example, Carpenter\nnoted that when one ann of his reti cle was at an angle of 45°, it covered the\nspace between the horizon and the bright band.\nThe crossann is 1.21 centi meters\ni n length and it is a distance of 26.2 centimeters from the astronaut's eye.\nAt an angle of 45°, i t subtends a vertical angle of about 2°.6." }, { "n": 60, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p60.jpg", "text": "It thus appears that there i s a strong i llusion whi ch exaggerates\nangles near the horizon, and whi ch was evi dently also present i n MA-6, si nce\nLt . Col. Glenn also reports 7° to 8° as the height of the luminous band.\nThe\ni llusion is perhaps comparable to the well-known illusion which makes the moon\nseem larger near the hori zon.\nCarpenter also noti ced and photographed the Glenn ef fect.\nHe reports\nwhite objects resembling snowflakes, seen at sunri.se on all three orbits. '\nHowever, he also saw these objects 7 minutes after the f i rst sunrise and agai n\n43 minutes after sunrise; and zll, llm, 23m, 26ffl, 3(1!! and 45m after the second\nsunri se. It i s thus quite clear that they are not related to sunri se, except\nperhaps i n the sense of being most easily visible then.\nCarpenter managed to photograph a few of these particles.\nSome of them\nwere very considerably brighter than the moon, which was then very near the f i rst\nquarter. At this t ime, the moon i s about -10; the particles may have been be­\nt ween -12,5 magni tude (10 x bri ghter than the moon) and -15 magni tude (100 x\nbri ghter than the moon).\nThe second i s -considered more l ikely, in vi ew of the\nappearance of the full moon (-12,5) as shown on MA-6 photographs.\nAt -15 , the\nparticle brightness i s consistent with centimeter size snowflakes.\nThe\nparticles were verbally described by Carpenter as between l mm and 1 cm i n size ,\nand having a strong visual resemblance to snowflakes.\nShortly before reentry, just at sunri se, Carpenter performed the de­\nci si ve experiment of hitting the capsule walls with hi s hand.\nThe blows promptly\nresulted i n the liberation of large numbers of particles. It i s thus clear that\n1 7\nat least those parti cles observed in the MA-6 flight emanated from the capsule .\nThe possibility that the particles might be dye marker or shark re­\npe l lant , both of which are green and both of which are exposed to the vacuum,\nwas considered by Mr. Frank M. Crichton, NASA capsule inspector.\nCrichton had\ntest s made which demonstrated that nei ther material tended to escape f rom the" }, { "n": 61, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p61.jpg", "text": "package i n a vacuum.\nThe possibility that it might represent small particles\nfrom the fiberglass i nsulator was also considered; in view of the smallness of\nthe fibers, it appears l :lkely that they would have been blown away at once,\nl Lke the Mylar confetti.\nThe dynamic pressure of 1 dyne m2 is sufficient to\nL\\I'\" \\\\,••''\\\n2\nremove at once~weighing less than about 10 to 100 milligrams cm ; which\ncorresponds to a thickness of the order of 0. 3 to 1 mi llimeter for most\nordinary substances.\nAs menti oned in the MA-6 report, there are two plausible sources\nwithi n the capsule for these particles.\n(1) Snow formed by condensation of steam\nfrom the life-support system.\n(2) Small particles of dust, waste, bits\nof i nsulation and other sweepings.\nThe latter are very conspi cuous in a zero g environment, when there\nl s nothing to keep them down; it is found to be extraordinarily difficult to\nfree the i nterior of the capsule of such material.\nUndoubtedly, the exteri or\nparts of the capsule which are exposed to the environment will contain these\nthings, and they undoubtedly play a part i n the Glenn effect.\nIn particular,\na corkscrew shaped piece observed by Carpenter was probably a t urning or\nperhaps a raveled piece of insulation.\nOn the other hand, there is considerable evidence which points to\nsnow as the source of the majority of the material.\nIn the first place, water\nis dumped out of the capsule i n far larger quantities t han any other substance.\nIn the second place, the material looked like snowflakes both t o Glenn and to\nCarpenter.\nIn the third place, the fre ~uency with whi ch the Glenn effect i s\nreported by Carpenter appears to be correlated with the temperature of the\nexterior of the capsule as recorded by thermocouples in the shi ngles.\nThe\ntemperature was always lowest at night, falling to temperatures of -35°C just" }, { "n": 62, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p62.jpg", "text": "bef ore sunrise, and rising to plus 10°c just after sunr\"i se.\nDJ.ri ng the se cond\nday, the temperatures were lower, reachi ng about -25°c during portions of the day.\nFrom about 3h 3dn, CET, on the second period of sunlight,\nthe temperatures were\nh i.gher, ·,.nd, bnly one partl cle is ment i oned .\nIf' the effect i.s indeed due to condensation of moisture, t hen t he\nbroad end oi' t he capsule is a more likely source than the narrow end, because\nt he temperatures were 200c or more higher at the n;:i.rrow end.\nThe condensation probably took place ·Lnside the capsule, rather than\noutside, because even at the lowest recorded sh i.ngle ·i..<::l.ilJ;)r.::-:.l·ture , around -50°c,\nthe vapor pressure o ver ice amounts to about 0.039 millibars.\nAlthough this\npressure is very low, i. t greatly exceeds the ambtent pressure at the lowest\ncapsule altitudes.\nAccordingly, it is not possible that snowf lakes should f orm\nunder these circumstances, even though it is true that the capsule must be\nsurrounded by an expanding atmosphere of water vapor.\nIf the water-vapor expands freely,\n;_t is clear that the pressure at a\ndist ance of 1 meter f rom a hole 1 cm in di ameter wi.11 be of the order oi'\n1/10,000 of the pressure at the hole.\nHence it\ni.s f airly clear t hat t he pressure\ni nside the capsule will be far higher than the outside pressure, i n sp i.te of the\npresence of 18 one-centimeter apertures.\nHence condensation within the capsule\nls more likely than condensation outside.\nIt is noteworthy that no f ormati on\nof rime was noti ced either on the window or on the balloon stri ng.\nIt i s con­\ns idered most likely that tne particles of the Glenn effect are snowflakes f ormed\n-L n the capsule, between the cabin bulkhead and the heat shield by the steam\nexhaust from the li.fe-support system.\nIt is suggested that they escape i nto\nspace through the porte, being driven outward. by the expanding vapor.\nNote\nt hat at 02 52 47, Carpenter noted a particle moving faster than he.\nAt 02 50 00,\nhe planned to observe sunrise and was facing forward.\nThis particle was thereby\nprobably seen east of him.\nMost of the particles are seen behind him and f alli ng" }, { "n": 63, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p63.jpg", "text": "•\n•\nJ\n...\nback.\nThis supports the idea that the partlcles probably are pushed outward by\nt he expanding steam from the capsule, before they begin to stream backward.\nIt\nl s probable that many of the particles lodge on the outside of the capsule,\nsince Carpenter i s quite sure, from the direction of streami ng across the\nwi ndow, that the particles came from a point near where the knocking was done.\nCarpenter obtained two excellent photographs of the sun when just\nabov~ the horizon.\nThese photog.ra:phs plainly sh~w. the flatte~ed,, sa\\.lsage- . .. ·kc.h\"\"' ,,+ ~\\:~\nCt, fft.,;~c. ( n~'(':, thh \\- v:,h .. 1\" \\\\(. ';,(..\\.v .,.,_,, \\ , \\(~ \\-h •,,110,v I>' • ~\"',\\,( ei,., tr,-,, ,1 ·t )c,.,.., ,rr\nl \" '\"~ '>\nshaped f onn photographed earlier by Glenn.,'\\ Calculations of this theoretical\nshape are being made at this ,time for compar.ison with the astronaut observations .\nThe flattened shape is due to the fact that the lower portion of the sun's di sk\nis seen through layers whtch refract the l.ight much more strongly than those\nthrough which the upper part is seen.\nAs a conse~uence, the whole d Lsk appears\nflattened.\nA similar, but much smaller flatten ing has long been known to be\nobservable f rom the ground.\nA part of the i nterest of tht s phenomenon comes\nfrom the fact that at great distances, as at the moon, the effect of this re­\nfract i on is to make the sun appear as a red ring of light around the earth." }, { "n": 64, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p64.jpg", "text": "r\nSCIEN'.rinc DEBRIEFING\n,\n.. . .\n•'\nJi.me 1, 1963\n(First Experiment • Flashing Light)\nJohn McKee:\nOne of the first questions that I have regards some estimates\nyou made of the beacon distance.\nWere those based ·entirely on the knowle\nof how bright it was tram p~vious aircraft training ·or do ·you feel there\nwas some other distance cue somehow involved in the ·test.\nJ\nCooper: No.\nIf I had no prev;ous experience on the light·, I don Vt believe\nI would have had any possibility of telling how far it was except· that on\nthat second night pass after ejecting the light. Apparent'.cy the sun was\nshining on it as I saw this steady glow, up to about ·my level on the orbital\npath. At that time I bad a little bit more depth perception on it ·and could\n') .\nseem tp note the proper drift on it. That was the first time that I • saw it.\nand t o the experiments we _q;f,d on :the aircraft When we had radar measurement\n•\nI\nyou notice the pitch rate.? -- or what was the sensation?\n. Cooper: · No, I ~idn't notice any 'rate as such.\nI cou1d really feel\nthe spacecraft and to me it felt Jµst like there were doors banging ·open\ndown there,.,as it departed and Just a li~tle bit .of a Jolt: through_~he : t'\nh .·\n•\n•\n\\\nI\n• ' ~. A~\n~ ... . ' .\nspacecraft. It was a good so~d thump when it 'took·oft.\n• ·' • •\n•• '. , '' ,r~·:/; ._, :\nri-~" }, { "n": 65, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p65.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\nBill .Armstrong: Act~ Gordo, it turned out, it gave you about a half of •\na degree per second in the opposite direction. This was very apparent on th\npostfiight record. You can see your ·thruster ·acti~ when you start to pitch\n'\n'\nup El.lld then as you come right to the bottom of the curve you can see this\nlittle blip on your rate; and then the attitude started back' the other we;yo\n.It was real definite.\nSomething on the order of a half of e. gegree per ·secon\nor e. little moreo It was real definite where it occurred.\nWell what it does\nis start your pitch back the other ·~•\n·'\na:riy thruster action to go ,back 1n the other _direction, to pitch back down .afte~\n'\nI\nyou deployed. You. went to cage - to retroattitude and the attitudes just\nand start back .over. It was real ·clear on the records where it went 1out..\n/\nShepard:\nSay, in regard to the first question, do you think because you\n.\n'\nhad th~ earth as background you could Judge d~stan~e,. because you ha~ e ,\nas background'l\nCooper:\nI think possibly so~\nOf course it's like an airplane when it·•s '\na considerable distance out. It is almost impossible to judge the distan\nawe;y.\nYou can talk yourself into believing it -is almost any distance fro\nI\nyou, ,. And when it gets\n.\non 1n closer you really have a bit\n.\nm?re perspective\non ito\nI did feel that I had almost Judged the distance on that first t\nIn fact I didn't even \"!:>elieve that was it when .I first saw ito\nt cou1tln't\n•\nI\nI•\n, . .\" think of anything ·else that it could be but it was just solid lighto ~d\n-~ {_ 1\n-,\n'\n.\n.\n•·,. •\n.\n.\n.,\ni\n..\n• .\n;r.\n~ t ..._..,\n··~~ ,[!, '\"'\nit turns -' out looking back now 6n it, · I -am .sure this was because_the s~.'. :~- ::· -~~ .~\n~\n'\n.\n....\n.\n,," }, { "n": 66, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p66.jpg", "text": "Sci~ntific Debriefing\n-3­\nhad not completely set; !')11-sure 1'113' ·retro pack .area was in the eunligh~•-,. , .\nI'm sure that is what I saw glowing,--was the sun reflecting ·off\n' of it.\n.\n'\n. AJ.though I had, not seen it tram·previous viewing OD tbe day side or the\nnight _si~eo\nMcKee:\nWhen you didn't see it OD the first night side, did ~ou have any\npersonal feeling that the light' wasn't ~hing? Did you correct your\n1; 1.· attitude when you didn't see .it or· did you have any feeling what the problem .··:.\nF,.. ~ ...,,\n.,\n,\n-\n•\nI\n•\nl\n•,\n•\n'I-\n-\n• •~\n-, •\n'\n, was?\n,.\n•\n-,-~ ;' _·•:\n....,~ '-.. ..\n-\nCooper:. I Just don't have any idea.\nI kept doubting Jey\"Sel~~ • This was\nthe first time of course that I had ever tried aligning to small end forward, . •\n.\n.\n.\n·,.'.,\na 180° yaw -as weJ.call it and of course aligning on the night sideo\nI begaxi\n,\nI\n.\n.\n/\n'to doubt that I was aligned properly, I went to the star charts and rechecked\n,\n•\n•\n.,\n\" r\n!' r and found 1n fact that I was not quite aligned correctly at· first . . ·But then ..• :•..:,\n1\n,,\n, ¥\n,, ~\nI did double check 'and found that I was --- I'm sure several times thru the ' .·,· >.'.--~ i\n..: • ~ - • \"\n•\nt\n•\n,\nl't\nJ\n')\n•\nf •\"''\"\nnight I was aligned exactly · on and in using the horizon .line J~t about 1n : ,,:\n• • ,\n,1•\n~.\n•. I\n,\n.\n.\n.the middle of the window even moving up and down almost\n,.invariably•\n..\n- --\n•\ndon't have any idea why I didn't see it.\nBill .Armstrong:\nYou .did change your ·attitudes? ·That was one of·the th\n.\n.\nI wanted to Knowo • I?o you remember at the beginning of t~e night phase,\n. you first start looking : low and then toward th~.'·eni·\n• •\n~ o/ -did·.\n• '\n'\n.\nust sort of scan the area or vb&:\n/" }, { "n": 67, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p67.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-4­\nCoo:per:\nWell first I started trying to get Tfl¥. 180° yaw point. This is\nnot the easiest thing in the world to get on the night side, and particular~ ... , ,_\n......\nwhen you have to go into your ■tar charts 50 ~ute1 ahead ot Where :,ou had •\nnorn:ia.;uy been used to using them.\nir:.finally did find star patterns that gave\n'\nme the proper orientation. ,I was wiing, around 15 to 120 degrees pitched downi\n·,.' ,·.\n-\n\\\n.,, ' ,.\n:•\nI .was just keeping the horizon ~ th~ sort of bottom p~ of the Window ~d~•:-1·!_·, :./·:~'l~·~ ;{\n\\\n')\" \\ •'\nI\n•\nt\n.., ,f-\nI got_around. ·this area, I then tried varying ·the· attitude ~P and down to-\n'· • , •• ·,\nlook for the light~\n. ..\nI\n1She:pard:\nYou mentioned' in your repOrt that,--you talked about approx\n25 minutes a:f'ter you caged your gyros, that you saw' a ·lot of li'ghtning\npar'tfcularly in that area.\n.: • '.o:.\nCooper: · Well, · this is .,one possibility· that there was a slight compromise\nto the .light. 1 Particularly on the first night side there was co~iderabl\nlarge lightning down ther_e.\nI found concentrations of large thundersto\n•right up .in there and saw quite a lot iof -light flashing through fairly\nI\nlarge areas.\nI still don't believe that even on the other night\nspite of these I still could\\see the light even with -:this as a ba.ckgroun\n.•\n.. ... . .\n:\n,\n~\n·•·\n·-\n.\nIt is r~ally not an excuse for ·not seeing it ,and I really honest]¥ _\n••\nC\nI\n',\n.\n.\n~--\n;\n.-\n~ ...... -\n----···\n- ••\nsay why I didn•t. . I had 'b~gun ~o doUbt th~t ,1~ was re\n.. flash\n~\n..,\n~\n•\n•\n•\nI\n• I\n•" }, { "n": 68, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p68.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-5­\nCooper:\nThe moon was probably 14-al. It was down to about a third moon.\nIt was a ver:, distinctive moon vb~ you ·could see it but it' wasn.'t causing\nthe great amount of light tbat a. twU moon would have caused. , , I could see\nI\nthe glow on the ground, on. the· clouds :~d on the land, from the moono ., It\n' .\nup just at t1:ie .last part c,f the ~n1Jtrt. ·It-was never ·close to\n1 th~ moo:Q.\ndeylighto\n. Bill ,Armstrong:\n' i. in-the retro pack area; they ·ran•.cooler, this flight.\nBill Carmines said th$t they- b-4: ~;ualJ~· flashed the light at thi~ lo~r '\ntemperatures without .any probla.\nRe talked to Langley people and he says\n'\n.that i~ the light had fail~ 1;0. work the first time it would have never\n.\n.\n: , ·warmed enough later in the n:1~t to start flashing. It is hard to visuali~T .. ~: ; . '\n-\n, .'· ••\n,1\n~ tip'.\n• •\n;.\nit no~ having been ·working t-he f:Lrst time Bll;d then ·worked the second t:1.me.,,.·,\n•\nDo ·you think your _att,itude. ,..~~ •-eauld you tell any difference •in your\nattitude, the second night vl,Am -~\n$.alf the ·llgbt. In yaw as C?JDPared\n·:\nst • do you think 70\\1. . •\n: • •\n~ed d~ ~b~ter the\n.. ·,\n(" }, { "n": 69, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p69.jpg", "text": "I'\n.'\nScientific Debriefing\n-6­\nCooper:\nWell, not realq. As I went into both night sides I cc;>u.ld pretty\nwell estimate 18o0 yaw.\nThe first' night side I was not complete:cy around,\n,\n,·~\nI started :,awing around &114 ni,gbt wu audde~ upon me and I wasn°t quite in ' '\n•\n/\nI\n0\n0\n'\nthe :t'ull 180 positi~, so I did have to hunt ,for 'the 180 posi~ion a little' •\n'\nbit• . On the second n:i..ght -side af'ter -I ejected the -light, I was alre&q¥ in _'\nI\n•\nI '\n· m:, 180~ position before ·going -into the night side.\n..... ~+~•\nMerce;:\nH6w·liigb above or ·below horizon line or -~dow did you look ·for light! ./; :; , • •\n•\nI\nI\n,\n.\nI ,\n.\n'\n,\n•\nIn other words how .far down\"or :how; high did you go with your ·pitch .attitude?\n/\n¾:,'\n. •\n•\n')}\nI\n::.;,..\nCooper:\nOn the first night s.ide I .allowed it to drift very, very slow:cy and\n•·~ • _•\n.., : ,\n.,.\n.\n...\n'\n\"'J.\n:,\n,\n\\t. , .. , .. t\n' changed them as I needed to, 'very very· slight:cy to keep m:, yaw on 180° and· // '., Y·\n...\n\\\nt,\nit varied back and forth very ·sl.igbt:cy.\nBut X went '&1.1 tlle ~\ndown to\n~;~·,~\n. •'\n;~\n,,,.\n)\n'\nI\nt\\ '• '\n,\nwhere the horizon ·1would fill the ·whole window and up to where. I Just ba.re:cy , ..,- ¼·.J., ·;\n\\\n•\n•, ·\n• ..\n• .\n.\n•\n.,\n•\n~...\n, __ i .1,.·.t- \\,. r\n• r\n~\n•\n\\,.\n•\n• •\n'\n• •\n;\"'\n,'\n\"..'\n•' :'i\n# ~\nh¢ the horizon in sight.\n/\n\"7\n'\n.\n,·\n.\n.\n'\nBill ,.Armstrong: · Did you see it cane right a'WIQ\" ·when· you·:iooked .on\nI nigb.t'l\n'I\n/\n,,.\n;\n'\n/In oth\n· ·- :rd8°you :picked it up.\n•\n• J" }, { "n": 70, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p70.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-1­\nCooper: .Almost.\nAlmost as it began to get dark.\nOf course it gets dark\nJust like that.\nZam it gets dark~\nI had Just,--it was dark earth background\nand as I say 'lI13 first teeling on at,eing it was definitely coming :f'rom below_\nj\nvery very slowly.\nAs I watched it was getting higher in 'lI13 line of sight to the\nI\n·earth. In other words as I ·was holding -the earth on .a fixed place1ton the\nwindow this was coming u~. It was · coming up in relation to me, and was\nfinally ·up to 'lI13 level. And ·.as I saw it coming up it was solid light.\nMy\nfirst though. on it was -that it looked Just like th·e missiles that I have seen .\nI\n,\n'\n•\n• •\n•\nI\n•\n'\n~\nlaunched at night :f'rom Cape C~veral; when rou're t:cying at night at a·high·•\naltitude. and see them launched. It didn't have the same glow but it· was\n.....,\n•\n'\n•\n•\n'\n..\n'\n•\n'\n':,I ••\n• •\n·1\nI'\n­\nvery·very bright, and solid and \n.thing ·or ·e,ven toward. the end of the second night phase the 1?rightnessl would \"_\n-\n.\n...\n.. :\nb~ sufficient if you wOUld be • t7:Ying to l~cate a re~de~vous target'l :·" }, { "n": 74, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p74.jpg", "text": ",.\n• I\nScientific Debriefing\n• -ll-\nCooper:\nI think so.\nI think with that brightness~ if you know approximately\n'.\nwhere to look for the thing and with _it flashing, you certa~\nought to be\n(\nable to find it pretty· readily.\nDay: , Do you think similar experiments should be carried on ·or is this\nsµfficient'l\nCooper:\nI think this prob~bly shows us 'What we:- really want to seeo\nI think\nther e is going to be problem like there is in .aircraft a\nAs YO:U move\nto it you are going to have to have something that gives a little bit more\ncapability to obtain distance f'rom it at the time; su~ as perhapa,-two lights ,\nthat you cou.l~ raµge on; like naVigation lights on aircra:t'to\nI\nQuestiQn:\nWere internal lights .on in the night observations?\n,.. .\n'\nCooper:\nOn most night aides I had all the lights down complet.ely and used\n'\nI\nI\njust the glove lights to read,critical items.\nBill Armstrong:\nOn ·t;he third night phase you say you had to do a good bit ,,\nof' searching. ; Were you searching the entire third night, and when did you\nfir-st see it'l\n·, 1\nI\n·cooper: Slightly past the middle of the night.\nI think that on the third\n~ight side the· brightness was such that it was sheer accident that I found\n\\.\nIf_)rou Just happen to pass it' in t~e scan pattern you might _see it flashing,\n,\nI\n(\n:tt would, however,· be very easy to miss. .. •\n, /\nI" }, { "n": 75, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p75.jpg", "text": "·,scientific Debriefing\n•l2­\nBill Armstrong:\nYou feel brightness suitable f'or a rende~vous\nbe something on the order. of second or third magnitude.\nI\n•\nl\n•\n.'\n•\n.\n~ l\n• • .\n•.\n•\n­\n'\n'\nCooper:\nYeso\nBill: That 1s one of t he main things we wanted to ·rind out..\nDoes\nof the secon~ night l ook about right?\nWas the third night too d:l.m'l\n. '\n.,\nCooper:\nYes, the third one is .getting ·a little too d:l.mo\nI •\nBill:\nDo you think you have got to have good sighting information .to pick\n•\nI\n•\n. ,.\nthese up ev:en 'W'ith bright light7\nJ'\nI\nC~o:per:\nWell, it is a pretty big sky at night .up there and there are a lot\nof bright starso\nI t hink ·you're going to have to have some -sight~g,..date.\nto get within a ~easonable ~one area to hunt . for ito\nMcKee:\nWhat about the flash ·:rrequency r ate'l\n• Cooper:\nI think the flash rate could be cut downo\nI think you could maybe\nIhaJ.ye the flash rateo • I woul.d rather .-see it twice as bright and see it fl.ash ·\\\n.\n,\n. ,\nhalf as of'teno , A flash , rate, even -one every two seconds is stii;t distinctive. ·:\n.\n.\n,.\n.\n.\nI\nMay1>e not quite as distinctive as ·the one per second, but it •Still wbuld\n.\n'\nattract your ~ttention.\n_Bill: • How about the· deploy marks?" }, { "n": 76, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p76.jpg", "text": ".\nScientific Debriefing\n-13­\nCooper:\nThose deploy marks worked real well.\nThey were excellent for getting\nin 1·etroattitude also. They -position your head ·to a real positive position,\n'\n,\nI\n\"\nI\nBill:\nWe have read the attitude ·records pretty carefull:yo You were between '\n20 a.nd 22 degrees, so you were right in .there.\nDo you think the window\nI\nsmudges, the discoloration of the window, might have had significant effect?\nDo you think it produced enough attenuation to cause any trouble?\n,\n.\nAct~ I tried and tried to note how much attenuation you get at\n.night. It's just a few seconds until the time you get dark-adapted; I thought\n,\n.\nyou became dark .adapted very rapidly, and I didn't see or note any real attenuationo•\n• I am sure there was some as there was definitezy smudge layers there ..\n.- But·,,.\nit didn't seem to be.... The bright stars sure seemed bright.\n'\n.\n,,,.\n(,\nBill Armstrong: • J)id you act~ see the light against the ground'l • , •\n.\n\\\n.\nCooper:\nYes.\nI made this comment ·here that I even saw it against the\nthunderstorm.\nI\n· o\nJohn Boynton:\nGo:;t.;do, you talked about the flash rate. The flash rate in\n, your debriefing ·might have been ·. slightzy below a flash per ·second.\n, Cooper:\nI did it on the tape• . I counted off here on the. tape so. you could\nget it of~ the t~pe.\nI counted 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; It seemed to me that\nslightzy s+ower ·than ·one flash .per. second.." }, { "n": 77, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p77.jpg", "text": "..\nI\nScientific Debriefing\nQuestion: . What did it check out'l\ni\n-ii'\n• .1j ~\nCarmines:\n·.62 (flashes per minute).\nl\n\\\nBill: Did you make attempts to see it· on the day side'l\nCooper:\nI sure did.\nI never saw it then•\n. Armstrong: It should ·have been closer on the dey side than in the night\nportiono It came 1in c;l.oser, arid started out away some time during ·the f:t,rst .\n,\nday. pass)\nBefore you picked it up it had started out again. It should\nhave been in to about two miles sometime during the first day sideo\ndidn't find it, but e·efore I got to the next night side,- I brought yaw back ,' •\nCooper:\nAt first I was on 180 degrees .yaw, and allowed it to dri:f't offo ·,\n'\n'\n'\n_\n.\n•\n~\n,,,.,)II'~\n•\n•\n••;\nto 180 degreeso· There was a possib_ility I .missed•it thereo .\n, ,\nMcKee:\nDid the flash seem very consistant'l\nCooper:\nYes, it seemed to be very consistant.\n~ . Carmines:\nDid you see it tumble'l\nCooper:\nCarmines:" }, { "n": 78, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p78.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-15­\nBill: The spread of light isn't too great.\nJ\n',\nCoope~: It is pretty hard to Judge the; light\nMercer:\nDid .you see the ·stars during this• ~'l\n,\nI\nCooper:\nNot this particular ··orbit.\nNo I didn't.\nI\nI\n(Second Experiment • Balloon J?.ra,g)\nDey:\nMr. Carmines will you give. us a quick run-down on ·.the -balloon ·expe\nfailure?\nCarmines:\nI tal.ked with Instrumentation people and everyone agreed that\nwe really don't know what happened.\nWe had one relay actuateo\nThere are ·\nseveral possibil.ities• . To me the most l.ikely place of trouble is the final •\nplug.\nThe pins are on the pigtail and in putting this together you can bend\n'\n\\\nI\n'\nthese pins and get a misalignment.\nW~ checked the plug :and.in this case the\n:pin is near ·the case ~d if it ~ent it could ground..\nI\n.\n•\nBill: The squibs were in parallel and a number ·of ·tests showed' eithe:x: • one '.- ·•\n..\nI\n'\nof the squib would fire the latch. The most probable cause, is in ·the circ,uitry.,\nI\n'­\nI\n'\n(Discussionoon ·G~ound Light _Observation)\n,\nBill Armstrong:\nHow hard wa.s it to pick up the light when .you .first\nDid you have -trouble picking ·up this ground light at all?\n,\nI\n, ,\n•\n-\n' ,'\n'·. .\n. .. -. , . ---: -, :, •\n, •\n• • . . '\nI ,\n-·\nl ," }, { "n": 79, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p79.jpg", "text": "',,\n' ;\nScientific Debriefing •.\n-16- .\n>fl' '\n'· ' ,.\nCooper:\nNo. It was just a bit :further to the l.e:f't than I thought\nbe.\nBill: More toward'. the· center of' the window?\nCooper:\nNoo\nMore slight]¥ to the le:f't of' the window.\nI coul.d have been\nyawed ·off a l.ittl.e.\nI thought the pattern of the l.ittl.e town, .it was by\nwas rea.l.ly more distinctive than the l.ight. , If' I hadn't \"imown _the light was\nthere I 'WOul.dn_'t have sel.ected it in preference to· l.ots of other lights I saw'\non t he ground,--•if' it hadh't been for the l.ittl.e horseshoe-shape towno\n,Bill Armstrong:\nWhat brightness did you see at thi's attitude?\n•\nI\n.\n.\nI woul.d sq it,was about between third and fourth magnitude\nBaW it.\n'7· .\nBill:\nAB you continued to obse;rve it· did Y9U notice ~t dimming?,,\nCooper:\nNoo\nI coul.d see it f'or se:veral. s_econds-.\nOne f'alicy of the ground\nlights is ·that you are moying on the ground pretty rapidlyo_ You don't have\nmariy seconds to ·observe any ·:f'ixed points op. the groundo It's moving right\non past you and gone fair]¥. rapid]¥. . ·of' course as it gets on .out it gets dimmer\n·t\n,, ,.\n~\n:\n;\n'\n\\\nand dimmer •\n•,Question:· / Havet yOU .&J;IY idea how~_lo~· you ·~\nable -to ob,serve it?" }, { "n": 80, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p80.jpg", "text": "'\n,' I\nScientific Debriefing\n-17­\nI\nCooper: Maybe as long as a minute.\nI doubt if it was that long,\nI\n30 or 40 seconds.\nI lost it because it got too weak. It was a long~\n:f'rom being. straight out on the horizon but as it got . on up towards that\n,,\ndirection it faded outJ\nBill: In checking the plot, it ·1ooks like it varies from a little over\nsecond magnitude when you forst saw it to about a sixth magnitude when the\nlight was turned off.\n'\n'\n•\nI\n/\nMcKee:\nDo you know what angle you pitched down to'l\nCooper: . I believe it was to -40.\nI was then at ~he angle we were\nto pitch to. . I apparently had eased off in ya~.\nHowever ·it tracked pretty\nwell right up the window.\nSo the yaw was fairly ~ell: ·on.\nBut the., · •\n-\ni light was off a li~tle further to the lef'to\n\" ·, .\nBill:· Did you· ever look away from the light and then .look. back?\nable to do this and ·pick it up again? ,\nCooper: .I took ray eyes off of it and had them on the photometer and looked\n• • through the hole in it and extincted it. Turned the dial the wrong way in\n/\n',.,1\n• the ,dark,,' and I- did extin.ct ·all right.· I thought I'd ge1; a good reading on ·, • • .: '\n•\n,,,\nI\nI\n,I\n' ll~\n,\n~\n'\n•\n'\nI\n:\n~...\nI\n•\n, , it. I gave that device ·up. It did extinct.\nBill: ;• Did you ever notice any change" }, { "n": 81, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p81.jpg", "text": ",.\n1' '\nScientific Debriefing\n-J.8­\nCooper:\nYes, it got dimmer.\nMercer:\nCou1d you see _lights of cities through J.a¥ers of cl~dst\nCooper: 'I saw a lot. of cities underneath the clouds.\nyaw ~ignments was over Shangpai. •\n..,\ni\nMercer:\nWere light patterns more •distinctive than individual bright lights?\nCooper:\nYes.\nI was ,over the ·east coast of.Australia. · . I saw t~e very:\ndistinct city l.ight patterns there around the Melbourne area.\n.\n,\n'\n.\nPaul:\nWhen the light dim:Ded .out did ·you lose the-l.ight\nCooper:\nI l.ost both in ·much the same period of ·time. :\n·Jones:\nDid the ground-li~ _appear sharp as a point .source or·was it\ndiff'u.sed?\n'\nI\n·Cooper:\n:Ct was more' diff'u.sed.\nNot a sharp point.\nsingle light but it -was not like the stars.\nSmith: You think a: flashing light would be preferable?\n, .\n/ , '." }, { "n": 82, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p82.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-19­\nCooper: ~finite~: The ideal would be a series of lights. A better\ncombination would be a series ot flashing ·lights arranged in .some pattern. ,\n~e like a running rabbit strobe pattern.\nI am sure it wouldn't have to\nbe synchronized.\nBill: 'You mentioned how fast :fast you were moving.\nDo you think you had\nenough time to make use of some sighting ·device such as -a sextant? .\nCooper:\nYou aren·!t going to be able to take very long. readingso\nYouvre\ngoing to ~ave ✓ to be set up and ready to go, and you're going to have to have\nsome devices .that are •re~ usable. You figure that when you get from the\nwest coast of the United states to the east coast of the United States, the ,\nground is moving under you fair~ rapi~ in ten minutes. The ground is\n. '\n.\nmoving t .oo fast. You need to have some devices that are re~ usable and\nyou need to be se~ up and ready t(? go.\nI guess you have about 20 to 30\n' .\nseconds for a reading._\nBill Armstrong:\nOne·of the• ·,·phas·es· of the Apollo mission .requires a position··.\n'\nfix ~ile still' in a holding orbit. Before going into ·the translunar ·phase··\n, ,\nI\n•\nJ\nsightings of earth fixed targets for navigation would be ab~ut the same\nyqu experienced in the · ground light. Would this .be practicable2" }, { "n": 83, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p83.jpg", "text": "I\ni\n'\nI\nScientific Debriefing\n-20­\nCooper:\nYou 're going to have to be right on in .attitudes. You 're g~ing\nto have to know exact~ what time it's going to occur. I'd guess you have\nI\nabout 20 to 30 seconds to do your ·actual sighting and you have to have a_ good\nangle\n' off to do it.\n• I\n•\nBill: How about the brightness Gordo?\nHow do you .feel about this part and\nleaving .the flas~ part' out of it? · Was it bright enough light to be seen\neaai:cy?\nCooper:\nTl;l.ere were a iot brighter ·lights on the groundo\nBill: I'm sure of that but do you think this is sufficient?\nCooper:\nYou can see it. If you look for it and know it is there and if\nyou're J.ucky.\nKnowing where to look for it and no cl.ouds there, Y9U can ,\n.spot it.\n(And awe::, :f'rom other ·background lights.) · I still think a pattern.\nwoul.d be better than going ·to a brighter •light. I !l,on•t think the cha.nge •\nin the brightness of the light would be as effective as making .some kind .\nI\n•\n./\n•\nof a patterno\n~\nl\nDid the ground lights twinkle?\nCooper:\nYes; Just like the stars do looking at them :f'rom the ~01:1-lld,\nas the' stars don't1t~e there.\nMcKee:\nI would like to ask. You seemed to have seen our ·-lights as we\n1\nexpE:cted • . You .saw some objects on -the ground better than we expectedo" }, { "n": 84, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p84.jpg", "text": "out\nsee\nt Sci entific Debriefing\n-21-\n/'\nI\n1,\n,,\n, i (McKee continued)\nyou say why you saw such small items?\nii,\n,\\ •\n! ~\nl '' Coo;pcr:\nI was coming :f'rom Houston the other day in a 102 and I not ed I\ncoulcln't see nearly as clear around ·40,000 feet, particularly in one area\n,..\n. that I was in. There was · a lot of haze and it .was quite humid and I couldn 't\nI\ndisti nguish things on the ground very well but yet when I got into the west\ncoast of Florida and got into an area that was somewhat clearer, at t he same\naltitude I could see many things.\nI think again, that it depends on how much\nhumidity _you have and how much haze is in an area.\nI passed right over the\nvicinity of Los Angeles and San Diego and never saw them at all.\nI waoo't ,\nvery surprised.\nI could see where they were but I couldn't see them.\nI\npassed right over Miami and Miami Beach and I could see that there was a\nt 'own there. . Ther~ was a lot of build up and civilization.\nI could see\nthe streets but the buildings were not very distinct.\nBut yet over areas\nof El Centro:·and the Salton Sea and ·the dry lake areas I could see tremendously\ngreater detail, 8J1.IJ. individual roads.\nOver the Himalayas, up in Tibet, of\ncourse there you'r~ above a good portion a certain amount of the atmosphere\n,\nJ •\ni\nI suppose, I was really surprised: what I could see.\nI found some real\ndetai ls and little, villages with maybe 20 or 30 houses I suppose, stood out\ni\n'\n•\n•\nvery distinctly. You .could estimate the number of houses and if a house was\nindividually away f'rom ahythirig else I guess against the right color\nbackground, the yard, I could discern individual buildings.\nI saw a number\nof t hem with smoke1 coming out of the chimney.\nThere was snow on this upper\nvery sandy blowy, dusty; Tibetan are.a.\nI could see a lot of lakes some partial.ly.y\nf'rozen over and some f'rozen solid.\nThe visibility was tremendous.\nI could\nvehicles that ,:;t assumed were trucks.\nI could see them kicking up ' dust.\n...\n:." }, { "n": 85, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p85.jpg", "text": ". ..\nScientific Debriefing\n-22­\n(MIT Horizon)\nDr. Peterson: The purpose of these pictures is that we are teying to\nfind definite informa.tion.\"about the earth for Apollo guidance. This is\nof a group of four pictures taken in four_different yaw directions, one\nthe sun. Is this maneuver an expensive and troublesome· thing to do'l\nCooper: It takes control power; ·it takes control fuel, , it takes time.\nHowever, it is not real expensive as far as fuel. You have to stay power\nup.\nWe debated back and forth about 'the most accurate wa;y of making sure we· .\nget these 90° points.\nWe were a little concerned about accuracy and decided\nto stay powered up and utilized .the gyros ~o locate the 90°·positions. • But\nit does take that period of time of power ·to dr;Lve the automatic system;\ndoes take that fuel to move around•\n.,,\nDr. Peterson:\nI noted you mention 25 hours 20 minutes.\nA1; that ~t\nthere is a hole in the transcript.\n25 hours and 26 minutes.\n,\n'\n·Co0per:\nI got those at 25 hours and some odd minutes when the moon was set\nin the west. It was right where ·we had plann~d to get it the first time.\nWe rescheduled them later in the flight if we didn't get them at the original· 1\ntime.\nBut I took them as planned initial.:cy,.\nDid those come out all right'l\nDr. Peterson:\nOn two of those ~twas possible to locate. the moon.\nI\nI\n~ not all of them.\nBill .Armstrong: Yes, .these are all of them.\n(Looking ·at p~ctures)\nI•\n·•' '\nI" }, { "n": 86, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p86.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-23­\nDr. Peterson: · There is a smudge in the middle of the window. It could\nhave been accidently concealed.\nSince these negatives are on1¥ suitable\nmicrodensit9JI)etry there doesn't need·to be e:a,y discussion Qt the details ot • •\ntheir significance•\n. (Inf'ra.red Weather Photographic Experiment)\nI\n• Mr. D~:\nI would like to move on to m Weather photography.\n\\ '\nSoules: This experiment went very well ~d we got the. information we ··\n'\n1 wanted.\nThank you very JIDlch. 'Did you· have aey- trouble with ·the\nfilter holder?\n'\n'\n-\nNone at all. It . worked • very well.\n'\n•\nAnd the lens opening of 5.6?\n'\nCooper: ·It was exactly-on ·what ·was marked on the magazineo\nSoules: · There are si; pictures at the end of the series and I can Vt\n- them. • Do you· have aey- idea ' where they could have been taken:'l\n(There was a lot of table discussion of pictures here) ··\nThis was a:f'ter, :the. Florida series." }, { "n": 87, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p87.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-24­\nSoules: You ma.de the remark that you were coming over A:t'rica.\naey more information? There was none in the tra.ns9ript.\n~ Cooper:\nWhat base was this oni\n\\\n/\nI\nBill: Wasn't one of them over the coastline?\nCooper:\nYes, I did one right on the .coast of A:t'rica.\nI got one coming\n~ight over the coastline. Another ·one I got almost over ·the other coast;\n:toward Johannesburg; it was· ·an inland picture, almost the northern areao\n. ,'\nSoules: The last four are a ~stery. •\nBill Armstrong: It, looks like you had about a quarter inch motion .on\nI'm sure. I didn't. ·\n1I ' was ·holding the camera just\nSoules\n1\n:\nWe might ,check the camera.\n, -Soules:\nWhat was the do~t color of the ·earth over Baja California?\nI\nCooper:\nI :found that the green showed up very little. The only really\n•djstinct green that 'I saw which showed up much was in the high Tibetan area.\nIt. was a \\right emerald green, by·some o:f those lakes. It looked like a\n,copper sulphate mining area.\nThe browns ·of the. .Arabian Desert Sand show,ed :\nup quite distinct. •Th~. Sahara was :not quite so brown although i~ .did' have\nI" }, { "n": 88, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p88.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debri efing\n-25­\n( Cooper continued) ·a brown look,\nEverything predominantly had a. bluish\ncast .\n.All. the :wat er, all the sea water, looked very very bright blue.\nEven the Salton Sea looked very blue. And areas -we ,know 'were heavy toreat •\n'.\nareas looked kind of blue-green. The areas that a.re definitely brown you can\ntell they a.re brown~\n'\nI\nSoules:\nI have a. question on the thunderstorms.\nCould you hear ·sta.tic'l\nCooper:\nI could hear. it day or night and on both HF and UHF..\nIt was. almost.\ninstantaneous.\nAs I woul~-- see the lightning and the clouds light up, I : 1 • ..\nwould get the static.\n~\n• ·: Soules:\nWhat i s the frequency band on HF'l\nCooper:\nHF i s 15 megacycles.\nThe. static was louder in:the HF the.µ ·in tbe\nr\nUHF.\nYou could just hear ·it, it wasnlt high magnit ude.\n• .\nSoules:\nWas there a difference in loudness between day and night'l\nCooper:\nI think night side w.as considerably louder.\nOf course I noted\n'\nthUDdersto~\nwere louder ,on 'night side.\nThere were large _masses of\nthunderstorms out to the east of Australia.\n\"\n0\n'\nSoV,les:\nDid the flash come tram below the (?a.psule or • could you look off\n/\n~t ~ -. angle'l" }, { "n": 89, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p89.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\nCooper:\nI could not see distinct lightning patterns. It ju,st all lit ~•\n.\nI\nThe whole cumulus mass of clouds would light up.\nSoules: Did.you notice thunderstorms between Hawaii and Ce.liforniao\nCooper: -Yes, several off the west coast of the United Stateso I don•t\nremember just how far. There were several cumul.us buildups.\nSoules: Did they look like the usual thunderstorms?\nQooper:\nThey went on down·to a stra'j;us deck on into coast on .down about\nLos Angeles. They stood further -off the coast than up north..\n\\\n-\n•\nr/\n•Soules: Did you see any long white bands of clouds along the east coast in\n,,.\n'\nthe tropical' areas'l\n,,\nCooper: Yes.\nOne was over the Arabiap. desert that was quite distinct ..\ntook a color photograph of that.\nSoules:\nwas· it a very sharp line of clouds with bµ.ild-up in it'l\nCooper: Yes.\nNumber 10 picture is over the Arabian desert area..\nSoules: Over the oceans did you notewwide bands with perhaps clear ·area\n,\nover it'l\n." }, { "n": 90, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p90.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-27­\nCooper:\nNo.\nI noticed several large cyclonics. I did not notice any very\nI\ndisti nct sharp bands. However I ~id notice tropical thunder~torms.\nNear\n-the Solomon Island Areas there were a lot of low streets and ridges ot\n•\nI\nsmaller cumulus clouds. There were little rows of them.\n' .\n;\n/.\nI\n. I" }, { "n": 91, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p91.jpg", "text": "•\n...\nit\nscenes ..\nreal distinct\nif it\nfairly\n_it\n' ;\nf'~.\n\\ . fcient~.f'ic Debriefing\n-28­\n' ·i SoU::.es :\nWas the horizon always ·a sharp line?\nCooper:\nYes, day and 'night the hqrizon was sharp. In the day you have this bright\nI I\nblue 'bund around it.\nSoules:\nSome photos show the horizon seemed fuzzy.\nCooper:\nIn the Himalayas on a couple of occasions where the horizon was rough\ndue to the mountains, the horizon was ·still very distinct.\nSqules:\nDid you se-e the moon at the time of occultation?\n' •\nCooper:\nYes, several times.\nI was sorry I d.i;d not get picture·s.\nSoules.: ' Did you see a halo around the moon?\nCooper:\nI saw no sign of a halo. It was quite sharp.\nI\nSoules:\nDid you ever see a slight flash?\nDid the moon's color chang~ at all as\nwent through the atmosphere?\n1 Cooper:\nNo.\nI was looking for this too.\nI was disappointed in the moon\n·r didn't see anything di'stinctive at all.\nSoules:\nI made a sketch of haze layer. Would you take a look· at 'it and tell me\nwhat you think?\nVoas:\nGordo, would .you draw it on the board?\n(Period demonstrating on blackboard of horizon, haze, etc.)\nCooper:\nThis is the earth with a sharp horizon on the earth. The lower haze\nlevel was always under me separated from the horizon. This was not a\nline. It was a little more distinct and it appeared to be the same color as\nwere a cloud and as the stars would pass down through it y:ou could track a\n• high order of magnitude of star and you could track it ,down thro~gh haze and\nwould appear real bright as it came down through it.\nSoules: :About what magnitur could you see?\n,,.'\nI I\nI\n\\" }, { "n": 92, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p92.jpg", "text": "I\n[\n~\n1cientific Debriefing\n-29­\nl\n., I\\\nI\ni~1\nooper:\nThe stars in the Big Dipper could just be seen.\nI noted the Big Dipper\n·~\n'!1th the bo.ttom star sinking down into it.\nl~\nIf,\n1;\nt1\nSoules:\nThe top of the layer would be bow ;:nany degrees above the horizon?\ni .\n•\n11,.\n'\n)\nOoo:per:\nI figured it was about six or seven degrees.\n,,\nr\nl\nl\n(Long period of sketching.)\n..\nI\nPeterson:\nWould you estimate any appraisal in terms of stellar magnitude? You\nexplai:c.ed that the fifth magnitudes could be seen, did the weaker =-stars go out\nin that area?\n• I\n'\n(Still illustrating.)\nNote:\nDuring this period when ,900:per wa..s talking and sketching on the board,\nthe recorded comments are meaningless.\nCooper:\nI can't recall a single ti.me at night but what I saw the haze leyer.\nDr. Voa.s:\nI described the earth as. being d.a.I:k.\nWhich is darker, the earth\nor the 11ttl.e band of sky?\nCooper:\nWhen there was no moon the earth was darker. In general. there was more\nlight from the sky. It is a difference in two different blacks. The sky·is a\n,· shinier black. The earth is a du.11 black.\nDr. Voa.s:\nThe horizon is very wel~ defined?\nCooper: It is actually a different black. There is a· distinct line of horizon\nand the earth is darker. This is in complete night.\nDr. Voa.s:\nWhen the moon comes up the earth becomes lighter as the moon shines on it?\nCooper: It shows up distinctly,' especially when there are c;:1.ouds.\nSoules:\nHere is a picture that Wally took.\nDoes that look like a haze band on the •.\nhorizon?\n..\nO'Keefe:\nWhen was that picture taken?\n.\nSoules: Is that too high?\n. .\n-\n•" }, { "n": 93, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p93.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-30­\nl ~--------­\n'\nI\n'i f\n( oules: You saw something over South America?\n,! l\nI\nfooper:\nYes, there is this other higher level I saw over South America.\nptanley Soules:\nDid you see different cloud layers at night?\n' ~ooper:\nOnly i:t there was moonlight and if there were towns or cities below\nthem.\nOn several occasions I could see reflected light particularly through\nstratus type clouds.\nSoules: You could distinguish clouds. Does the earth appear as blue to your eye , ,\nas it does in the photos?\nCooper:\nYes. The overall color is pretty blue.\nSoules: What is the color of the· twilight zone?\nI\nCooper: It is a baby blue~ It is a pure~ pure blue, very, very_ bright.\nI\nSoules:\nDid you see any meteor trails?\n,\nI\nCooper:\nNo~\n,,\nSoules:\nDid you see ·a lot of sun?\nI T.TCIIY'l't to tell you I did'.\nC<:> Oper :\nI Sure did•\n\".......\n., '\nSoules:\nWas there any evidence of a corona?\nCooper:\nNo. In fact, the sun appeared to be like the moon 'does i'rom the earth.\nVery bri ght. You know down here there are all those rays around it. But up there\nit is just a glob and it is very very whitish bri_gb.t. It doesn't look the same\ncolor. It is a very arc-like color, bluish white.\n' ' ' -\nQuestion: What about the looks of the ds.y slcy?\nCooper:\n!\nThe ds.y slcy just is not as dark as the nie,:it slcy. It is black and dark\nbut not as dark as the night sky. You can see the brighter .stars on the day side\nwhen you are away from the sun and neither it nor the earth shine are coming in the\nwindow.\nGive yourself a few seconds to get dark adapted and you can see the brighter·\n'\nOn·the order of '3rd magnitl.lde.\nI\nstars. They };lave to be fairly ~right to see them." }, { "n": 94, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p94.jpg", "text": ";-, pcientj f ie Debriefing\n-31­\n1~ l .pr. Voe.s :\nThe day sides get a lot lighter, at night they are about the same\n,,\ni\nfia.rkness as the inside of the spacecra.f't.\nCooper:\nThe night sky and the day sky is about the same as the difference between\nI\n.\n~ jet black and a dark gray. . (It is about the same difference b_etween the night\n\\\n,\n. .\n'\nsky and the day sky.) It is a sorter kind of dark during the day.\nNot nearly as\ndark as the night sky.\nDr. Voe.a:\nIs it a smooth overall gray on the window?\nDo you see any chance at a.l.l\nthat the grayness you noted could be minute amounts of scattered light from fog on­\nthe window?\nCooper:\nI don't believe. so, Bob, because immediately when ·you got a faint amount\nof obli que llght on the window it immediately looked like it was iced-over. All\nyou had to do was get just a faint amount on it and it appeared to be just like a\nI\ncanopy frozen over.\nO'Keefe :\nWas this scattered light 1n the window or not?\nI hoped you could see,,\nsome kind of a pattern.\nCooper:\nThat• s what I •m saying.\nWhen you have any kind of scattered light on the\nwindow, when the window was in any kind of an attitude (demonstrated) say this is\n• the window and out here is. the sun, any time the window was moved around where\n.\n.\n•\nthere was any kind' of light shining on the window - just a faint amount of it\n. would completely obliterate the vision through the window.\nI just went completely\nIFR.\nThere was just no looking through the window.\nOf course, the earth gives off\nan awful lot of light, and you can't see anything as long as the earth i s shining\nin the window.\nAny time the sun was back here fmd I was faced away from the earth,\nregardless of attitude, the sky appeared to be a smooth gray.\nO'Keef e :\nYou could see the griton\\the window?\n• Cooper:\nYou could see the light actually impinging on 'the Wind.ow.\nYou could see\n•the scum all over the inside of\"the outside ~e.\nI·" }, { "n": 95, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p95.jpg", "text": "(\n.\n-32­\nfcienti fic Debriefing\n'\nII~'Keefe : Somevlhat of a pattern?\nI\n•\n•i¢,ooper:\nThat's right. A pattern over the outside of th~ window as well as the\nscum on the inside;\n(\nl · ()'Keefe: It this had 'been scattered light you would have had this pattern?\n•. Cooper: That's right• .\n(Dim Light _photograpbs.) .\nPresentation of Dim Light Phenomena.:\n1\nRoach, 0'Keefe, Huell.\nDay:\nRoach:\nYou had above this haze layer another layer. •Would you sketch that'l\n(Illustration.) •\nI am almost certain this was .about 24 hours\nI\nCooper: This one time I did have it.\nand 30 minutes over South America. , I was facing to the east and was on dri:f't, I\nthink. I was_looking to the east, northeast area. I was in ful1 dri:f't.\n0'Keefe: Reference was on page 26.\nCooper:\nThat was the luminous activity on page 37.\n\"Righi? now I can .make ou1;\na lot of luminous activities in an easterly direction.\" This was at 05 11 34 and\non a 05 13 40. The Milky Way was quite distinct. This particular time (over South\n'\nAmerica) I couldn't make out on this layer. I wouldn't say it was mu~ like a. layer.\n'\n/\n'\n•\nIt wasn't distinct and it didn't last long; but it was higher than I was. It wasn't\n/\nin the vicinity of the horizon and was not well defined.\nRoach:\nMore like a patch?\nCooper:\nSmoother. It was a good sized area. •\nRoach:\nYou didn't feel this bad' a discrete shape?\nIt was a faint glow with a reddish brown\nIt was very indistinct 1n·shape.\n;\nCooper:\n. cast.\n· Roa.ch:\nBecause of your altitude or what'l .\n:\nI\n.\n,---.-~--~--~-~---___;·.......1-1.-­" }, { "n": 96, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p96.jpg", "text": "Scientific Debriefing\n-33­\nl\nl '\nIt wasn't so distinctive as to move back on to it. It was very faint\n. ' Cooper:\n1, ' l\n•\n'4,nd definitely lighter than the sky. It was picking up some light of.•some type,\n\"\n'\"\n-'jt was light in contrast to the sky •\n• 'ick Day :\nCould you see this better out ot the corner of your eye?\nC\\'poper: Yes. Sort of that type of thing. I'm almost certain· that this was\nover South America, just coming up on·to the northeastern part of South America.\nIt was around 50 degrees West and about zero degrees of latitude.\nRoach:\nThis reminds me of what Mr. Schirra saw off Madagascar.\nCooper:\nHe saw .it off North Africa. It seemed to be ·quite extensive but not .well\ndefined. I-twas rather diffused but not covering the whole earth.\nRoach:\nCould you tell us what happens when you pass from day into night, around\ntwilight? . We are interested in horizon effect after sunset•\n. \\\n'\n(Cooper draws some more pict~es.)\nCooper: You never tire of looking at the sunsets. As the sun begins to get down\nI\ntowards the horizon it is very well defined and not diffused as it is 'when looking\nIt is quite white\nthrough the atmosphere, and it is quite difficult to look at.\nand as i t gets on down to where the sun begins to impinge on the horizon line it\ndoes give ·a spreading effect. The sky is getting quite dark here and you get the\n1\nI\n.\nimpression of blackness up here.\n(Illustrating.) The layer is bright orange·\ncolor and light spreading out in this direption•••\nAs the sun begins to go down it is replaced by this' bright gold orange. It extends\nout ·for some way. It defines the horizon line fairly well at this ·time. The sun\n'\ndoes begin to get this flattened effect.\nRoach:\nWhat was it'·s maximum flattening?\n. \\\nCooper:\nI never got too much. It appears to get down part way below the horizon\n/' n" }, { "n": 97, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p97.jpg", "text": "-------\nf\nj _.\n. Scientific Debriefing\n-34­\n!\nI\n;._~d _spread. It doesn't take long. As it goes on down you still have this orange\nI•\n•\n•\nfight on the horizon and this area is all considerably ligliter althou~ black is\n.,,\ngoming on down.\nYou do · ge~· glow up off it. You could actu~ sWing away and tell\nl light w ere tlle sun ll&d set a number of seconds after. It is not ray-like. It\n:,?\n/,\nis hard to describe. ~e sky area: is lighter but there are not any rays. ,\n\\\nNote:\nAt this time there was a general discussion of the night sky ,immediately\naf'ter sunset. The transcript is too incomplete in this region to give a recorded •\naccount of this discussion. It appears that after describing the sunset and the\nairglow layer someone Ast. Cooper an additional glow extending vertical above the\ni\nposition on the horizon 'Where sunset occurred. Obviously reference was being\nI\nmade to observation of the Zodiacal light.\nCooper:\nThat' s right. After this effect disappears ( glow of sunset) and you •\nthink you're on complete darkness, I would guess on the order a minute after\nI\nsunset, you get this other.\nI gue.ss two different times I saw faint glow but not\n.,\nvery far along. It lfS.S more on the order of 3 to 4 degrees farther on\n•and a fainter order. . ,\nRoach :\nDid you 'notice this was cone shaped?\nCooper:\nA little bit cone shaped.\nJ\nRoach:\nDid you happen to sweep across it that way?\n'\n'\nCooper: It was a minute or so prior to sunrise and I moved back across and about\nthe time I got back the sun was there.\nRoach:\nDid it seem to be confined in your Window'l\nCooper : Yes.\nThe bright\n0blue-band grew wider as you moved away.\nRoach:\nWas this jus~ before sunrise?\nCooper:\nThe sun is . getting ready to come up and at' this particular time I got\nthis glow prior to getting a blue band and in a few seconds the blue widens and '\nI\n. widens. ,\n...\n' ." }, { "n": 98, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p98.jpg", "text": "l\n§~ientific Debriefing\n. -35­\nRpach:\nIs 'this :phenomenon very close to the sun'?\nCpoper:\nI had the feeling that this was just a glow off the su.µ._ It was not\n1: '\n•\n·'i\n7,1.',\n~P bri©J.t as the Millcy Way.\n:1\n~ :\nMercer: Was it tipped to the right or le:f't of sunriseZ\nC~oper:\nI was sitting tipped myself and don't rememb~r vb.ich way it was.\nI have\nthe imp.ression it was not vertical.\nDr. Voas : It appears the red and gold you• described at sunset does not occur\nat dawn.\n. I\nCooper: Sunset is more of a golden orange.\nDr. Voas :\nDid you notice any of the flattening as the sun rose?\nCooper: Not as much) but you do get a little bit.\n,(\nRoach:\nGoing back to the time just preceding retro, were you constantly on stellar\nobservat ion before the dawn?\nWere you able to follow any stars'?\n. ...\nCooper: Yes. With the sun to my back, the first thing I got -was the moon glow..\nand through the cloud below I got Shanghai. The first •indication·you get of the\nsun going up behind you is the lightening of the clouds underneath and you note\nthe clouds getting iighter and lighter and you can still see the stars. As you\n\\\nreach a certain point., your window gets enough light - your window appears 'completely\nfrosted over.\nRoach: What star were you using? ,\nCooper:\nI was using Betelgeuse and tracking on.~ up from that to Sirius and Procyo~\nand then I had a bS-l7ren area. Then I believe Castor and Pollux and Corvus was\nthe last .\nI couldn't pick up Antares.\nBy this time I -was getting good light on\nclouds..\nThe stars don't give ·you much yaw determination. You can si there for\na long t ime and if 'you hold rates very close to zero you can get a fairly good\n.\n'\n.\n.\nindicati on, but it is a lengthy process when you are determining yaw by seeing the\n'\n·-- ·movement ' of stars.\n·-~...,.. --- - . -.·--- ' --~-~\nf ." }, { "n": 99, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p99.jpg", "text": "I moved\n, (Again\n1\n'1\n~\n' i\nI\nI\n.S~ientific Debriefing\n-36­\nl \\ ;\n~\n.\n~iach:' From that standpoint, is it better to retro in the da.yl~ft?\ncqpper: . You could probably do .it at night, but it is preferabl~;- to do it in the day.\n,\n'\nNjte:\n~'he next few comments are not interpretable, but 1t appe,-.rs eom one raised\n~\n.\na ~question about the blue horizon band visible during daylight,\nCo'pper:\nThis is ·predominantly blue· and if you have land masses or things that .\n' ,\n'\nyou know are not blue - - - but this is about a two degrees thick band. It isn't\nquite as thick as the band underneath - - - the last layer at night is thicker\n' l\nI\n.\n.\n1 than this blue band and it is a brilliant blue.\nRoach:\nThen, is there some structure above the blue layer?\nCooper:\nI never could see pattern structure above that. It is really not black.\nThis is any time you have earth shine. This is not a real sharply defined - - ­\nThere is a little blue gray going thru this area here. The overall band is real'\nbright pale bluw and just faintly diffuse on this side.\n(Explanation is made using\na sketch at the blackboard.)\nQuestion: Is it diffuse on the upper side?\nCooper: It is not just a real sharp line or two different distinct colors. It does\ndiffuse very slightly,.\nQuestion: .How wide is that band in angle?\n,, Cooper: It is about 11iwo degrees.\n.,.\nHuch:\nI understand it gave a little problem in roll and yaw.\nYou said just as the\nsun was sinking. _\nCooper:. That's right •. Tb.is is where I could tell where the sun had been.\nback to t hat and\nIput the gyros to free and went into the automatic mode.\nusing sketch.)\nHuch: , Wi th reference .to the sunset, do you estimate the time when the Zodiacal light'\nsequence was started?\n'\n-:----....,..••\np\n,--• ..-:-T\"'7-\n;--­" }, { "n": 100, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p100.jpg", "text": "-37­\nScientific Debriefing\n.J\n.\"i\n'\n·,qooper:\nI would guess it was on the order of 20 to 30 second.s 1af'ter sunset, that is\n/\n,\njµst a guess. And this is all the counting I was doing to give ·you the timing and\n:I\n•. ~ ~ere ~as interference from the ground stations.\ni\nI\n1\n1,\n.~\n,-llch:\nDid you observe capsule sta.bility - did you :f'eel it ~s holding sufficient'.cy\nI\n·f_\n~till for time exposures?\ncboper:\nOf course, we knew it would be moving.\nDid better than I thought i t would.\nHuch:\nFor the most part they came out quite clear.\nBill Armstrong:\nYou get pitch up at the rate of 4° per minute.\nCooper:\nActual:cy, you had more than that.\nShepard:\nDuring the Zodiacal light sequence, you had over .5 degrees :per minute.\nQuestion:\nWhat are your attitude tolerances •in ASCS?\nCooper:\nI would say within about 5 l/2 degrees. This will be a very slow variance.\nQuestion:\nHow fast is this per minute? The period is 2 to 3 minutes per oscillation.\nJohn Ve:n Beckel: It is about .05 degrees per second.\n,,\nShepard:\nThe limits could be as much as 11 degrees.\nJohn Van Beckel: It is pretty close to plus or minus 10 degrees.\nCooper:\nDid you ge~ anything :from·,.the latter portion of the picture? The airg.l.ow\npictures?\nMercer:\nYes.\nCooper:\nI worried that the angle of the camera was down too much.\nHuch:\nwas there anything unusual that happened through the night?\nCooper:\nThere was a lot of lightning.\nHuch:\nWas there an accumulatio·n of moisture on the window?\nCoop-er:\nNo.\nTo me it didn't seem to cut down too much.\nHuch:\nYou reported a lot\n\\\nof lightning.\n-\nCooper:\nRight when I was taking dim light pictures there were several thunder­\n. storms and a lot of lightning." }, { "n": 101, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p101.jpg", "text": "'I .,.\n~cientific Debriefing •\n. f\n\\ t\nDid you get any readout on attitudes?\n~epard:\n~ercer:\nWe got good attitudes.\nOn the pictures, ce.n you relate the airg,low band to what you drew on the board? '! .,,\n~id you take e:ny exposures into the sunlit sky?\n(Cpoper:\nNo, I didn't. I was going to try and snap one of this planet but couldn't\nget the camera out in time. After I once got it out of the equipment locker, the\nplanet was gone.\nHuch:\nwas the camera easy to use'l\nCooper:\nYes, after I once got it out of the locker it was easy to use.\nHuch:\nWould it be possible to take a picture of the Milky Way?\nI\nCooper: Yes. The last picture that I made was this haze layer when it was so\nbright. It should be somewhere right near. It was near the vertical coming through\nthe window.\nHuch:\nThe range of light intensity was very extreme.\nCooper:\nThe last exposure I made was of this glow and I think I used a 20 or\na 15 second exposure time.\nNote:\nA general discussion was carried on at this point concerning the number\nof exposures and general observations. It is not possible to decipher these\ncomments into usable form.\n(Radiation Experiments.)\nWarren:\nWe have some preliminary results I will give to you later. Did you take\nthe chamber out of the dit.ty bag and fasten it on the hatch?\nCooper:\nI took it out of the storage container and fastened it to the hatch on\nthe first orbit.\nWarren:\nCould you give me a time estimate?\nCooper:\nI would say within an hour •~fter liftoff•\n..., __ .. __ -----i-- ---\n.\n...\n.\nI ,.\n.,\n. '" }, { "n": 102, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p102.jpg", "text": "•\n;,scientif ic Debriefing\n-39­\n,. f\n: }bu,ren:\nDid you take it off prior to retro?\nI,,\n'\nI ►\nQooper:\nYes.\nI took it off just prior to retro. I stowed it :lfl the glove compartment~\n(\n~rren: Did you take a reading of it at any time?\nI•\nI\n~\nI\nI\n'· I\ncroper:\nNo, I didn t.\nW~rren:\nDi\"d you place it vertically? Where did you place it?\nCooper:\nI placed it vertically.\nWarren.\nWe got from that .and also from film badger you carried on under\nI\nclothing - - - We got an estimate of 15-20 milliroentgens. I think you would get\nmore in an X-ray than you had here. It was. about what expected.\nWarren: Is there any particular reason that the 7th and 9th orbits were left out •\nor were you just too busy?\n'\nCooper:\nI don't remember which orbit I missed.\nI believe one of them I was q~te\nbusy trying to get this condensate water situation straightened out and debated\n..\nturning it on later, but decid,ed I had better not.\nI\nWarren: It wouldn't have served much use later.\nr\nCooper:\nThat was the 5th orbit.\nWarren:\nThe 6th and 7th were the ones missed.\nCooper:\nThe 6th one was where I was having the condensate difficulty.\nI don't\nknow why I missed the other one on the 9th orbit. . We weren't schedule to run one\non the 9tht\nBill: He had one at 9 hours and 4o minutes OX} the 7th orbit; then he had another\none on t he 8th, 11:15 to ·ll:25. ' And then you go into rest period after that.\nWarren:\nWe got that.\nBill: ~e went into rest period a:f'ter that.\nWarren:\nLate in the night, you turned the tape on continuous and it steyed on\n'\nthe rest of the flight.\nWas there any particular reason you could not have le:f't\n·the switch on?\nI\nCooper:\nYou mean the radiation?\nWe hadn't planned to do this because of power\n'\n~" }, { "n": 103, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p103.jpg", "text": "'\n' -\n, $cientj_fic Debriefing\n·-40-\nI •j\nI\n'\n!!\n;,d\n! d\n• I·\n·,~ fonserva.tion. It does ta.ke a certain amount of power.\n!{\nI.\n,I\nI\nI•\n~cKann: That decision was ·ma.de not to turn that on continuous: pecause it bad\nI\n·r s ever . been checked out for continuous operation because of somp difficul.ties that\npiight arise because of this.\n\\\n?\nI\n~heps.rd:\nThat seems to be a reasonable decision.\nl\nI.- '\n/\nI\nI Warren: That is all I had. '\nCooper:\nDid you get anything at all?\nWarren: Particul.a.rly on the 7th orbit we got some\ngood b:Lt of background. Thank you.\n)\nI\n1\ndate, that gave us quite a\n/\n/\n-\nI .\n• ' '" }, { "n": 104, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p104.jpg", "text": "I\n-41­\n;Scienti fic Debriefing\n(General Observations)\n,Pr• O'Keefe:\nI u.:c.dersta.nd the hissing noise was completely -negative. Can you\ni e sure it was not then'l\n<\nOoo:per:\nI didn't ever hear it at all. I had good fit~ing ear caps.\nDr. O'Keefe: Were you listening for it at the time'l\nCooper: Yes, except I had my visor closed and with ~he visor closed you can't\nhear too much.\nI\nDr. 0 'Keefe: At one p~_int a rumor circulated· in the public mess that you had\n......\nseen a meteor.\nCooper:\nThis was a false rumor.\nDr. 0 'Keefe: At one point you said you saw frost on the window. •\nI\nCooper:\nThis is _the mat_erial that turned out to be oil.\nPaul Lewan: Have you seen the terrain photos'? Have yo:u seen number 8, east\ncoast of Africa'? Does it look this blue'l\nCooper: Not quite\"' The film has fairly true'reproduction but in several cases it\nmight be a little more blue in film, than it actually is.\nPaul Lewan:\nHow ·apout the shots over Himalayas'?\nCooper:\nThey look fai~~y true to color.\nPaul Lewan: Where you're goo.ng over the ocean, could _you distinguish different\nshades of b1ue'l\nCooper:\nYes, over GBI, E1euthera and Buba and right down the whole island chain, •·\nyou could very definitely tell the shallower water areas~ You could see reefs\nand green water in some of the lagoons. Not real distinctive green as you might think,\n\\\nand you could se~ sand at about its normal color. If you are looking straight down\nIf you're looking\non things the color is more true than if you're looking at an angle.\n...\nat an angle, there is more of a bluish tint.\ni,.. . • ·;;\n'\n. ~ ." }, { "n": 105, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p105.jpg", "text": "I\n/I\nScienttfic Debriefing\n-42­\n'I\n~\ni!\n;J\nI'\n;1\nl?aul Lowman:\nWhen you were over the daep ocean could you see FY evidence of currents'\no.t the coast of Africa or the coast of South America.\nDid you/ see different colors?\ni4\nj\ngooper:\nThere was some slight difference in color.\n~\n'\nI couldn't determine a pattern\n;;\n~d couldn't determine what it was.· I thought it might be'wave patterns.\n'\\\nPaul Lowman:\nWere there different colors going over fores~ areas, over Africa?\nWere t here different shades of green?\nCooper:\nNot too many.\nThey looked to be a blue-green instead of a pure green.\nGreens didn't come through too well. They were somewhat diffused with this blue\ncolor.\nPaul Lowman:\nOver the Himalayas, shot number 12, was the green true?\nCooper:\nYes, fairly true.\nShepard : I think w~ should get weather records and corrilate the color with the\nmoisture content .\n/\nCooper:\nDid you get the list where I identified the pictures?\nPaul Lowman:\nComparing with these rocket photographs over in El·•,Paso· area, do\nyou recall looking there or to we~t over Arizona?\nCooper:\nI didn't. I noted I was over this area. It looked familar. I had the\nfeeling in looking out I was right over the Mexican Border. I don't recall just\nwhat gave me this f~eling.\nSoules: There is quite a bit of detail in IR photos.\nCooper: Just before that I noted the town of El Centro and the air base.\nI\nI\nnoted one little dry lake area east of there. I kept trying· to see Muroc Dry Lake\nand Rosemond up north but neve:c :did see those, but saq several dry lakes. I saw\none very clear. It was not a large one. It was about due east of Salton Sea\narea.\n(.\n~. -. Paul Lowman:\nCould you:,see Biggs Air Force Base.\nCooper:\nI didn't notice Biggs at all, in fact, I couldn't see the main part of\n...\n,." }, { "n": 106, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p106.jpg", "text": "I\nfcientific Debriefing\n-43­\nh\n1\n~\n'\\i\n~f he city: of El Pase,.\nI could see some little isolated civilized areas.\n'..,\npever did see the main part of city.\n,\ntfi: ;Paul Lowman:\nDid you see any distinct shadows from the terrai!n? Mountains?\nl\nt\n.\nCooper: • Yes.\nYou could see shadows of the m_ountains quite clearly. Even more\n/,\n\\\nI\nblearly than the mountains in the twilight were the shadows from clouds on ground.\nPaul Lowman:\nHow did the camera o_perate while taking pictures? Do you recall\nshaking the camera at any time?\nCooper:\nNo:\nI don't recall shaking the camera at all:\nPaul Lowman:\nThey all look pretty good; I just wanted to make sure. Is there\nany vibration in the capsule when you are taking pictures?\nCooper:\nNo.\nVery little. It is pretty smooth.\nPaul Lowman:\nDo yqu think if you had a cha.nee to sit down with those photographs,\nyou could give us an idea of the inclination to the vertical or horizontal? You\nsaid over the West you couldn't see Los Angeles or San Diego, do you remember\nhow far north you could see'l along the coast'l\nCooper:\nI could see three or four hundred miles on up north. There was a lot\nof cloud cover-a lot of stratus. You could see patterns where the ground caused\ndifference in cloud formation.\nPaul Lowman:\nHow about on the east coast?\nI\nCould you identify anything there'l\nCooper:\nI could see the Cape clearly on one pass e.nd ;the St. Johns river and\ncould see where it ,ca.me in the inlet at Jacksonville. Right to a.bout Savannah,\nGeorgia and clouds became broken and I could see banks of clouds lined on up\nto what I believe was the bulge of the Hatteras area and prehaps 150 _miles on\n•further. But clouds wer~ obscuring. I felt I could see quite clearly on up north\nto Hatteras and perhaps on up to the Washington area. My sight of this was when\nI made my turnaround. It looked just like a map. It was a great wide expanse of\n..." }, { "n": 107, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p107.jpg", "text": "I\n, ,cientific Debriefing\n-44­\n1\n'\n:!- ~\n.\n''.:, J\nj he Ear,t coast. But there was a quite a bit of clouds up north, broken clouds.\n\"'\n·t:\nfaul Low.man:\nWere there any up.usu.al terrain features?\nti'\n-gooper:\n- - - ­\n-~ k. O'Keefe: .Did you see anything that looked like a crater?\n!\nICooper:\nNo.\nI sure didn't. I was looking for it too.\nPaul Lowman:\nYou· went over one in Ghana, but I don't know if it ·was good or\nnot.\nCooper:\nOver Africa there was unasua.l rocky terrain up in the Atlas mountains.\nI didn' t see any craters.\nDr. Voas :\nDo you--could you see clouds and shore lines at night with no moon?\nCooper:\nFairly well. If there was no moon you could see them faintly.\nDr. Voas : Any other terrain features that you could see? At night with no ~oon?\nCooper: •No . Not much.\nYou could see the moonlight on the water.\nDr. O'Keefe: You mentioned these small particles.\nDo I understand correctly\nI\nthat they seemed to,be pushed outward from the capsule?\nCooper: If you consider this west and this east 8.lad the spacecraft is going east,\nregardless of spacecraft attitude, if any time I fired one of the thrusters at\nnight, I could see glow from almost every one of the thrusters. The pitch-down\nthruster I could see and the yaw I could see sh(?rtly after they got out of the\nnozzle. You get tremendous streams of luminous particles of fireflies, and\nregardless of what attitude you were in, ther appeared to come out from the\nspacecraft. A grea1; many could be seen for some period imd they seemed to go\nback along flight path.\n•Dr. Vo~s : Did they,actually appear to flow around? Would you say now that they were\nparallel ~ ~s they go back, they will appear ·optically to come together. But did\nthey act ually curve around as if there was a flow field.\nCooper:\nI felt they were actually moving around. Their relative movement was\n...\n,.\nI\nI\nI :tIr 'l\n't\n\\ l\n\\\n':\\-,\n~\n· t" }, { "n": 108, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p108.jpg", "text": "~\n$cientific Debriefing\n-45­\n~\ni\n~\nti\n1 t real rast·.\nI could see them move right on out. In a matter of 4 or 5 seconds\ni\\'O\ni they would be as far away as the other end of the room.\nSome you\nt,\n~t>uld see for maybe as long a.s 30 or 40 seconds.\n',;\n~estion:\nDo you mean back from you or back along the :t'light path7\n1\nC~oper:\nI mean back the actual flight path.\nI\nDr. Voas :\nWere these paths actually curved? You're of course familiar with the\nfact that .as things go backward they appear to converge .\nDid they actually seem\nto curve in?\nCooper: If I would be sitting facing this way, the ones out of the left yaw\nthruster would move right out and move directly back along the flight path;\nthe ones out of the .right one would go out in front of me and would turn back.\nJohn Boynton:\nDid you note any difficulty in identifying lunar features?\nCooper:\nI couldn't :9-istinguish anything on the moon. It seemed considerably\n'\n'\nbrighter. And seeme.d to have more light. I couldn't really distinguish anything.\nRoach:\nWould it be practicl.e to have binoculars aboard?\nCooper:\nI think it would.\nThe moon was much clearer than on the ground.\nHuch:\nCould you see the earth shine on the moon7\nCooper:\nThe moon w~s f'uller when it was settil:lg than at other times during the\nnight. I never realized that before just now.\nBut it seemed to be almost full\nwhen it was setting.,• But on the night side there was only a thir~ of the moon.\nHow about that now. , The moon was almost f'ully round when it was setting.\nI think\nthe :pict ures will show it.\nRoach:\nThat could be earth shine.\nCooper: That's right. It is a pale color, of course, in daylight.\nDr. Voas :\nDid it appear to you normal in brightness on the day side7\nCooper:\nYes, it was just a lightish blue color.\n--------------.----\n­\n••\n:\nI" }, { "n": 109, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p109.jpg", "text": "I\n\\\ninversi on.\nHanel:\nCooper:\nHanel:\n.;:lheparcl:\nthe smoke?\nCooper:\nwas bl~\nHanel:\nHanel:\nin polar\nCooper:\nan airplane.\n·clouds\nHanel:\npictures?\nCooper:\nthe\n\\fcient:lfic Debriefing\n-46­\n• f\n1 (\n.\n• I\n~\n, ·.;.\n•Aiuestion:\nCould you determine wind direction and velocity by SillOke?\nl\n~\n,.\n·~\nf\nI' ,,,.\nCooper:\nI could tell direction - over the Tibet·area the wind 1was from the south.\nI,,i I\n,I!\n1;,\n'\"\nI•\n'!J.,.·~uestion:\nDid you see industrial smoke?\n'i\nl,_ ~coper:\nI remember one fairly large area there was considerable haze and factory\n1\n~ype smoke winding up, but don't remember where it was. It seemed to be;1 like an\nYou did not see the motion of the clouds?\nNo I could not determine the motion ~f the clouds. Oh, you mean velocity\nby the way the smoke was moving.\nI mean the clouds were moving .\nYour first question was could he tellwind velocity and direction from\nI don't know whether I could judge velocity or not.\nI could tell the wind\nving fairly strongly, because the smoke appeared to c9me out of the smoke\nstacks flatly, it didn't drift up. But looking at the clouds, I could not tell\nwhich direction the wind was blowing.\nDid you have difficulty in seeing Cirrus clouds?\nAnother question.\nWe may have some trouble distinguishing snow from clouds\nregions. You had no difficulty in distinguishing snow from clouds?\nNo.\nI thought the snow was very very distinct. It is just like flying\nSometimes when the snow is very smooth and even, it is difficult\nto tellclouds from snow.\nYou can determine the cloud height if you have a good\nperspective of the cloud height. You can tell vhether the clouds are low or medium\nor very high clouds.\nYou never took two pictures of the same a~ea?\nThat is, two overlapping\n'·.\nYes, I think I ~id over the Himalayas.\nI have two pictures of almost\nsame area of .the Tibetan High Lake area.\n­\n----.--­\n. ~r\nI\n.·\n.\n. .\n···.\n•." }, { "n": 110, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p110.jpg", "text": "I\n\" tcientific Debriefing\n-47­\nYes, th~y do overlap. - They are pretty badly tilted/but they do\n;. I\n; . /' '\n'\n\"\nJanel:\nDid you have difficulty in seeing Cirrus clouds? Co~d you estimate how\n~\\,wuch of the surface was covered with Cirrus?\n~\nqooper: Surprising little of surface was covered with Cirrus clouds. I would\nguess nbout half. There were some areas where clouds were fairly extensive.\nCirrus were biggest portion, about 75% of all -clouds were Cirrus.\nQuestion: · Did you see any dust storms?\nCooper:\nAt no time· did I note a dust storm. ' I looked fpr them over Africa. One\nplace I thought I might ·find them was over Arabia, but I saw no dust at all.\nJohn Boynton:\nYou .mentioned that particles of dust or water were attracted to,t\nthe wiI1dow.\nWas this rapid or gradual?\nCooper:\nVery gradual. Numberous little dust particles, a little water and little\ncrumbs.\nThe larger objects didn't seem to be attracted. They just moved slowly •\ni\nabout. There was less motion after we powered down cabin fan. • Various pieces of\ndust or crumbs off of sandwiches I had eaten.\nJohn Boynton: · Did you note they might have been attracted .to other areas?\nCooper:\nI didn't note any particular pattern. I did note the sun was very very hot\nthrough the . window. . The particular pattern of the sun would be hot on my suit.\nI\nwould feel heat through m.y glove when I touched the window.\n...\n.- ..\n,." }, { "n": 111, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p111.jpg", "text": "J\n'• '\n•\nsrientific Debriefing\n-48­\n1\n1\n··Pf. Voao: • You seemed to have the general impression that you w~re stationary\n.~\n8:fld everything else is moving.\n~\nCpoper: That's right. You sort of become the center of everytijing, and you think\nt\nhpw you can move the earth around, 'When you want it, rather than move yourself.\nDr.\nI\nVoao:\nNow, as you sat there with this moving picture in front of you, did you\n\\\nhave the general feeling you were sitting upright or flying on your back?\nCooper:\nI did very distinctly feel I was sitting upright. A couple of times\non account of the way you fee_l in the straps like hanging upside down.\nEvery\nti.me I dropped something, I grabbed at it below.\nI never had trouble handling\npencil. I never had any trouble putting it where I wanted or getting it. One\nti.me I made a wild grab for the · camera as I thought it was going to fall, but of\ncourse it didn't.\nDr. Voas:\nOn periods af'ter you awakened, did you__ have· ·reeling you had gone to\nsleep sitting upright?\nCooper:\nYes.\nDefinitely.\nDr. Voao:\nYou mentioned sometimes you had the feeling of being upside down.\nWas\nthis correlated with the spacecraf't being inverted? Visually, I mean.\nI\nCooper:\nNo.\nI think this was purely a feeling of the straps. You're floating\nin the straps rather than being firm; like inverted flight in an aircraf't.\nVoas:\nDid you have ~,general feeling of being stationary? This general feeling\nof being stationary was not changed by any control action?\nCooper:\nI tried to give them some pretty good rates, but bad no feel for rates at all.\nCooper: Vision-wise, you would see things changing ou then pretty fast, but it\nwasn't bothersome at all.\nDr. Voas:\nWhen you say \"pretty good rates,\" this is 2 to 3 degrees per second?\nCooper:\nThree, four or five degrees.\n' '\n. . ·.\n... ........" }, { "n": 112, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p112.jpg", "text": "Scienti fic Debriefing\n-49­\n(i\nhr . Voi~s: At retro fire, did you note feelings of lateral motion?\n11 r\n, pooper:\nOn the third one, it gave me pretty good little boot in yaw.\nt\nI F\n' il)r. Vons:\nThis is distinguished from what you could see lookiig out?\nAs I .,\nI\n:understand it, you felt the retro rockets but they didn't change your imprilssion\nthat you were sitting stationary?\nCooper: All I did was feel them and I still had the feeling I was moving right along.\nDr. Vons:\nDid you feel you were moving backwards?\nCooper : I ~\nmoving backWards in retro attitude, then you get quite a motion as\nI stated over the earth.\nQuestion:\nDid you have any sensations of change in attitude _between perigee and\napogee, perhaps as a result of the amount of curvature you could see in the earth's\nsurface?\nCooper: No, I couldn't see any noticeable change in that. What was more distinct\nwas whether you had haze or were in a clear area.\nLou Fir.her:\nWe identified one of your pictures taken vertical off Calcutta.\nCooper:\nDid you note the one before that over the Rangoon area, with the little\nthings out over the river; they look like warehouses or something?\nFisher:\nDid you see,Calcutta?\nI\nCooper:\nNo.\nFisher:\nDid you see any airports?\nCooper: Ye~, I saw numerous airports. The runway patterns show up very distinctly.\n....\n' I\n------~--...---------:..,.----~-' .',. '\n',q\n... .......,. ­" }, { "n": 113, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p113.jpg", "text": "•\nI\n·iscienti fic Debriefing\n-50­\n·~\ni_i ,Boynton:\nDid you find that later in the flight audio inputs became more startling\n'\n•/\nior more distinct'Z\nDid they seem to be more profound'Z\n..,~\n:. ,;\n:Cooper:\nLater in flight, I began to' notice the relay panel wiping.back and forth\n..\n/whereas I hadn't noticed it before. The music sounded pretty good. If I'd had\n\\a radio on board, I could have used it.\nJohn Boynton:\nDid you find you might look forward to hearing collllllunications, say\nmore so than in the· first of the fligbt'Z\nCooper:\nNo.\nNot that I noted.\nJohn B.: Could you hear better?\nCooper :\nNo.\n\\\nDr. voas:\nDid you at any time hear an unusual noise?\nI\nCooper:\nNo.\nRoach:\nWas there any change of radio static in electrical storms'Z\nIn connection\nwith t he ·problem of radio\n' static, there is a phenomenon of static going to and\nfro between the hemis:pheres, wen it returns it comes back as a ,wistle •\nD~d you\never hear a wistle'Z\nCooper:\nNo, I didn't.\nNote:\nSome questio~s were then raised concerning the appearance of the horizon\n•\nI\nat sunrise and sunset. Cooper stated that the horizon near the sun was a golden .\ncolor at sunset, spreading away from the sun.\nHe stated:\n\"The real dom_inant thing ,\nis that it is gold as it •is setting and it is real blue as it s~arts to come up.\n11\n1\nHe stated again tha~ he saw the Zodiacal light both night and morning. It was· a .\nvery low order magn,itude light, about the s~e at sunrise and at sunset. He '\nestimated its elongation to be ~bout 15 degrees.\n....\n,\nI\n-------. ___ __,__ .. _\n' •" }, { "n": 114, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p114.jpg", "text": "SCIENTIFIC DEBRIEFING OF LT. CMDR.\nWALTER SCHIRRA\nHELD AT NASA HEADQUARTERS, TUESDAY\nMARCH 12, 1963" }, { "n": 115, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p115.jpg", "text": "-\nFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY\n15 November 1963\nIn Reply Refer to:\nSM(JRG:neml_\n1EMORANDUM FOR:\nAll Participants\nFROM :\nJ. R. Gill\nSUBJECT:\nScientific Debriefing of Lt.\nWalter Schirra, held at NASA\nCmdr.\n,\nHeadquarters, 1arch 12, 1963\nThis document is a literal transcription of the\nsubject de-briefing made from the tape recording.\nIt is issued to participants only for their\ncomments · and/or re~ommended deletbn.\nDeadline\nfor receipt of this is December 20, 1963.\nAfter\nthat time\nan edited version may be prepared for\nwider distribution.\n~\nQ:~\ngocel~n R. Gi ll\nEnclosure\nFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" }, { "n": 116, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p116.jpg", "text": "p 1 &2\nDro Eugene M. Shoemaker, Chairman~· Manned· Space Science\nWorking Group served as Chairman, substituting for Dr. John Clark,\nChief Scientisto\nThe following people were present:\nMro Carl Abraham, NASA Headquarters\nMr~ Richard Daniels, NASA Headquarters\nOro Winifred Cameron, Goddard .Space Flight Center\nMr. Maurice Dubin, NASA Headquarters\nMr. Larry Dunkelman, Goddard Space Flight Center\nDr. Jocelyn Ro Gill, NASA Headquarters\nOro Dale Jenkins, NASA Headquarters·\nDr. Urner Liddel, NASA H~adquarters\nMr. Oran Nicks, NASA Headquarters\nOro John Nordberg, Goddard Space Flight Center\nOro John O'Keefe, Goddard Space Flight Center\nCmdr. Walter Schirra, Manned Spacecraft Center\nMr. George Tennyson, Goddard Space Flight Center\nOro Eugene M, Shoemaker, NASA Headquarters\nDr. Shoemaker - I have a series of written questions to start\nthings off.\nThese have been submitted by some of the _people here\ntoday and we may then ask for some supplementary questions from\nthe rest of the people this morning.\nWe might start off with\nthe question on airglowo\nWill you give us · an account of\nMercury's passage through the airglow layers?\nHow did you identify\nthe planet Mercury?\nDid it seem to have color?\nWere there any\nstars nearby?\nCmdr. Schirra - I think Larry Dunkelman and I discussed this at" }, { "n": 117, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p117.jpg", "text": "3\ngreat length and I don't know whether we could be any more\nexpansive on that subject than we have already.\nThe only\nthing that I can think of that we didn't talk about is an\nef fective color of the planet 1ercury.\nIt was as white to\nme as any other ·star.\nIt was not blue, red or some other color.\nIt was definitely \"star-appearing\" to me.\nIt would have a\ndefinite atmosphere where it would change colors and where it\ndi dn't have · any ·atmosphere, it didn't change colors.\nI would\nsay that from that it had no different appearance than if I could\nsee it from the earth as a star.\n1ercury itself was plotted on my\nstar chart; which is · a very valuable tool for these flights.\nThere\nis just no doubt where Mercury has to be and we checked on it and,\nof course; it was Mercury.\nI think Larry · called me one day and we\nall were · surprised that I saw Mercury longer than I shouid have seen\nit and I guess this was explained by its being · seen ·through the\nrefraction ·of the · atmosphere.\nIs this ~orrect?\nDr. O' Keefe · - Yes, that's the answer.\nMrs. Cameron is the one who\nmade the contribution.\nThis is her theory.\nSchirra - This ·was a tremendous yardstick -as far as I was concerned .\nIt was so obvious to ·me that I just had to take the time · to descr ibe\nits passage through the various layers of light and the way I\ndescri bed · it · in the handouts \"Results of -Third U. S.\nfanned\nOrbital ·Space ' Flight; October -3, 1962\" that you have is about\nas accurate · as I can · describe it now .\nDr . Gill - Could you· make a little drawing on ·the blackboard for us ?" }, { "n": 118, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p118.jpg", "text": "•\n4\nSchirra - Again, Larry, do you have that?\n(Referring to drawing\nprepared by W. Cameron and L. Dunkelman)\nMr . · Dun-ke Iman -\nWe have.\nSchirra -\nWe sat down for about an hour and traced this very\ncarefully.\nMr . Dunkelman - It happens that the movement of Mercury behind\nour atmosphere is really not phenomenally related to airglow as\nsuch .\nMercury is simply a pointer - an index finger.\nIt gave us\na chance to see what parts of the upper atmosphere you were looking\nat and this has more to do with ozone and atmospheric constituents\nthan it has to do with airglow.\nWe think the answer here lies in\nthe fact that the ozone is absorbing the orange, yellow, and green\nlight and leaves this interesting blue which is an ozone blue\nrather than a Rayleigh blue and we think the reason why Astronaut\nSchirra saw the several shades of blue is he may have been looking\nedge - on at the ozone layer.\nSo it is really not so much related to\nairglow as it is to the way of looking at what produces the color.\nI think we are interested in finding out what causes the phenomenon,\nrather than to attempting to learn anything new about the atmos­\nphere .\n•\nSchirra - I think one of the reasons that· I was so enthused about\ntracking Mercury through these colors is that I am a fan of blue\ncolors .\nI grew up with a Maxfield Parish painting; if anybody\nknows his colors of blues - they are fantastic.\nGold blues,\nelectric blues .\nAs a result, these caught my attention.\nI am" }, { "n": 119, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p119.jpg", "text": "•\n5\nnot that much of an artist or poet, but I was trapped with this\nset of blues and I did expand on it at greath length, I thought.\nThese electric blues ­\nO' Keefe - (Interrupting) Subtraction is what it sounds like.\nSchirra - So it connotes ozone in that sense - electric blue ­\nis exactly what it looked like,\nA very, very satisfying color.\nDr . Roman - Coming back to the color of Mercury, do I gather from\nyour comment that you feel it was distinctly yellow, yellowish\nf or example, or was it that you didn't pay a great deal of\nattention to?\nSchirra - No, Nancy, I would say it is very much like any other\nstar that · I would see, rather than having a color.\nI didn't\ndetect a color.\nDr. Roman - Astronomers think of stars as having color,\nSchirra - I have seen different-colored stars from earth-bound\nenvironment and anticipated or, in fact,I was looking for different\ncolored stars or planets and did not detect any colors.\nRoman - This means that your background was just a little too\nbright to see colors.\nSchirra - That, and the window itself just isn't an optimum plate ­\nseries of plates - to look thro~gh.\nI insisted that what I really\nfelt had happeried is that I was seeing no more than about 5th or 6th\nmagni t ude stars · that the clouding of the· windows, as a result of\nthe escaped rocket, reduced my visibility of the stars about one\nmagnitude.\nIn other words there wasn't gross clouding of the win ­\ndow .\nThat is what I was trying to make clear by using magnitude of\nstars as the yardstick in this case. I'll stick with that.\nThis" }, { "n": 120, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p120.jpg", "text": "•\n6\nis about the best way I can describe it.\nI could see more stars,\nas Scott Carpenter described it, when back on th~ surface of the\nearth and many, many more stars in an airplane cockpit than in\nor bital flight.\nRoman - You could see more in an airplane?\nSchi rra - Yes.\nSo in the debriefing of the flight I stated that\nthis is not a problem for pursuit of Mercury flights.\nIt is a\npr ob lem for pursuit of space observation and with the Gemini\nvehic le, we have so1v~d th i s by having the windows properly\ncovered and also we hope so - well, Gemini doesn't have an escape\nr ocket for one, which helps us,\nNow on Apollo, we are plus or\nminus on whether we can afford the weight of having window\ncove r s, but if we do, it does have an escape rocket.\nIf we have\ncovers, then these windows should be protected.\nAnd better, be­\ncause we will need the stars on this particular mission.\nBut to go\nback and try to cover the Mercury window at this late date would\nbe pr ohibitive hardware-wise and schedule -wise.\nO' Keefe = What would you cover it with?\nSchi r ra - First of all\nfor Gemini, we have no problem.\nThere is\nno tower · rocket .\nWith Apollo they had window shutters the last\ntime I saw the mock - up which is not at all static. It is quite\ndynamic even though it hasn't flown.\nHow this will be done I\ndon ' t know, but I think this is a requirement.\nI don ' t even think\nit; I know it is a requirement for Apollo.\nO'Keefe - You don ' t think there is a possibility of putting a thin ­\nsay, some transparent grease over the window - which would come" }, { "n": 121, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p121.jpg", "text": "•\n7\noff in the vacuum?\nSchirra· - This might be a way of doing it.\nHaving it sublime\naway or something of this order.\nO'Keefe -\nThat could be done.\nIf that were done ...\nSchirra - I definitely feel that th~s should not be a neglected\nproblem; if we, for example, do remove the window cover from the\nApollo command module.\nIt definitely should have some type of\nprotection when the star rocket goes.\nThis is going to be a\nby-product of its own combustion, it won't leave marks on the\nwindow.\nI saw marks on mine as weli as a clouded effect and I\nfeel so strongly about this~- When I had the sun at oblique\nangles shallow to the window I could see this film much as you\ndescribe it.\nSmokers in the gr~up will appreciate this.\nOn the\ninside of an· automobile window, you can see the smoke condensa­\ntion on there which you very rarely get washed off until you wash\nthe car yourself .\nYou see this when you have light at very\noblique angles across this window.\nThis is about the same type of\nintensity - it is not enough to restrict your vision although it\ndoes affect it at night.\nThis is exactly why I make the point.\nI think · that is about the easiest analogy I can make for you.\nDr. Nordberg - You say this was on the Mercury window after the\nexhaust.\nSchirra - Yes sir, this is the result of this exhaust gas bathing\nthis window as the rocket lit and left almost instantaneously, but\nthe gas does form over it." }, { "n": 122, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p122.jpg", "text": "8\nNordberg - Could you, were you able to observe, during the orbital\nflight any decrease in the film on the window.\nIt may have evaporated\naway , or did it just stay?\nSchirra - I was hoping to see that and I did not observe a decrease o\nThis surprised me too.\nI would anticipate that that gas would sub ­\nlime awayo\nI suspect that the vehicle itself • ,. we are getting\ninto the fireflies again - but the vehicle itself is surrounded by\nan environmento\nWe have the same problem when we try to run a\ncapsule or· spacecraft in an altitude chamber.\nIt is outgassing\nthe water cooler systems and other components even in a man­\ncreated vacuum .and as a result we can't maintain this vacuum\nbecause it is creating an environment all the time.\nI think this\nis what we have done in the Mercury spacecraft with the by­\nproduct hydrbgen peroxide gas and the water coolers antl this is\nwhere I feel our firefly, frost particles come from.\nOid you\nnotice ~b~the ·~ay- getting into that, - that the particles were\nobserved almost immediately after I w·as •in orbit? -\nI said, \"I\nsee frost flakes.\"\nMr. Dubin -~You were in sunlight at that time too •. ..\nSchirra - That's correct.\nThis is my only definition of the\ndifference in the way the sunlight itself gets to where I waso\nMeaning that at sunrise it goes through a lot of atmosphere,\nand as I get into sun above my horizon, I have no atmosphere;\nso then its white again.\nNordberg - This deposit is of great interest to us .\nThat is" }, { "n": 123, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p123.jpg", "text": "9\nwhy I asked the question because we observed this on Tiros tooo\nOne of the two cameras was just completely clouded for a few\nhundred· orbits and then gradually after a few hundred orbits it\nimproved a little bit o\nSchirra - I need a little more flight time:\nI ' m all for ito\nNordberg - We eliminated this by putting a sheet over it in\nthird stage and since then we have never had any troubleo\nSchirra - Sure p that's ito\nI am sure this is something we\ncan't let rest o We've got to cover these windows to protect\nthem from clouding during the transition to where we are now\nto space itselL\nDubin - Do you ever detect any gas around the vehicle?\nIn sun­\nlight due to shadowing of the vehicleo\nSchirra - No, I looked for thato\nThe only vestige of something\n.•\naround me were these particles as we have described them.\nO'Keefe - Well, it is very helpful to know that they were seen\nthroughout the dayo\nSchirra - Yes, I think really what it depended on was how much\nsunlight I had coming through the window.\nIf it was really\nbright within the vehicle, I didn't see them as wello\nIf I got\nan off- angle where the sun was fairly shallow in relation to my\nwindowp I could then see these particles; of course, up until my\nloca l noonp I did not see them anyway.\n-O'~Keef·e - About this problem of condensation and the local environ­\nment you are speaking of, I think that someone investigated that at\nthe Manned Spacecraft Center .\nIt is quite true that with an outflow" }, { "n": 124, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p124.jpg", "text": "10\nof gas like that the ambient pressure - the general ambient\npressure - is quite different from the pressure right around\nyour vehicle o\nI still wonder whether you can get the pressure\nup around the vehicle for the level where condensation takes\nplace\"\nI have been trying to persuade some people that the\ncondensation takes place before it leaves these ports of course\nas it spreads out in space \"\nThe pressure is certainly much higher\naround the bottom of the heat shield, but I do not know whether\nthat is right or not\"\nShoemaker -\nDo we have any more questions on the airglow?\nThey are very usefulo\nDr o Liddel - We have two problems here o\nOne is the pressure and the\nother is the rate of evaporation \"\nO'Keefe - That's trueo Once formed, they may not sublime out.\nQuestion is how were they formed.\nSchirra - I think there is one thing that we might bring into this\nbefore we leave it unless there is a separate question on it o\nThe green- yellow~ almost a chartreuse, coloring of these particles,\nI feel, did not permit you to see the edges of the particles as\nwell as they appeared when they were in the white band in the\nsense of looking like frost particles o So they looked more like\nblobs and· this is typical of fireflies themselves \"\nYou can ' t defi ne\nthe size of the blob you see as green- yellow ~ but if you see a snow­\nflake, which is white, you can very easily see its edges in a sense .\nNot that you focus on them but you can visualize that they have\nedges .\nThis is a point that I don't think I have made in the past," }, { "n": 125, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p125.jpg", "text": "., '\n\\':\n. ·,,\n11\nbut · I think this is basically why we refer to the white particles\nas · frost because it does remind us of this.\nThis is what probably\ntempts · me• to say that it has to be watero\nCameron -\nDo you think the chartreuse ones were maybe the ones that\nGlenn· thought actually glowed, didnvt he?\nThey were lighted\nwrong.\nSchirra· - I think - well this gets back· to my opinion and I\nsaw myself on film yesterday at the press conference talking\nabout it and said that I guess we need some more opinions but we\nha~three opinions now and basically I put two together and made\nmy · own, but the green I feel is strictly the case of the sunlight\ngoing through this tremendou~ amount of atmosphere at sunriseo\nWhat is left · as a light spectrum is this green -yellow on these\nparticles.\nYou can all explain this better than· I can, I am sure ,\nbut what gets through all this atmosphere would probab1y be this\ngreen- yellow.\nI think that in a sense they are not self-illumi ­\nnated· but they reflect as if they were self-illuminated.\nO'Keefe - Well, if you pass sunlight through a 1:hick layer of\natmosphere then, of course, what you will get will be a red - a\ndeep red - however, that doesn't necessarily. prove that you are\nwrong in what you are saying because the things would be illuminated\nin two ways .\nThey would be illuminated not only by the direct\nsunlight~ but also by the scattered· light around the horizon\nwhich· you have photographed at sunrise and the combination of these\ntwo colors might give you a chartreuse as you have said because it\nis a double · illumination.\nHowever, there is another possible" }, { "n": 126, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p126.jpg", "text": "12\nexplanation.\nIf it is really true that this chartreuse color\nonly turns up only at suprise, we may be with the explanation\nthat · Herzfeldllput forward for it.\nSchirra - This is the nitrogen effect?\nO'Keefe - Yes.\nSchirra - I would like to stamp that one out.\nWe ~an't afford to\nhave · nitrogen outgas in the vehicle.\n(Laughter) The only nitrogen\nwhich we have stored aboard is that which pressurizes the hydrogen\nperoxide system.\nIf we lose any of that, this is almost fatal.\nO'Keefe - Well, there is plenty of nitrogen in the atmosphere at\nthat level~ · Still -\nSchirra· - You mean in the external atmosphere?\nO'Keefe - Yes.\nAmbient atmosphere.\nSchirra - Fair enoug~.\nWell then, that paper - I was left with\nthe impression· that the nitrogen came from the vehicle itself.\nO'Keefe· - I am sure that it didn't cross Herzfeld's mind.\nDubin - There's also nitrogen ...\nSchirra - Well, it read that way to me.\nI should say that I am\nvery conscious of what nitrogen does for me within the vehicle!\n(Laughter)\nThis is basically my control field.\nDubin - I was going to say there is also nitrogen absorbed in met als ..\nSchirra - The gaseous content of the vehicle is very carefully\nmeasured prior to sealing up the vehicle for lift off.\nIt is\npurged and we go up to about 97 or 98 percent oxygen.\nObviously,\nthere is not much left in the cabin, you can't get it all out because\n!/ Abstract published in Voll 136, #3522, p. 1121, July 29, 1962 of\nScience by Charles Herzfe d." }, { "n": 127, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p127.jpg", "text": "13\nyou just can't purge particles in the interior in that these are\nangles and trap volume~, but I would suspect that we had a very\nlow order of nitrogen gas within the vehicle that could come out.\nNow it can come out if the vehicle's leak rate - in the vehicle is\nexcessive - and in this one it was somewhat less than 600 cc.\nI think it was about 500 -\nDunkelman - 588.\nRoman - I think your suggestion, Larry, was that it would be on\nthe outside of the vehicle.\nSchirra - That I hadn't had a feeling for and I suspect this is\nthe only way you could get it in contrast to getting it from\nwithin.\nSo I won't argue this point.\nI am well aw~re of the\nfact that it could be adsorbed and then passed off in this\nenvironment.\nRoman - John, (to Dr. O'Keefe) is it obvious that sunlight coming\nthrough, in the upper atmosphere would be red if you are above\nthe dust layer?\nQJKeefe - Well, when you look at the sun in th~ photographs\nwhich were taken, it looks red.\nRoman - · I see.\nSchirra - The sunset is red.\nSame old sun that we see here.\nO'Keefe - Yes, but what you 1 d see on either side of it - flanking\nit - is Maxfield Parish cloud, at least in the color photographs.\nI think this is what Maxfield Parish went in for particularly.\nHe went in for very powerful colors - subtraction colors.\nTurquo i se ­\nrather than the pastels, rather than colors of the spectrum." }, { "n": 128, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p128.jpg", "text": "14\nShoemaker - Any other items on airglow we should take up?\nSchirra - We will bring up this other thing I $aw - I guess?\nShoemaker - The cloud (bright area) you saw over Madagascar?\nSchirra - Yes.\nDubin - I was wondering on these various effects on the horizon.\n. .\nYou' make some statements about the blue horizon~-the different\ncolors.\nSchirra - What time is this?\nDubin - This is at 06 44 GMT (See blue book, p. 104).\n(Now\nReport · of, Third U. S, Manned Orbital Flight.)\nSchirra ~ This was the beiinning to what Mrs. Cameron has a sketch\nof, I believe. .. ,\nCameron - Actually you give two· descriptions here.\nI believe\nthey conflict ,\nI assume that one is an expansion of a part of\nthe other.\nSchirra - It is, and as you can see_, it's a time span here where\nit obviously is changing as the sun is setting as well.\nNot\nmuch in time, but my time was pretty fast in relation to sun ­\nsets, I guess.\nDubin - Question is what the heck did you really see?\nSchirra - Maybe if I just read it back myself, I can expand\non i t. I'll read it out loud.\nHow's that?\nI guess we can\npick up right at 0604 33 and I say there is a nice interesting\nhori zon, which rne~nt that I was captured by it.\nThe sun was\noff to the left and I would say about 40 degrees.\nThis just" }, { "n": 129, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p129.jpg", "text": "15\nmeant that it was off to the left of my yaw angle - I was in\nflight path in yaw at this instant of time - which means you\ncould determine where the vehicle was oriented and then also\nget the sun-line in relation to the window.\nCameron - Incidentally, the sun must have been very close to\nsetting at that time, wasn't it?\nSchirra - It was setting, in fact.\nThis is where I went on.\nThere is a dark line at the surface of the earth, orange at\nthe clouds.\nNow there was a cloud horizon, as well, that I\ncould see.\nThen a light yellow, a light white, and then a\nblue band.\nThis was coming from the surface of the earth\ngoing up.\nA very light blue and then I got all excited and\nsaid that I had the planet Mercury in sight at this point.\nMercury obviously was in the black.\nIt had not come down\ninto the Mercury set.\nIf you want to describe it in the sense\nof sunset, Mercury set.\nI think it deserves the term of having\nthe opportunity to set as well.\nI was coming up from the surface\nof the earth towards the darkness of space and then I detected\nMercury where it belonged, trailing the sun.\nDubin - Well!\nThe sun was off to your left about 40 degrees.\nSchirra -\nAs well as Mercury,\nDubin - In the same direction?\nSchirra - It was trailing almost a~cive the sun in this sense.\nWhich is where I had it plotted on the star chart.\nThen I\nwanted to describe the blue band and I said that there is a" }, { "n": 130, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p130.jpg", "text": "16\nrelatively dark blue band right at the surface of the earth.\nOf course, the orange and light yellow was changing at this\npoint and I then came into seeing this dark blue bando\nIn\nother words, I had lost the orange cloud effect just above the\nsurface of the clouds.\nThis was the same kind of red-orange\nwe typically see through the atmosphere on the surface of the\nearth which is, of course, the atmosphere.\nI realize this cuts\nout most everything but reds and yellow~orange.\nBut the light\nyellow wasn't at all unusual either; I had seen this in many\nsunsets.\nThe sun had set.\nI wanted to describe this blue band.\nI realized I had gone through some 34 seconds.\nWhen I say\ndescribing the blue band, it is some 30 seconds later.\nTook me,\nsay, 4 seconds to say that.\nRelatively dark blue banq right at\nthe surface of the earth and a light blue band meaning a next\nband above it; another dark blue band, a large white band which\nis the airglow o This is the way I felt it should be.\nI have\nnot made a careful study prior to the time of the various layers\non the earth or above the eartho\nThen a deep black one and it\nsort of goes from a grayish blue· to a dense black, almost looks\nlike the underneath surfac~ of a summer cumulo-nimbus effect,\nwhere you have a nice bright earth and then you go into this\nblack cloud and then there is this roll cloud that precedes a\nthunder storm and it's a very, very choppy underneath surface.\nIt looks very turbulent, to you.\nThis surprised me.\nexpected to see another sharp line and I did not.\nThis is what\nI" }, { "n": 131, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p131.jpg", "text": "17\nI was referring to here as the transition from the last blue\nband I could see to the total darkness of spaceo\nI gaess this\nis the only way I can describe thato\nThis was a surprise to me\nto see thisp really o\n0 °Keefe = Well, it is astonishing, isn't it?\nSchirra - Yes, it iso\nI expected to see a nice, sharply delin ­\neated arcp and this was not the case by any means.\nO' Keefe - Whatever it was, it was turbulence?\nSchirra = Yes, this is the way I would describe it. It has\nto be or the light in a sense made it look turbulent.\nI\nthink you have all seen the base of a thunderstorm as it comes\ntowards you and the light starts diminishing rapidly as you get\na thunderstorm o Just because it is so thick and almost opaque\nin contrast to sunlight that can get througho\nThen we see this\nvortex effect underneath it and this is very much the way I\nwould describe it myselfo\nThis was the transition from visible\nto no light o\nNo sharp lineo\nI think you probably have it\nfairly well sketched right thereo\nDubin = Have you seen the sketches?\n(Mrso Cameron's sketches\nof colored bands around the horizono)\nSchi rra - No, I haven'to\nO' Keefe = Why don ut you take them around there, Mrs. Cameron\n0\n0\n0\nso we can get additions and corrections (to the drawings).\n(Schirra and Cameron looking at the drawings)\nCameron = This is your first description (drawing shown to\nSchirra) oo o\nThis is the second descriptiono ooo" }, { "n": 132, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p132.jpg", "text": "18\nSchirra - Yeso\nNow as we progressed in time to the second\ndrawing, the sun has now really set and the reds and yellows\n(in the drawing)\nare fine ooo now just getting the afterlight\nooo that 9 s the ragged effect I saw o ooo\nSchirra - This isn 1 t as thick as that grey to black band\nas I saw it o\nWe are stuck with a small circle (radius of\ncurvature used in the drawing) and I had a big circle.\nDubi n - Okayp could you re - draw it on the board the way you\nsaw it?\nSchirra - Al l it is is a straight line with a slight curvature\nto it o\nI had a broad angle of view, but the whole thing is\nflattened out o\nI don 9 t see that much curvature at allo\nO' Keefe - (to Mrso Cameron)\nPut in that remark about this\nband is too narrow?\nSchirra - This is too wideo (indicating drawing)\nIt would be\nthe grey to black (band)o\nShoemaker - It faded out more rapidly in proportion to the\nwhite band?\nSchirra - It was definitely not something you would like to\nmake with a compass o\nCameron - Narrower and wider ooo I tried to indicate that, but\nas to scalep I didn ' t ooo I was just trying\n0\n0\n0\n0 8 Keefe -\nWe made a first try at it ooo\nSchirra -\n(Reading in the Blue Book) \"I will bring up the\nfingertip light o\"\nThis will clue you o This will make it" }, { "n": 133, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p133.jpg", "text": "19\nclear to you that the internal lighting was off inside the\nvehicle.\nI don't know why I didn't bring that point out.\nThis reminds me that it was dark and it was 0605 52.\nI had\nto see what time it wasa\nWe had this counter clock as you\nknow, and to see the numerals I had to bring my fingertip\nlights up to see them.\nIt was quite dark within the vehicle\nand this is quite an advantage to this observation.\nThen I\nsay that Mercury is on the horizon and this meant that it was\njust coming down through what I described going up, if you can\nfollow my directions here.\nThis is where Mercury was as the\npointer or index as it passed through these layers.\nNow· again,\nwe proceeded through time so that light patterns will change\nand that's why these descriptions do conflict as we progress\non in time.\nI think this might explain why.\nAs I come back\nthrough with Mercury now setting these same light bands are\nnot the identical ones that I described previously and I used\nthe word \"airglow\" and even the way it came out in the tape\nI said see the Mercury going through the - and I was searching\nfor a term and so I just said \"airglow\" just so I wouldn't\nhave to get into a big discussion about what I was going to\nreport on.\nActually, I could have said through the -- I was\nsearching for a term -- but this \"airglow\" I was using simply\nas a term to describe what I was looking at.\nI could have said\nthrough the lighted horizon.\nO'Keefe - Twilight layer is probably a better way to say it." }, { "n": 134, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p134.jpg", "text": "20\nSchirra - Very good, a better way of saying it.\nO'Keefe - \"Airglow\" is a very complicated term.\nWe don't know\nwhat it is all about.\nThat's what we are after. ...\nSchirra - In fact, on occasion I have used airglow through\nhere just out of ignorance.\nI think what we all are trying\nto do right here is to try and clear up some of this ignorance;\nso we need more data, of course.\nThen,I say (reading from the\nBlue Book again) \"We'll see if she holds up,\" meaning, can I\ntrack Mercury through all this?\nThat was interesting in\nitself, that I could, I thought.\nO'Keefe - This was quite important.\nThis was one of the\nquestions raised by Glenn on his flight whether some layers\nare opaque or not.\nSchirra - I could track Mercury through all of these points\nor layers.\nNicks - Does it change its apparent size like the sun when it\nsets?\nSchirra ~ I don't recall having observed this.\nRoman - Did you see any additional stars ... the fact that it\nhas a finite disk (Mercury)?\nSchirra - No, again the window cuts out the fun of that, I\nthink.\nO'Keefe - No, you wouldn't see a disk ....\nSchirra - It would have been great to have had some magnifying\ndevice at this point to make this observation.\nNo, it just looked" }, { "n": 135, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p135.jpg", "text": "21\nlike a star.\nO'Kcefe - I think when Nicks asked if the sun changed in\nsize, he really - the sun qoesn't change in size as it setso\nHe meant change in brightnesso\nSchirra ~ Apparent size - not the size, but the illusion at\nleast .\nI've got to break off a second here.\nI don't recall\nseeing many moon sets on earth~\nHave any of you ever seen a\ngood moon set?\nRoman - Yes.\nSchi rra - You have to be on the West Coast to do it; but, of\ncourse, I saw a moon set on this flight and that is why I\nbrought it up.\nTo me, it was the first real good moon set\nI had seen q\n(Laughter)\nO' Keefe - There is a good solid reason for that.\nThat is\nt hat a full moon will set at sunrise.\nNot many people are\nup at that time.\nSchirra - I hope you have had a· chance to see the photographs\nI took of this moon set.\nGill - . No .\nSchirra - There are two black and white sets of these.\nThe\noriginal prints were very good.\nI understand there is a lot\nof halat i on around this .\nI definitely think you all should\nget these out and examine them.\nNow the subsequent prints\nwere not very good.\nThey were too fuzzy .\nGill - Who would have them?" }, { "n": 136, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p136.jpg", "text": "22\nSchirra - Paul Backer could trace them down at least.\nHe was the film-handler.\nHe could chase them down.\nO'Keefe - Minnaert has suggested that after moonset, that\nthere might be a lunar zodiacal light.\n(Minnaert, Light\nand Color in the Open Air, p. 295.)\nSchirra - Oh.\nO'Keefe - It's a dim hope.\nSchirra - Getting back to this light magnitude in relation\nto stars is about 12 to 15 magnitude.\nI wouldn't even see\nthis .\nI suspect Gordon won't unless he just happens to look\nout at the right time and has enough lighting.\nNow with\ninstrumentation we could detect it, but visibly with the\nnaked eye you can't detect because you can't see through the\nwindow.\nYou can't detect this low illumination level.\nI might\nadd that I saw something subsequent to the flight that· really\nflipped me.\nI was on route to the West Coast on a night flight\n(commercial).\nI was sitting way in the back in the tourist\nsection in middle of a three-seater, and thought I was\nanonymous, when the stewardess came roaring back and said\n~mdr. Schirra, would you come up front;'' and out of my\nobscurity I was drawn to the cockpit and I said to myself that\nwe ' ve either lost a pilot or co-pilot.\n(Laughter) So I went\nroaring up front and the passengers were looking with a\ndegree of apprehension, at least.\nI went up to the cockpit\nand looked out and we were heading West just after sunset and a" }, { "n": 137, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p137.jpg", "text": "I\n23\nblue scout had been launched from Vandenberg (AF$).\nIt had\nthe most fantastic lighting I have ever seen anywhere~\nIt\nhad the exhaust trail and above the horizon it had this\nfantastic glow - ionization glow (like a vapor · cloud)\nwould describe it as - which would best pin down - resemble­\nthe zodiacal light if you ever wanted to do it ~ It had a\nband across the horizon about 60 to 70 degrees· and it · went\nright up the ecliptic and picked up the moon· and the · planets.\nIt was just amazing.\nShoemaker - How far could you trace it?\nSchirra - I could see it right up to the zenith as much as I\ncould see out the cockpit.\nWe were all oohing and ahing.\nI think you have seen this same glow from a booster· flight at\nnight, particularly if you can pick up a sunset or· sunrise\nwhen you get above the earth's shadow and get into the lighted\narea where the booster is.\nThere is a tremendous · expansion wave\nthat's behind the vehicle and this is basically what it looks\nlike.\nDubin - These pictures of Glenn's Atlas flight show the same\nthing .\no o o\nSchirra - I think it was mine you saw ...\nO'Keefe - What you saw from the cockpit - was it from the blue\nstreak or was it the zodiacal light?\nSchirra - I think the two just drew it together and that it was\ndefinitely stimulated by this blue streak as it went up almost\nup the ecliptic in relation to the arc field of view." }, { "n": 138, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p138.jpg", "text": "24\nO'Keefe - It is not a difficult thing to see the zodiacal light\nunder reasonably favor~ble conditions.\nSchirra - No, I have seen it frequently, but not ' as brilliantly.\nGill - Have you seen it in Houston by any chance?\nSchiira - I have seen it just flying at night~\nI haven't seen it\nfrom Houston recently, no.\nGill - Well, this is the season to see it.\nYou should see it . . .\nabout three-quarters of an hour after sunset.\nSchirra - From an airplane, you can see it better than yoµ can\nfrom a Mercury spacecraft.\nYou don't have this dimming of ligh t\nthrough your canopy as you do from the spacecraft~\nThis is really\na spectacular sight.\nOf course, the pilots were so concerned\nbecause they didn't know what it was.\nThis was hundreds and\nhundreds of miles away, and yet they felt they were in danger .\n(Laughter)\nThey wanted answers right away.\nGill - They got them, didn't they?\nSchirra - Of course, you've heard that the whole West Coast was\nenthralled by this sight.\nIt was in the newspapers.\nRoman - Speaking of the brightness of the zodiacal light,\nDr. Mulders, NSF, was in Chile at a high altitude last fall,\nand he commented to me, that the zodiacal light was so bright\nthat he was able to see it from horizon to horizon without\ndifficulty.\nSchirra - Amazing--horizon to horizon- ~! am not sure what we ar e\ngoing to see at thousands of miles from earth c\nI suspect that" }, { "n": 139, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p139.jpg", "text": "25\nwe are going to see a batch of clouds if it's lighted. (the\nearth)\nThat's really what I saw a lot of.\nI was just amazed.\nObviously, when I flew over Africa, it was loud and· clear and\nyou would see this if you were looking at Africa from some\nvantage point many, many miles away.\nI suspect that if you\nlooked at earth from a long distance away that there is so much\ncloud cover that it might have an appearance much like Venus in\nthis sense.\nShoemaker - While we are on Africa, would you like to go on\nand talk about the ... (interruption)\nSchirra - You can't match my blues.\nMaybe Parish· could help ..•\nNordberg - Does anyone have anything on the altitude, particular­\nly on that top that sort of turbulent thing?\nSchirra - That's another one you should check into.\nThrough\nthe trajectory tables, you should find my altitude.\nNow at\nthis point, I was just passed Indian Ocean ship as I recall.\nO'Keefe - We've done all that.\nIf you say when Mercury went\nthrough that we will tell you what the height was.\n(To\nCameron)\nYou have it?\nCameron - I have it. It's about 280 kilometers ~ Height of\nthe layers is about 66 kilometers.\nI only know the height\nof his observation, not knowing the width of it,\nO'Keefe - (to Schirra) But you made a mark when you went\nthrough it,\nThe first \"time hack\" was when you weTe going\nthrough this turbulent area, right?" }, { "n": 140, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p140.jpg", "text": "26\nSchirra - Correct, that's when I came into it.\nO'Keefe - What was the height of the layers at this time ­\n66 kilometers, is that right?\nSchirra - Right, that's what I was saying.\nI hope we can\nhold Mercury meaning that I'd like to see it· go through this\nand I did not know that I could, but obviously I proved that\nI could; I did.\nThis was quite a surprise.\nDidn~t you say,\nJocelyn, that there aren't many people that have seen Mercury\nsets?\nGill - Very true .\nMercury, (the planet) · period .\nVery f ew\npeople know that it exists.\nO'Keefe - Can I point out that you used the word· airglow just\nin general terms, a faint, glowing light seen· from the· atmosphere\nwithout your - What you called the airglow is not what is\ntechnically know as the airglow.\nSchirra - Yes, any time we use airglow I don't use it as we\nprofessionally talk about airglow.\nI was using it merely as\nan escape clause.\nDunkelman - There is one other point there.\nOne isn't sure\njust in what plane these phenomena took place .\nThey may have\nbeen ahead or behind this plane (of the spacecraft).\nWe have\nto think of this ... The 66 kilometers might indeed be reflected\nas something that had been before this point, you see.\nNordberg -\n(Comment inaudible).\nSchirra ~ My local vertical would be this hand as I show it\nand, of course, 40 degrees to the left where the sun and" }, { "n": 141, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p141.jpg", "text": "• • •\n27\nMercury were traversing was in a plane something· like· thiso\nThis is your point I think, Larry, Isn't it?\nDunkelman - That's one\nSchirra - So they come down this way which mathematically isn't\nhard to solve, but you should consider this.\nDubin - This plane may vary a certain amount and it is very\ndifficult to know which way.\nSchirra - The spacecraft at this point was under attitude\ncontrol and was fairly tight in a sense.\nRoman - I think Larry's point is that though we · don•t· real l y\nknow if we are ... if we are actually taking a traverse str aight\nthrough the atmosphere, it may be something in front, a tangent\n.\nline, or behind it.\nDunkelman - The first thought _is to put a line right · through\nthere, and at this point this may be on the plane but· it may\nnot be that.\nSome may be ahead or behind, or both ....\nSchirra - In other words, these layers in this sense could\nbe all staggered out and this one stacked like a bunch of\nsteps in a sense.\nDubin - And they could be higher in altitude than a simple r i ght\nangle projection.\nO'Keefe - It's quite safe.\nSchirra - I was looking at two dimensions in a sense.\nCameron - The right angles of proj~ction and this · is the\ntwilight zone of the spectrum." }, { "n": 142, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p142.jpg", "text": "28\nSchirra - If there is another one of those coffees~ I'll\ntrad~ this one in.\nI don't mind it cool.\nBreak\n(General conversation)" }, { "n": 143, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p143.jpg", "text": "29\nSchirra - And the rare occasions that I've had the timing for this.\nO'Keefe - There is a nice Delta Flight from Washington down to\nHouston.\nThe thing goes exactly toward the sun - you can't miss it,\nCameron - You'll have to go to the cockpit.\nSchirra -\nHmm - You have to make the Delta Flight, in this par t i cu­\nlar case, from Dallas to Los Angeles.\nI passed Albuquerque.\nShoemaker - This peculiar thing you saw over Afri ca - maybe you could\ntell us about it.\nSchi rra - That , as I have said, was my biggest surprise.\nI\ntalked to most of you at great length about things we would hope\nto see or expect to see.\nThis I had no prior knowledge of and I\nbas i cally can say that I was \"sucked\" in and originally called thi s\nairglow, if you recall.\nI guess it is best to refer back to the record\nagain .\nThis was S hours and 20 minutes.\nCameron - That's the time I got from you.\nThe only thing I\nnotice from the script was that you said Glenn was asking you when\nyou were passing over California if you had seen what the airglow\nwas .\nThen you said something about you were surprised at how high\nit was .\nSchirra - This was the same phenomena.\nI had come back from there,\nthink, isn't that correct? Let's see .\nDubin - The Indian Ocean.\nO' Keefe - David Stern at Goddard predicted that you would see\nsomething very unusual in this flight before you went up .\n•\n0\n•\nSchirra - Really?\nI" }, { "n": 144, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p144.jpg", "text": "30\nO' Keefe - _Yes, he gave me a note.\nI was supposed to pass that\nnote down to the Manned Spacecraft Center; I don't think I did.\nI think it's my fault.\n(Ed. copies were forwarded to MSC~)\nRoman - What is this you are referring to?\nO'Keefe - There is a very strong magnetic anomaly in this region,\nand this is where ...\nDunkelman - I think the fact that Schirra had not heard of this makes\nthe observation even better scientifically.\nSchirra - Hmm.\nO'Keefe\nQuite exciting about this thing, but exactly ·what region\nis Cdr . Schirra talking about? ... He's talking about the South · Atl anti c\n- and the South Atlantic was in sunlight.\nThis is probably as close\nto it as we could get to be in darkness.\nSchirra - I think what happened is I looked out as I was drifting\nand this happened to be in the right attitude to see this, which\nprobably meant that I was looking toward the North although I can ' t\nconfirm this .\nCameron - You said something about you would judge that the width\nwas about a fourth of your window.\nSchirra - Yes.\nCameron - Can you say how far - anything about how high it was\nfrom the horizon?\nSchirra - I was surprised when I saw what I thought were city lights\nand they turned out to be stars below this thing.\nAs a result, I\nwas confused in the sense that I wasn't then looking for yardsticks." }, { "n": 145, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p145.jpg", "text": "31\nCameron - Was this a patch, or do you think there was a layer\nthere?\nSchirra - It was a layer across my whole visible horizon.\nIt\nwasn 9 t just a blob in other words .\nCameron = And is that the only time you saw it?\nSchi rra - That is the only time that I recall ever ha~ing seen it .\nAt one particular point - Was it at 5 hours 20 minutes (in the\nrecord)?\nI don 9 t seem to refer to it too well in here.\nDunkelrnan -\nWe had to find it.\nSchirra = You had to dig it out?\nDunkelman = We had to dig it out from your self-debriefing later .\nRoman = Was there any color apparent in this case?\nSchirra - I would like to refer to it, Nancy, as a little smog\ncolor , having a little brown in it. Sort of Brownish gray - rathe r\nit wasn ' t black or white.\nIt was definitely toward the brown smog t hing.\nI 9m sure you have had the unfortunate privilege of letting down in\nLos Angeles and seeing what smog brown is.\nRoman = Right .\nSchi r r a - This isn 9 t what you would see from the surface of Los\nAngeles, but above it when you look into this.\nSort of a dusty\ncolor i n a sense .\nIf you'd like to use that term .\nI don't like t o\nuse that term because if you have seen a dust cloud you've seen\nmore solidity to it in your mind at least.\nI don't want · to give\nyou that picture.\nDefinitely a fog effect rather than seeing\nparticles .\nI think of it that way." }, { "n": 146, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p146.jpg", "text": "32\nDunkelman -\nWe are here to hear yours and I think we should· figure out\ns ome mo r e of this .\nI don't want to inject my thought into this, but\nI was trying to quote you in saying that it is brownish smog layers\nand wasn 9 t sure how to define it.\nSchi rra - Yes.\nThis is dirty brown, not a pleasant brown, not one\nyou would like to see.\nSort of like a tattle tale brown instead of a\nt attle tale gray.\nCameron - Venus was just off the edge of it.\nI have the report · of i t~\nSchirr a - Let ' s see , where are we there?\nCameron - J don't think you are saying anything about that.\nI was\nwonde r ing if you noticed Venus at that time?\nSchi r r a = There was some point in here where I miscalled Venus or\nMercury, I forget which, but this is wrong.\nI told them to correct\nit and they never did .\nBut anyway this is what I did say.\nI think\nyou could disprove me very easily, because it just couldn't be t her e .\nI for got which one it was I referred to.\nVenus and the moon· were\nalways together is the whole point» and they were t o me in a hori zontal\nl ine which gave me a good reference.\n0 °Keefe - Cdr. Schirra, there are some important points here.\nFirs t\nof all, of course, both Glenn and Carpenter saw stars underneat h the\nordinary airglow layer.\nSchirra - Yes, I remember.\nO' Keefe - So it clearly can ' t be seen and one would expect th at anyway.\nSchirra - I would say that this is substantiated by my report of\nseeing Mercury as it passed through these layers as Mercury set which" }, { "n": 147, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p147.jpg", "text": "33\nwould prove that the stars well could be seen going through the\nsam ,, traverse.\nThis thing I saw - let's just call it the smog· belt ­\n\"Ii '\non this southern pass, to go back and recap the sensation that\nbrought this to mind which is not brought out here other than the\n· \"'\nfact that I can identify what I saw.\nI was coming over a land area.\n(I think I better take a second and break out my orbital map which\nI have here.)\nO'Keefe - If you have the tape, we might replay that.\nSchirra\nThis would be better because some of the nine hours\nthere, I have not identified carefully enough, .and I should- have,\nby going back over the tape and these areas of interest - I think we\nshould listen to the original tape again.\nLet's get down to· where\nwe were.\nCameron - Larry (Dunkelrnan) has listened to it at the Cape, I think.\nDunkelman - Did you see wh~t I call normal airglow at night?\nThat is the soft white band.\nSchirra - Yes, I did.\nDunkelman - All right, yes, that's important because I think ' late r it\nwill help.\nCameron - Was that the thing you saw?\nSchirra - This is distinctly different and this, I think, we identified\nin our earlier discussion (speaking of the use of the term airglow).\nDunkelman - Fine.\nSchirra - I had moonlight as well, but I could definitely see this faint\nwhite effect." }, { "n": 148, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p148.jpg", "text": "34\nDubin - W.as there any color whatever in it?\nSchirra - In the .airglow that I saw?\nNo, other than during sunset\ntimes where you would have sunlight itself.\nDubin - No color whatever?\nSchirra - I think of white as being all colors and you can see\nI've been trapped with painting~ few times.\nThis patch was denser\nas you came into the middle of this belt.\nIt definitely had tb· have\na light stimulus to it or I wouldn't have seen it.\nI was well\naware of this and thought this as I saw it.\nThe initial impression\nthat brought to my attention is, first off, and this is the liability\nwe have; we're wanting to see something that needs to be seen· with\nthe naked eye when the inside of the vehicle is dark.\nCameron - In the patch did you notice any variation in color eithe r\nhorizontal or vertical? - Or was it all one?\n.\nSchirra - The airglow now we are ~iscussing?\nCameron - The patth over (Madagascar).\nSchirra - Oh~ this patch, it seemed ... You can't keep t~ack of whether\nyou a-re over. land or water continually and time is progressing fai rly\nrapidly; for example, on this particular period where we are talking\nin terms of 5 hours and 20 minutes, going back just a few minutes ,\nam over Africa because I had left the southeast coast of Africa, in\nother words, Durban and this is the place I had one time in my mind\nwanted to see a flare and I did see cities and I know I saw Capetown\nwhich was in the clear.\nI talked to the Ambassador from that · section\nof Africa when we were at Goddard for the 5th year celebration of\nsatellites, and he saiq, \"Oh, I wish we had known that, because\nI" }, { "n": 149, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p149.jpg", "text": "35\neverybody thinks that all you see is Perth!\n(laughter) Well,\nwe see a lot of other places as well.\"\nTo go back, I was · trying\nto re -establish this phenomenon in my mind so I had passed over\nAfrica and I was darkened within the vehicle.\nI was drifting.\nAs I was drifting - we like to say that we can see a city because\nthe people of the city get quite excited about it as we know Perth\ndid - and I was proceeding across the Indian Ocean drifting, so my\nattitudes cannot be defined, I wanted to say to myself, oh·, · I see\nsome more cities below me.\nNow I wasn't convinced in my mind that\nI was over the Indian Ocean, yet with the attitudes · not carefully\ndefined, I might well have seen cities ,\nThese I said, ah, those cit ies\nare quite constellation setups.\nThey looked like constellations.\nThen I said, my gosh! they are constellations.\nThey are stars\nand this was below what I then, in my mind at least, had planted\nas airglowo\nAgain, a lump term, meaning a lighted horizon, and I\nlooked above this brown smog effect and saw more stars again.\nThen\nI could see through this brown effect, stars, but they were · dimmed\nconsiderably by it.\nNow, I did not have the opportunity in that\nthe attitudes were dynamic to trace an individual star or planet\nthrough this particular areao\nI wasn't at this point too interested\nin knowing what constellations I was looking at.\nIn drifting fli ght,\nyou don't really have a requirement to navigate, that is, to know\nwhere you are in relation to a star field or surface.\nRoman - So you don't know what you were looking at?\nSchirra - So any particular star or constellation, I could not\nidenti fy at this timeo\nIf I needed to, I would then have to destroy" }, { "n": 150, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p150.jpg", "text": "36\nmy dark adaptation and light up my star chart and then identify\nthese things.\nThis is the problem we have.\nO'Keefe - One of the classic problems in astronomy - one of the\nsolutions for it is to illuminate with a red light, because you\ndon't destroy the dark adaptation so quickly.\nSchirra - This is why we went to these fingerti.P lights which are red .\nI started out, and this might interest you, I went to the planetarium\nin Chapel Hill and took both gloves with me.\nOne had white lights\nand one had the red lights.\nThis was my test of these lights.\nWe\nused them while working in the planetarium.\nWe lit up the white\nlights and the whole dome was just brilliant white.\nThese are tiny\nlittle peanut bulbs, really minute.\nThis was the last time I used\nthose white lights.\nThat very day - they were painted red as a result\nof this .\nYou need very, very low orders of light to -\nDunkelman - I had the impression the first time we talked about this\nthat you had not seen any stars through the patch, this brownish\npatch, but you feel that you had seen -\nSchirra - Yes sir, this is what I am trying to do; recreate the scene .\nThat is why I went back to coming off Africa.\nHaving looked for the\nlights, and having seen Capetown, I then felt that I was seeing more\ncity lights and then I was so surprised to realize that these were\nstars.\nNow this only means that I was not pitched down enough to\nreally see the earth itself.\nSo this means that it was quite high.\nRoman -\nDo you feel that you were looking at the airglow laye r s at\nsunset or might you have been looking down at this sort of tangentially\nas you are at some angle?" }, { "n": 151, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p151.jpg", "text": "37\nSchirra - I feel that I was looking up at it now in relation to my\nlocal horizon.\nRoman - You were actually looking up at it? Have you any idea how high\nit was above the apparent horizon at that time?\nSchirra - That is where I am in trouble, Nancy, because there · is no\ndirect repeated knowledge of what this attitude is.\nRoman - Well, the other question is ...\nSchirra - But I saw a good batch of stars below it which meant that my\naxis had to be fairly well above the horizon.\nRoman - Any _structure either turbulent or wave-like?\nSchirra - No, this was a very soft - we best describe this in clouds\nas being a cirrus layer rather than a cumulus layer; a stratus would be\na better term, I think.\nNordberg _- Sort of diffuse?\nRoman - I am still not quite sure I have the answer to my question then .\nI ' m not a meteorologist.\nSchirra - If I were to do it, I'd take a chalk eraser and just' make a\nstreak across the blackboard, it would be more intense in the cente r\nof the eraser and then diffused as I got ­\nRoman - But no other structure?\nSchirra = No other structure.\nRoman - The reason I am asking this is that it sounds as if it might\nbe related to some other equatorial red airglow which has been· observed\nfrom the ground.\nThis has a distinct wave structure.\nSchirra - I see.\nNo, I did not see the permanent wave effect or the" }, { "n": 152, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p152.jpg", "text": "38\nmackerel effect that you see in clouds.\nThis is very much a ­\nwell, I would say if you· really wanted to do it - well, do· it in\nwater colors rather than chalk.\nNordberg - Did it cover your entire field of view?\nSchirra - It covered my whole field of view, yes.\nThat's where I\n\"suckered- in\" thinking that I was looking at \"airglow- \" what we\nhave used now - I think you understand how I have used airglow and\nthat there were cities below it and stars above it.\nThen, these\ncities were defined rapidly as stars and then I -\nDubin - You actually saw no horizon then?\nAnd you saw none of the\nregular airglow?\nSchirra - No, _I could not see any vestige of the surface of the earth,\nmeaning the true airglow in this sense.\nDubin - What you saw then were some of the bands with stars above an d\nbelow - you remember how high up you were looking?\nSchirra - No.\nIf I had not had the fetish of conserving fuel in this\ndrifting period - was most important - not only conserving fuel, but\nto see what effects the vehicle would get while it drifted over a period\nof time; in other words, what this minute atmosphere might do to the\nvehicle, whether it would spin it up or slow it down or what have you.\nI could have picked up my attitude just by pitching down and pick i ng\nup the surface of the earth.\nBut then I would have destroyed the\nperiod of time that we had been drifting to see if the vehicle\nattitude had been affected by the orbital period.\nRoman - For something like that, would it be desirable to carry a\nsmall mirror, something like a woman's pocketbook mirror, which you" }, { "n": 153, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p153.jpg", "text": "39\ncould look down at the different angles.\nSchirra - We had a mirror on there.\nThis permitted me basically to\nlook toward the heat shield.\nSomething like a rear view mirror,\nexcept it was a front view mirror in Mercury.\nBut in any case,\nyou almost need - we need something like a dental mirror to move\naround .\nI think again you get in trouble with a mirror; I con­\nsidered this.\nIn fact, I had a mirror on my hand which was a flat\nplate much like the woman's cosmetic mirror.\nIt was about the same\nsize, and when you use a mirror you lose so much just by the fact\nthat you change distances.\nYour image has been ranged differently.\nSo I found that I didn't have any luck at all.\nTennyson - It was just your disorientation.\nSchirra - That itself was another problem.\n(Cameron showing Schirra\na drawing)\nCameron - I have a drawing here of what I think you saw out your\nwindow at S hours 20 minutes.\nSchirra - Oh, really, I'd like to see that, yes .. . .\nCameron - It's just the star chart.\nI tried.... I think this is whe r e\nyou we~e, well, I made a tracing of the thing and slid it (the plastic\nslide which represents the capsule window) up (on the star chart)\nhere - here's the horizon and· I tried to guess where you might have\nbeen, and I put the width about ... (showing Schirra) you· thought it\nwas -\nSchirra - Very good.\nBut the thing is you see I could be tilted as\nwell in roll and it would move this field--see what I mean?" }, { "n": 154, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p154.jpg", "text": "40\nCameron - I was wondering if you recognized this pattern here that\nyou saw below it?\nSchirra - What really flipped· me -- this is where I got in trouble-­\nI said somethin$ about the Pleiades and I know I could not see· those.\nCameron - You see according to this the Moon was up at the top (of\nthe window) and Venus was off to the left. Did you see them?\nSchirra - I did not see them during this period, no.\nO°Keefe\nWhere is Delphinus?\nDelphinus is somewhere.\nRoman - I was just thinking about that . . ..\nCameron - Well, he's in Ophiuchus and Hercules and\n(General discussion which is inaudible)\nSchirra - Delphinus does look something like the Pleiades in a sense ,\nyes .\nRoman - It's a little larger, but I'm sure that ...\nSchirra - At one time I tried to trace this down and see what· I really\nwas looking at and I frankly have not done it.\nThis is typical of\neverything we do, we always rushed into something else.\nO°Keefe = (to Cameron) Can you find Delphinus? It's right next to\nthe (Northern) Cross.\nCameron - I don't see it .\nI don't think it's on here ....\nSchirra - D~d I identify - when I said Aldebaran, I may well have been\ntalking about . . .\nCameron - There's a Norton (Star Atlas) in my bag - maybe I'm - if\nyou ' d hand it to me - maybe I've got the wrong page--I don't know ­\nI don ' t know why - he ' s got it there very clearly.\nO' Keefe - You have Ophiuchus, Hercules?" }, { "n": 155, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p155.jpg", "text": "41\n(Conversation inaudible)\nSchir~a - I used to carry my little star chart slide rule thing\naround with me .\nRoman - Alternatively, there are some (star) clusters - we l l, if\nit ' s the Pleiades, it would be well enough defined and you wouldn't\nconfuse it - there are some clusters in a star field which · at· firs t\nglance give you the same haziness that you get from a cluster like\nthe Pl eiades .\nCameron - It ' s the wrong di rection, of course.\nRoman - Well, but he is down in the Scorpio region if you think of it .\nSchirra - One of those things I do recall very vividly was that I\n.talke d about Aldebaran and it just couldn't have been there at t he\ntime I ....\nGill = O, well maybe you didn ' t have the Pleiades then.\nSchirra - I know it wasn't . It wasn't the Pleiades .\nGill - Because you ' ve got Orion here.\nOrion, the Pleiades and\nAldebaran go nicely together.\nSchirra - They sure do, _but they shouldn't be there.\nfill!. - But those were the wrong ones . (Laughter) They can't be there .\nDunkelman - I think Voas corrected that at that one time.\nYou see\nAldebaran wasn ' t there .\nSchirra - Yes, this is the liability you get into if you don't really\nknow your attitude; with this star chart you can sweep out a whole\nnew segment of the sky .\nO' Keefe = Why can't you have seen Aldebaran and these other things?\nWere they above the horizon?" }, { "n": 156, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p156.jpg", "text": "42\nSchirra - I don't think they are in this area.\nWe have to expand\nthis star chart .\nNow if I were yawed around 90 degrees, this star\nchart is absolutely worthless because this only goes a plus or\nminus 60 degrees .\nO' Keefe = I know, I know .. .\nSch i rra = Maybe I could have\n0\n0\n0\no°Keefe = But, your flight path did go over Aldebaran, Orion ­\nthe plane of the orbit.\nSchirra -\nAs I recall , and my memory of course, is suffering\nfrom the time span (which has elapsed since the flight on October ~ .5-,.\n1962 . )\nAs I recall, Orion was on the daylight s i de, you see it's . ..\nRoman = As I say, I was going to say that Orion was actually very\nlate = just before dawn - if it were up at all.\nSchirra = Physically it was impossible to see - here is the constella­\ntion Orion way down here ~ in time, this is on my daylight side .\nRoman = I would think that Aldebaran would be much the same problem.\nCameron = Just the same thing .\nSchirra = It is right in this same family, of course.\nRoman = What time of night was this?\nCan you give me any idea\nof the distance between sunlight and sunset?\nSchirra = That vs why I am perfectly convinced that I could not\npossibly see anything associated with the constellation Orion or\nAldebaran .\nWith this star chart, Nancy, what we do is have a\ntime margin .\n(Looking at the chart .)\nNow Orion down here is\nactually in my local daylight .\nIt just was impossible for me to\nsee it at this point way back here .\nIt was occluded frank ly by the" }, { "n": 157, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p157.jpg", "text": "43\nsurface of the earth; physically, I just couldn't see ito\nRoman - That ' s what I meant when I said at best you- d see those · just\nbefore sunrise -- if at all at this time of year.\nSchirra - Right.\nIt was just impossible for _me to see it at thi~\npoint way back here, so it was occluded by the surface of the earth,\nfrankly, I just couldn ' t - physically I couldn't see it.\nWhat\nreally would be fun, by gosh, would be to go back up and have Tony\nJenzano (Director, Morehead Planetarium) lay this out in the planetari ·,\nfilJl = Yes, yes, you ought to be able to solve that.\nSchirra = I would be able to tell exactly what I saw.\nI'll do it ­\nThat 0 s the way to solve this because then I can get the whole star\nfield, the complete celestial heaven at this time and space ·.\nAnd\nthen we can make some points.\nI think one of you should .go there\nwith me so we can have this pinned down.\nI think we should lay\nthis out . He (Jenzano) can lay out the whole ~light plan.\nGill = To get it pinned down .\nRoman - I would say here that Arcturus or Antares could have been con ­\nfused for Aldebaran here.\nGill - Absolutely .\nThose would be good candidates.\n0 °Keefe - Let ' s not let this point go.\nWho should go?\nShoemaker - I think we should plan to do this.\nSchirra - I think this is the way to answer this rather than trying\nto beat it to death .\nI'll bet I'll be able to give you a whole bunch\nof information in there (at the planetarium)o\n0 °Keefe - Should it be you, or Jocelyn?\nGill - It depends on when it comes off - what time it comes off." }, { "n": 158, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p158.jpg", "text": "44\nShoemaker - --~hy don't we say we'll ~lan on this and then· we can · make\nthe arrangements --\nSchirra - I am afraid that I can't do it rapidly, but I'd say the\nfirst part of April would be okay.\nShoemaker_~ Jocelyn, would you like to take this on to set it· up and\nfollow it through?\nGill - Certainly o\nSchi rra - I would like to nail this one downo\nI~ has been· botheri ng\nme f or a long time and I just don't seem to be getting any· answers\nthat I would like to have as well.\nGill - It is possible to have hindsight here.\nIn other words, we can\nrecons truct the crime and it is worth doing, I think.\nDunke lrn-an - I am glad you mentioned that you. could see some • stars\ndimmed through this patch because-if you don't see -any,-1:he patch\nturns out to be extremely bright .\nDunkelman - It's about 300 times higher than what the normal airglow\n(seen) edge - on is .\nSchirr-a - Well, it wasn't dim by any means.\nDunkelman - It wasn ' t dim - the answer I get _is that it is about\n3 ergs/cm2/sec which is extremely bright and its structure is extremely\nhigh .\nIt is about three hundred times brighter than the normal ai r ­\nglow o\nI think we can \"home - in\" on this brightness rather nicely\nbecause, if you saw color, you know it is a dirty brown, but if it\nwas color, that does require at least SO to 100 times more t han the\nnormal night airglow.\nSchir~a - That's why you were asking me earlier was there a color" }, { "n": 159, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p159.jpg", "text": "45\nin the airglow and I did not see it?\nDunkelman - We are trying not t~ ~ (influence your reply).\nSchirra - ~laying one (response) against the other is indeed.. a good\nway of doing it.\nDunkelman - Another think is that this was indeed brighter.\nSchirra - Bu~,_ well below.. . .\nDunke l man - It is _possible that the normal ai rg low was theire\nbut you didn't see it?\nSchirra - It was well below my field of view though.\nDunkelman - But are we sure?\nI assumed that it was well below, too,\nbut . . .\nSchirra - Yes.\nI saw what amounted to a clear starfield below this . . .\nDunkelman - About how many degrees worth though?\nSchirra - I was just trying to think - Well, the window itself ­\nI'm just trying to think what I can see degrees-wise-this is ­\nCameron - Thirty degrees .\nSchirra - It was roughly thirty _degrees.\nO' Keefe - But there is a trap here because that window shapes out\nat such a steep angle - that if you attempt to· estimate height by\nestimating portions of the window--\nSchirra - Oh, no, I wasn't doing that.\nAll I am trying to say is\nthat i n the window - included in the window - let~s forget this smog\nband, it were stars only, it was below the window which would be the\nearth .\nThere was no horizon and even if I could have been inverted,\nwe could just say that the window would be this · way.\nThere was still\nno earth vision, nothing of earth I could see, including airglow or" }, { "n": 160, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p160.jpg", "text": "46\nanything else .\nSo I was strictly looking, if you could almost\nsay, I could even be looking straight up, which I know I wasn't.\nThe stars were equally bright and equally in number almost on\neither side of this band.\nDubin - It was about through the middle of the window?\nSchirra - That is correct .\nI went even as far as to say that it\nwasn ' t a third of the window and then I modified this down · to a\nfourth, but ~twas more than a fourth and less than a third.\nThis\nmeans, in any case, that it's approximately ten degrees thick and\nthis is a very rough estimate.\nO'Keefe - It wasn't the Milky Way?\nSchirra - No. No,\n~ like to look at the Milky Way so I've seen\nit enough to say \".no.\"\nO'Keefe - Because you were facing according to your picture to - well ­\nno - Sculptor, Fornax - no ­\nRoman - The Milky Way in that part of the sky, should have a very\ndistinct rift down the middle, it wouldn't be brightest to the center\nand shading off.\nSchi rra - Yes, in fact, if I recall from the way we ran the planetarium,\nthe Milky Way was almost on my horizon.\n~Dubin - How long can you see this by the way?\nSchirra - We can do this too, John.\nThey have the Milky Way· projected\non this chart.\nIt is a very fine tool, I might add~ particularly when\nyou want to reconstruct the crime.\nGill - Might be very good practice afterwards for thq\n\\ pilot to go" }, { "n": 161, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p161.jpg", "text": "I\n47\nback to the planetarium (to reconstruct his flight path.) •..\nSchirra - I sure wish I had thought of this a long time ago when\nwas fresher on this.\nGill - It would fix things in your mind too - you'd be able to see them\nagain right away to pin them down.\nDubin - How long did you see this?\nSchirra - I would not say seconds, I would say minutes,\nNordberg - Did this go away simply because of your progression in\norbit or because of your drifting?\nSchirra - I think more because of the drifting, perhaps.\nDubjn - Did you see the stars through it?\nSchirra - There again, I didn't have time to track stars through it.\nWhen I say minutes, I don't mean a whole bunch of minutes, I mean\none or two or three minutes.\nDubin - Yes, but do you know whether you saw stars moving relative to\nthe band?\nSchirra - No, they weren't .\nIt wasn't relative to the band.\nThat ' s a good question, now that you bring it up.\nDubin - In other words, the stars seemed to stand still.\nSchirra - The band and the stars were planted together, much the same\nway as you would see the Milky Way in a sense.\nThat's a very good\npoint.\nO'Keefe - You saw a bunch of things there.\nIt might have been Aldebar an\nor it might have been Antares.\nSchirra - I suspect that is what I did see at Antares or Alpheca,\nand I think that is in that same spectrum there .\nI think rather" }, { "n": 162, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p162.jpg", "text": "48\nthan beat this any further, it's circumbent on us to go to the\nplanetarium and really nail this down.\nAll I have to do is just\ntake this window box we have and just move it around and - ah ha ­\nthere it is.\n• ·ounkeiman - Something we would like to know is the dimming eff ect .\nSchirra - Uh huh.\nDunkelman - You say that this patch was quite bright, that's one t hi ng>\nand then was it quite bright because it appeared bright or because\nthere are many, many fewer stars.\nThis is the question we have to\nanswer .\nSchirra - Right.\nYou know what went through my mind when · I f inally\nrealized what I was looking at?\nI was livid about the fact that I\nhad the periscope.\nAbsolutely livid, because· I would have shot up a\nwhole roll of film right on that (using uv spectrograph).\n(Laughter)\nI was fighting for that thing and that's why you can look · through and\nI make perisocpe sound like a dirty word.\nAll through here the wor d\nperiscope is shortened to four letters practically.\n(Laughter)\nShoemaker - Why don't we go on.\nJocelyn, why don't you get together\nwith Cdr . Schirra and write a conclusion on this.\nSchirra ~ We'll set up a rendezvous here.\nShoemaker - I think we have covered quite a few of the remainder· of the\nquestions partly in discussion.\nI would like to go back to' dark ­\nadaptation here which is the next question.\nYou have talked about i t\nand let's see whether there are any points that we havenJt • covered .\nThe\nquestion is would you tell us when you think you were best dark-adapted?\nWas there any time during flight when you employed only red light in the" }, { "n": 163, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p163.jpg", "text": "49\ncapsule?\nSchirra - We have answered that with the fingertips.\nShoe.maker - Did the light of the \"time-correlation clock\" shine in\nyour eyes throughout flight?\nSchirra - The answer is no.\nThey put in a switch to turn that off and\nI turned it once and it was never turned on again.\nThis was a very\ngreat annoyance.\nThis was my prediction that I would turn i t of f\nand never turn it on again.\nGill - You were responsible for having the switch put in, weren't\nyouT\nSchirra - Yes, I went through some very careful studies on the dar kness\nof this interior.\nI ran a special test at the Cape and it is amazing\nhow much light comes in there.\nJohn and Scott were surprised when\nI told them this.\nScott came back from his flight furious about this\ntime - correlation clock light .\nSo I put in a switch-in-series and\njust clicked it off as soon as I got to the switch.\nGill - Good for you .\nSchirra - It was the first time it was dark outside, frankly, and\nthat was the end of that light .\n(Laughter)\nThe cabin lights are\ntube lights.\nThey leak like mad.\nJust terribly.\nSo I turned\nthose off as well when I wanted darkness .\nThen I had pure darknes s .\nThe only light I could create then were the fingertip lights.\nWhen I\nblacked out that capsule, it was black dark other than when I needed\nto see something with the fingertip lights.\nThis is · where our\ncrutches - as I described the map, the time and the star charts" }, { "n": 164, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p164.jpg", "text": "(_.\nso\nbecame a liability, because we had then to bring on light again\n(I brought on the finger tip lights to do this).\nGordon knows how\nstrongly I feel about the star chart device.\nThis is a valuable tool.\nBut it required two tools and a slider.\nActually, two tools, with\nsliders on each to use them.\nI had to take one tool which gave me\na reference in the time that had elapsed to come back to the star chart\nwhich had a reference for one time - I think it was an hour's worth.\nSo I had to come over here and compute.\nFor example, say I had S hour J\nand 20 minutes, so I'd run down 5 hours and 20 minutes and look across\nand this is equivalent to say 53 minutes.\nSo then I would say, Ah,\n53 . minutes; so then I would race over here and set the little window\nthing on the index of 53 minutes and this thing is floating around\nand I would stamp it off and get it out of the way.\nThis is quite\na chore.\nIt really is.\nSo now we have included this on the flight\nplan itself, what index of the star chart to use.\nSo we have\nsimplified this task quite a bit.\nCameron - As far as the star charts are concerned, fluorescence\nRoman - Suppose you had an ultra violet lamp · in the capsule -\nSchirra - If you kept it up?\nRoman - That's what I was going to suggest - - (fluorescent paint on\ncharts)\nNot depending on storing it up and letting it go down\nafterwards.\nGill - You mean keep it on?\nRoman - _Well, depending on which looks more desirable.\nBut\nyou could set that at a level where it would not blind you and" }, { "n": 165, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p165.jpg", "text": "51\nand you could see what you needed on the chart.\nSchirra - Now this could be practiced in a planetarium.\nO'Keefe - There are plenty of fluorescent inks.\nSchirra - This star chart thing was a real problem even to get it\nto the degree of refinement that I ~ad.\nGill - It has a white background now?\nSchirra - We had to take the surface and sand it in a sens e to ge t it\nnon - reflecting, because that was a problem.\nDunkelmari - I want to caution you on that ultra violet light, though .\nIt has to be very carefully designed, because if just a wee bit\nof\n3615 leaks out of it; your eyeballs fluoresce.\nIt must be\ncarefully done.\nSchirra - I've become very interested in this as a problem in that\non the Apollo mission, where you will need to find particular stars,\nwe should have some kind of star map that you can see without\nblinding yourself.\nThose fingertips to me were awfully bright.\nRoman - You can ' t turn it down?\nSchirra - No.\nGill - You must have been well dark - adapted?\nSchirra - Yes, that's right .\nI feel very strongly about this\ndark - adaptation, by the way.\nI have felt this way about this ever\nsince I have been involved with this.\nAs a night carrier-pilot, it\nwas always a problem as you know.\nWe would sit in the ready room\nwith red lights on and red goggles on and we · then would go roaring up\nto flight deck and there would always be sbmebody there with a white\nlight to shine right in your face ." }, { "n": 166, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p166.jpg", "text": "52\nDunke i man - The Navy has done this very carefully.\nSchirra - It can be destroyed very rapidly.\nIt turns out quite\nfrequently when you are in a cockpit and you're time - critical,\nmore so than when you are on a carrier deck fo r a night launch\nthan when you are on the pad .\nThings are in a f r antic tempo .\nYou make a very rapid checkout of the cockpit and you real l y don' t\ncare about light adaptation .\nYou just want to be sure that eve rything\nis in its proper position.\nSo all of a sudden- - boom- -you are shot off\ninto the black and surprisingly you are very well adapted .\nI feel-­\nI know Scott has made a test on this -- ! think you come down to a very\nrapid adaptation in seconds and then you progress getting be tter\ndark - adapted over many, many minutes.\nI know this has been documented.\nIt is not worth trying to adapt to this exponential curve that you are\ntrying to get hold of.\nGill - Five minutes certainly helps a great deal.\nSchirra - I have said this in the past, for example, if it were\nnight outside right now, we could ~tep outside that door.\nWith t hi s\nlighting you have in here, you can see outside this door (assuming\nyou are looking at the celestial night).\nYou can see more th an I\ncould see out of the window of the capsule with· perfect adaptation.\nI have done this.\nI have been in a lighted room since the fligh t\nand have stepped outside.\nNow we have done this frequently at the\nvarious control stations around the net.\nI did this at Guaymas\nwhich you well know is a tremendous place to look at stars.\nI wa lked\nout of a room just as lighted as this and got outside and boom, I saw\nmore than I could see in the capsule." }, { "n": 167, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p167.jpg", "text": "53\nCameron - I saw the zodiacal light once doing that in Chicagoo\nI came out of a lighted building.\nIt was the first time I had\nseen it. It was in a part of the sky where I didn't expect to see it .\nSchirra - I think that our test, frankly, that have been conducted\nto determine dark adaptation are not done well enough.\nI don't\nthink we can really justify how fast we adapt b:y the tests we have\nrun .\nI have yet to see that quan~itative analysis made that should\nbe made.\nIntuitively, I feel that I ad apt faster than the tes t\nhas ever proven to me.\nWe had very comp l icated systems , such as that\nat Pensacola where you pick up the horizon and objects, trucks and\nairplanes and ships, -- I'm sure you remember this routine -- and I\nnever was sympathetic to this study.\nI think there is a bett er way\nof defining it, however, by having you in an opaque room or rather\ngoing from a lighted room into an opaque room seeing what can you see.\nHave these measured light sources there and then identify them as\nrapidly as you can .\nOf course, you've got to keep identifying\nbecause you are adapting all the time.\nTennyson - Is it correct then that this window of ours (Vicor\nwindow) has .never really been nailed down as far as transmissivity\nis concerned.\nSchirra - It has been carefully nailed down, I understand.\nRoman - Yes, but not under quite the · flight conditions.\nSchirra - Well, I was carrying this photometer, and did make some\nmeasured readings on some objects, but this comes back to the photo ­\nmeter check on Aldebaran.\nThis comes back ·to what I really made" }, { "n": 168, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p168.jpg", "text": "54\nit on.\nI think they are trying to trace that through.\nIt wasn't\nAldebaran, that ' s for sure.\n• Dubin - You say that you never saw your fluorescent numbers on\nyour watch?\nSchirra - No, I did not.\nThis bothered me .\nDub in - Did you look at it?\nSchi rra - Yes .\nDunke l man - Is this some watch that requires exposure to li ght f or\nawhi le?\nSchi rra - Correct.\nThere is another answer to th i s.\nThe time\nfunction, meaning just running time, has th e fluorescent, but the\nelapsed time that I used on this watch i s just black and whi te.\nI wanted badly to get at least the hands coated and this i s a r eal\nchore .\nVery few people do this for you.\nI would have liked very\nmuch to have had this done, but couldn't ·get it.\nDUnkeJman - I would sure like to see the CIC lighting people\nhave a chance to put their two cents into this who l e thing about\nthe lights, for Apollo or something like that.\nSchirra - I have gone on record saying that Gemini will -not f l y\nuntil I personally run a lighting mockup on that vehicle as we l l\nas on Apollo .\nThere are many people who know how strongly I f eel\non t his subject.\nGill _- Very good .\nVery good.\nSchi rra - What I ' m getting at is, if you can get the light out\nof the vehicle, you don't need to spend a lot of time adapting.\nGill - Right." }, { "n": 169, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p169.jpg", "text": "55\nNordberg - I am curious if you ha\nSchirra - Yes.\nO'Keefe - It is most systematically cloudy.\nIf you can go just a\nlittle further north and south, the chance of get ting this weather\nwill be better, although this would probably always be true, just\nas you've said, that most of the earth at any one time will be\ncloudy.\nThis belt goes from about 35 degrees North to 35 degrees\nsouth.\nYou didn't quite get an inclination of about 33 degrees." }, { "n": 187, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p187.jpg", "text": "73\nSchirra -\nAs an example, I was hoping that I could look up at\nJapan after retrofire, and I couldn't see it at all.\nIt was\nclouded in too.\nTennyson - Japan, this time of year, looks like it would be cloudy.\nNordberg - Particularly at this time of year - this was October, so\nthat was already in the Northern Hemisphere and should be out of\nthe tropical convergence zone.\nTennyson - But still Japan by nature is .... (cloudy)\nSchirra - There was quite a bit of weather in the Pacific at that t i~~.\nO'Keefe\nStill, if he goes 28 degrees N to 28 degrees S, he was in\nthe tropical convergence zone most of the time.\nSo thin gs aren't\nqui te as bad as they would appear from this flight.\nShoemaker - The point is that this also is in the area which is\nmostly extensive deserts; these are the precise areas where you\nwould see the geology best.\nSchirra - Yes .\nO'Keefe\nThis is 30 North and 30 South -- the deserts are 35\ndegrees.\nShoemaker - Well, actually the extensive deserts nearly all lie in\n(interrup ted) ...\nSchirra - Something I ' m curious about is, I would like to have some ­\nbody - well there are two ways of doing this - I bet I probably had\nwater underneath me about 90% of the time.\nCameron - About how much cloud coverage would you estimate ?\nWould\nyou estimate the amount of the earth that was covered by clouds?\nSchirra - I guess I could check this more carefully.\nI would" }, { "n": 188, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p188.jpg", "text": "74\nestimate it to be about 80 to 90%.\nWhen I went over - the United\nStates was clear east of the Sierra's, but it \"sacked in\"\n(clouded over) again by the time I got to the Gulf of Mexico,\nso I just had a small band when you look at this part of the\nUnited States .\nThis is not very much percentage-wise.\nSouth\nAmerica, I didn't get to until the 5th and 6th orbits, so I was\nover water all the other time.\nThe northsic portion of the continen t\nwas cloudy and finally I got into the clear on the 5th and 6 orbits\nby the time I'd just left South America.\nAus t ralia, of course, was\nni ght, so it turned out that there wasn't much I could s ay about it .\n·other than the fact that it was clouded over too .\nI saw l ightning\nas I got to the eastern half of Australia.\nill - You never saw any large view of water then?\nIn other words,\nyou didn't see any part of an ocean?\nSchirra - No, I expected to have some fun looking at shorelines .\nThis is what I really wanted to look at, to see if I could see\ncolor contrast and even the Pacific Islands.\nI had hoped to see the\nHawaiian Islands which would have been a real e asy one to pi ck up,\nand I think I had one little limpse; about as much as i f you 'd fly\n9/10 cumulus structure and you pop one through there.\nThat's about\nas much as I had and I couldn't even identify which Island I was\nlooking at.\nO'Keefe\n~ Probably Haleala or else ...\nSchirra -\night have even been Hawaii itself, I am not sure , which\nis probably the highest of the bunch, and it mi ght have popped up\nthrough it." }, { "n": 189, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p189.jpg", "text": "75\n0 1 Keefe - There's a 10,000 foot peak (Haleaki) or Maui.\nDubin - How were you overall set for time?\nYou were up to the\nsixth orbit and you had some trouble with your suit, so we found\nout.\nDid you have time to basically do more scientific work\nthan you had the privilege of doing?\nSchirra - I think as we - and this is the trouble with Mercury\nbecause this is just about phasing out - as you get your confidence\nin the systems to where you don't need to monitor them as of ten, yo,\ncould take time for observation.\nBut you continually, at this stage\nof the game, cannot rely on the systems running themselves and so\nyou keep carefully monitoring these things.\nThis draws your\nattention away from, say a five minute observation.\nThe only t ime\nthat you could make a lengthy observation would be when you are\nunder this automatic control when the capsule is maintaining its\nattitude for you rather than you trying to maintain it.\nThis is\nvery hard to do; to maintain a capsule attitude.\nIn that it ' s a\nthree - axis motion everytime you make one motion because each one\nis influenced by another axis thrusting.\nSo as a result, it gets\nquite expensive fuel -wise to point your field of view at an obj ect.\nYou have to sit there and just steam around like mad to do this.\nGill= Would you say that you ever had as much as five minutes at\na time to look out of the window?\nSchirra - Oh, yes.\nI think I took a fairly long amount of time\nfor example; observing this particular sunset that's repres entati ve\nof about three or four minutes.\nEven then, you keep checking thin gs\nto see if what you see is really what you are seeing.\nFor example," }, { "n": 190, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p190.jpg", "text": "76\nwas that really Mercury?\nWell, I knew it was Mercury just by having\nhad the opportunity to have Mercury projected on approximate launch\nday, so I knew it had to trail the sun, and everytime we ran the\n~lanetarium, we had Mercury projected tracking the sun, on the\ns an. e path , of co u rs e .\nGill - So it is a great help to kn ow what things are there and where\nthey are before you take off.\nSchirra - Yes .\nYou've got to have most of this stuff in your mind\nrather than have to refer to something to remind you of it again.\nThis is why you can get confused as I was, when I was drifting, as\nwhat star or constellations I was looking at.\nShoemaker -\nWe have one more question.\nI think this is rather a\ntrivial one.\nI don't think we need to dwell on it.\nDid the moon\ninterfere with your view at anytime, or did you make use of it in\nanyway?\nSchirra - I used it liberally, of course, for attitude reference.\nOne\nbest example, on the third orbit, I was drifting and then restore d my\nattitude during the night rather than during the daytime.\nWe were\ntrying to determine whether we could get the attitude back both\ndaylight and night.\nOut of the unknown attitude, I first picked up\nthe horizon which was on the night side, very easily, which then\ngave me roll and pitch and then I had no idea which way to go for\nyaw.\nWe had no compass ... whether it would work or not is something\nelse.\nI started looking around at this starfield which was not on my\nflight path, by far, and finally, Cassiopeia became quite obvious" }, { "n": 191, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p191.jpg", "text": "77\nto me.\nI said, \"Well I, that means I must go left,\" and as\nI came left, I started picking up other stars which became known\nto me through the starfield that I had rehearsed.\nThen the moon\nand Venus showed up and that was here.\nO'Keefe - It must be very difficult to pick up constellations when\nyou have a starfield to look at that is as small as through your\nwindow .\nGill - It isn't ....\nSchirra - No, Orion, for example, was not included in t he window, so\nyou might see the belt and that's about i~, or maybe one or two others\nin the constellation.\nThat's about all.\nWhen you see something\nlike Aldebaran, and the \"v\" (Hyades in the Constellation Taurus) ­\nif you just saw that alone, you might very well get trapped,\nthinking it was the Pleiades , particularly, if you don't have an\nattitude.\nYou know how well, I know you got trapped (turning\nto Dr. Gill) when we went into the Planetarium for the first t ime ­\nthings were inverted for you?\nGill -\nOh yes - yes, indeed.\nSchirra - When you have an unknown attitude , the star picture is bent\nout of shape .\nYou can get into trouble fast.\nNordberg - I .had a heck of a time the first time I was in Australia;\nit was difficult to recognize anything.\nSchirra - Isn't it!\nYes and when we aren 't changing attitude and\neven when we know the starfield, it's not changing once youv 1 e\nseen it on the first orbit.\nSo I was sitting there with the star" }, { "n": 192, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p192.jpg", "text": "78\nchart, bending it around. (Laughter)\nGill - It's very hard to get oriented.\nDubin - Did you or Glenn or Carpenter see any meteors?\nSchirra - No, and we were naturally anxious to see them.\nI\nunderstand some little Japanese boy picked up one recently\n(Comet Ikey~).\nIsn't that right?\nThat was a comet and we were\nlooking for mbteors and comets and we never saw any.\nDubin - And so you never saw any?\nSchirra - So I suspect that you have to see the meteors from t he\nsurface of the earth.\nDunkelman - No, again the field of view is too limited.\nSchirra -\nAgain the odds are pretty grim.\nYou take this lit tle\nwindow and you project it through 180 degrees, and it's pretty\nhard to see anything.\nThat's why I say this lab (lunar module)\nis going to be fabulous.\nIt really will ... That's practically a\nbird cage.\nNordberg - How about the brightness of the sky looking as straight\nout as possible in the \n/-.J \" (<~ ~\n~-/o,1.4~\n•••-'6&­\n-\n.c~-- ..J..~- ~~c.--~\n~~-\n~.,Y>1~~ J 1 ~\n'.)\nC--..c.._ ­\n-=- ~ ~~~~\n~ -··\\\"' ~\n~~" }, { "n": 204, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p204.jpg", "text": "•f/,,,,,.,,IJ'V _rlJJ\" ~ ~·-\n,,.\nc,,,..y..,.\"'\"1- ...\ni _,-wM 1A'1,,,,,- \"''II\"\"'..:/.\n~\n--·~C)--r ~ ~~\n-\n~.,..,,,, .,,f_,,, ­\n.,'I' .,. -~,.,/~ - \" .,,,.,,J - ~........,.,,14(. ­\n-~-'Jf ~ .. ~~~ ©\n~..,.,. I ...v ~...,, !_YIY ­\n.-•J\"\"\"'\" ­\n0\n-\n?4)'71Uf ~\n­\n==­\n~\n_., ~ , \">\\II, - , 1~J,> c--\n~\"\"\"\\\"'9\n­\n-~.......,-~w, t'~\"\\'f @\nro/..,.,. __,,_. r '!\"'lf'·• ..-r .,~•\"'1:1)\n..,,,.o•~ r~ ,.;,- ,,.lo, f ~·-;;-~\n,. - ,,,,,,.,,.,. ,,. .,. ,..,J ©\n~~'1'1\"\"'\\-~~ ~-,q\\~t\\ -\n• q,e,.? -\n?, ..,,...,.c,r 5_.,.; 'tt ©\n~~ - ~\"-~ '5-\n.\"\",, ... ,.,,,~, r'·\".!!1-l'WA/\"'O (!)\n~\n,,....!/..'f }11,J- ~'1-.....,r() (i)\n..\\-­\n~\n'(> ,-..-~ 'Y\"'\\a ..... -~flI\nr~,,,./\"1'7) --t ,.,,f.,,, 111 ~\nm MJ.9--., +<'1AI\n~\n~~\nI ·-,/\"I,...,..c 'Tl •I/ •-t '»I \"\"'J1' t.._...,,\" •\n__,,_ ~\n0? ­\n~1' -.w./#'fl\" (/SAJ__,,,_,,. C .., l\n-:\n..... ~. ~ _..,....,\\ \"'·,~ _.,..._... ~\n~.,:\nf,,,,, ~•f.:, ~~' f? -= ,,.,,.\"i? .. , ? 0 I'1)\nr\n,.,.2\ns,.•~-..o (t,') ....~\n\\'\\'._\n\"\"-Cl f' Ms 1\\'°\n~\n!\"\",.__~ .,. \"&/, l. -vf \".._\"'\\\"\na\n·._v fr 1r,''> ~ \"-'j -1 ..\n-- ~:,, ~ ,--\n'T'-·,\"';\" \" :\n.,. -~\"'x:Ar c,tt..••t·r ..•:,,\n­" }, { "n": 205, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p205.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 206, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p206.jpg", "text": "-\nd\"q,.c,.:)­\n~4~ 0-\n...:,u,,/oeQ '30-0\n=­\n=- >--IA~ &4- t:i:o\n_...__\n1,-tl :>, -\n.,\n_,..--\n_.::-::::=\n•\n/) ~· -\n~\n/\"1.-,..,.l«A\n,.e c&..<...\ncl~11 ­\n,-4,~·\nO\n,,t.,.... 4 ,d----, ,,e._1.::._ - -- • .1r-- ~ • -fo\n­" }, { "n": 209, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p209.jpg", "text": "\"Meteors\" (A Symposium on Meteor Physics): Special Supplement (Vol. 2) toJ. Atmosph. T err. Phys. (1955)\nMeteor Ionization in the E-region\nMAURICE DUBIN\nAir Force Cambridge Research Center, U.S.A.\nABSTRACT\nThe theories of meteoric interaction with the atmosphere have been reviewed to determine the total\ncontribution by meteors to the ionization content of the E-region.\nFrom Herlofson's theoretical\ntreatment of this interaction, and Watson's distribution of the size and numbers of meteoric particles\nentering the atmosphere per day, the number of electrons produced at various altitudes in the E-region\nwas computed. These computations indicated that most of the ionization at higher altitudes resulted\nfrom meteors oflarge visual magnitude. Since, as Whipple has shown, the ablation process would probably\nnot occur in the case of micrometeorites because of heat loss by radiation, the collision processes for\nionization were reviewed; it seems that the ionization process is mainly a function of the relative energy\nof the co11·'ion, and therefore ablation prior to ionization would not be required for small particles.\nUsing the\nJue (of GREENHOW and H AWKINS, 1952) for the efficiency of the ionization process and the\nrecently re ised value for the amount of meteoric material entering the atmosphere per day, the rate of\nproduction f electrons was found to be 20 electrons/cc sec. From this value and the recombination\ncoefficients ·n the E-region, the equilibrium electron density in the E-region was found to be between\n2 x 104 and 7 x 104 electrons/cc. It is therefore proposed that the night-time value for the electron\ndensity in the E -region results from meteoric bombardment, and that sporadic Eis caused by the same\nprocess on the assumption that the distribution of meteoric particles in space is non-isotropic and\ncontains centres of high density. P erhaps, also, the interaction of charged micrometeorites with the\nearth's magnetic field, may be considered as a mechanism for the production of magnetic storms.\n1. INTRODUCTION\nMETEORS, as commonly known, are extra-terrestrial particles of only a few milli­\ngrams, which enter the earth's atmosphere at relatively high velocities. In their\ninteraction with the air, they are vaporized by the heat generated and ~re respon­\nsible for the emission of light and. production of ions along the meteor trail. The\nmajor portion of the kinetic energy of the meteoric particles is absorbed in the\naltitude region between 80 and 120 km. It is attempted below to consider whether\nthe integrated effects of this meteoric interaction might contribute to the structure\nof the E-region.\n2. THEORY\nHERLOFSON (1948) has constructed a model for the interaction of meteoric particles\nwith the atmosphere. It is assumed that in the region of meteoric flash, the mean\nfree path of the molecule is much greater than the radius of the meteor. Under\nsuch conditions, the front surface of the meteor is bombarded by single air mole­\ncules and the major portion of them is trapped in the metal surface. The kinetic\nenergy relative to the meteor which is given up to the meteor suffices to bring the\ntemperature to that of ev:aporation. The meteor atoms evaporate off the meteor\n(ablation) with velocities appropriate to the temperature and the relative velocity\nof the meteor with respect to the air.\nFrom consideration of the physical interaction.of the meteor with the air mass,\nusing the differential form ofthe conservation ofenergyand momentum, HERLOFSON\ndetermined the equation for the rate of evaporation at any point along th!;) trail.\nr\nn = ¾nmax(P/Pmax) [l -\n¼(P/Pmax)]2\n(1)\nwher.e nmax = 7 X 1023 r 00 3 = the maximum rate of evaporation.\np = the pressure at any point along the trail.\nPmax = 4 X 10- 2 r 00 = pressure along the trail where nmax occurs.\n00 = the initial radius of the meteoric particle.\n111" }, { "n": 210, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p210.jpg", "text": "112\nMAURICE DUBIN\nSince the velocity distribution of meteors is over the range from 10 to 70\nkm/sec, for the purpose of computation an average velocity of 40 km/sec was used.\nPmax and nm.a.--.. were determined accordingly.\nFrom equation (1) and WATSON'S (1941) estimate for the number and size\ndistribution of meteors entering the earth's atmosphere Table I was computed.\nThe computation has been made for three altitudes, 85 km, 100 km, and 115 km,\nusing the following rocket pressures:\nAltitude (km)\nI Pressure (mm.of Hg)\nNumber density of\nair molecules (cm- •)\n85\n4 X l0- 3\n1014\n100\n4 X l0- •\n10l3\n115\n4 X 10- 5\n1012\nThus equation (1) becomes\n7 X 1023\n9\n(\n1\np\n)2\nn = 4 X 4 X 10- 2pra}\n1\n3 4 X 10- 2r 00\n2\n= 1.6 x l021\n2 ( 1 -\nl\n) •\nn115\nr 00\n3 X 103\n00\nr\nThe number of electrons per cm of path becomes, from HERLOFSO\n(1948),\nn X 10- 2\nn X 10- s\nn. cm-1 = ---­ ­\nv\n4\nFrom Table I it is evident that the number of electrons for a shell of 1 cm\nthickness over the surface of the earth, resulting from meteors, is 1020 electrons\nper day at 85 km produced mainly from meteors of visual magnitudes 1 to 4,\nabout 1020 electrons per day at 100 km with the major contribution for visual\nmagnitudes 6 to 15, and again about 1020 electrons per day at 115 km from mag.\n7 to 20. The number of electrons produced per cm of path per cm2 per sec at these\nthree altitudes is thus 1020/ ( 4 . 4 x 1023 ) = 2 x 10- 4 electrons per cm 3 per\nsecond.\nNow according to HERLOFSON, the kinetic energy of a typical meteor is divided\nin the ratio 104 : 102 : 1 for the production of heat, light, and ionization, respec­\ntively. These values were used in the computation of Table I. However, from" }, { "n": 211, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p211.jpg", "text": "I\nHeight = 85 km\nHeight = 100 km\nHeight = 115 km\nNo. of\n:ro. of\nObserved\nNo. of\nTotal No. of\nNo. of\natoms\nVisual\nTrue\nRadius\nTotal\nTotal\nNo. of\nMass, g\nelectrons\nelectrons\natoms\nn e cm-1\natoms\nn, cm-1\nevap.\nmagnitude\nNo.\nCID\nn, cm-1\nn, cm-1\ncm- 1\nn cm- 1\nn e cm- 1\nmeteors\nper cm\n0\ncm- 1\nl ·6812\n6-022\n6-5-1\n1·514\n4-218\n6-721\nl ·6813\n2-8+4\n4·717\n2-8+•\n6-720\n4\n4·716\n-3\n6·5617\n3.022\n7.51a\n3.721\n9.2512\n7-lH\n7-lH\n3.720\n4·83- 1\n9·211\n~2\n1·6\n5·3218\n6-616\n4.31s\nl ·7222\n7.7318\n1-8+5\n3.54- 1\n5.2512\n1-8+5\n6·3- 1\n5·311\n2· 121\n2·!20\n9·516\n-1\n9·4517\n2·7512\n9.518\n8·321\n4.5+s\n4.5+s\n2-5- 1\n2· l13\n2·60-1\nl ·2518\n2·811\nl·!20\nl ·2517\nl • 121\n0\n1·4511\n4.021\n1.412\n1-0- 1\n1-013\n5-620\n1·!+6\nl·l+s\n1-92- 1\nl ·5418\n5-819\n1\nl ·l19\n1·6017\n3.po\nl ·8621\nl ·3O19\n4-0- 2\n1-41- 1\n4·6512\n2-8+6\n3·219\n8·010\n2\n2·86\n7·7511\n2·1718\n2·2417\n8·020\n2-012\n4·011\n1-620\nl-6- 2\n4.310\n1·719\n3\n6-4+6\n1·04-1\n7· 16\n3·017\nl ·4219\n2·8418\nI\n8·519\n2.920\nl ·3O19\nl ·87\n6-3- 3\n7-6- 2\n9.21s\n2.310\n4\n9-0+6\n3·8418\n7 ·2511\n4·117\n2·1311\n4.410\n8·019\n9-018\n2-5- 3\n5·6-2\n2·Oll\n3-6+6\n5-018\n5·617\n4·5'\n5\n4·9518\nl • 111\nl ·310\n2·319\n2-4310\n2-718\n4-12- 2\n9·1718\nl·O- 3\n2-718\n6·3218\n7·417\nl·l\"\n5·7510\n6·89\n6\nI\nl ·4618\n4-o- •\n2·8810\n3·03- 2\n·0518\n2·88\n1·4618\nl ·O218\n7\n3·659\n1·0218\nl • 1519\n3·7 9\n2·24- 2\n1·6- •\n7·817\n7· 18\n5·7518\nl ·441!'\nl ·3918\n8\n1·0219\n1·969\n218\nl ·2719\n6-3- 5\nl ·65-2\n4·217\n1·89\n2·\n7·19\n9\n1·069\n1·91'8\nl ·3519\n2-5- 5\n1-21- 2\nl ·2O18\n2· 1617\n3-o•\n2-418\n4·59\n10\n5·48\n4·511\n2-5- 7\n2·6- 3\n8-215\n2·7 7\n2·057\n9-218\n15\n(1·0816)\n1·2119\n4.513\n2-5- 9\n6-o-•\n20\nl ·3O19\nl · 1614\n2·9 5\n4.515\n1-21- •\n2-5- 11\n25\n.\n2-5- 13\n4·517\n2-6-5\n30\nTable I. Calculation of the number of electrons produced per cm of path per meteor and per l!wenty-four lwwrn;ura function of visual magnitude.\n(number in upper right is power of 10)\n....\n....\nto>" }, { "n": 212, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p212.jpg", "text": "Il4\nMAURICE DUDIN\nconsideration oflong-duration meteor echoe it ha been suggested that the electron\ndensity in the trail is greater than the critical density for the radio wavelengths\nemployed in probing meteors, and has led to a revision of the Herlofson ratios for\nthe production of heat, light, and ionization. GREENHOW and HAWKINS (1952)\nthereby found that a mete.or of visual magnitude +6 would produce approxi­\nmately 1012 electrons per centimetre of path. This is one hundred times greater\nthan HERLOFSON's estimates, and leads to a discrepancy of roughly five stellar\nmagnitudes between his theoretical estimate and the experimental determination\nof electron-line density in meteor trail . GREENHOW and HAWKINS conclude that\nmeteors produce more· ionization than was originally estimated. Instead of the\nkinetic energy of the meteor being divided between heat, light, and ionization in\nthe ratio 104 : 102 : 1, the ratios are probably 104 : 102 : 10 for bright meteors, and\n104 : 10 : 10 for faint meteors. These revised estimates imply that the visual\nmagnitudes corresponding to ap echo of given characteristics is about five magni­\ntudes fainter than given by HEBLOFSON. This means that the majority of echoes\nof short duration must arise from meteors which are below the limits of naked-eye\nvisibility, and conversely, that all visible meteors must produce radio echoes of\nlong duration-a well-known ob ervational fact.\nA further consideration in the model of HEBLOFSON is the fact that unmelted\nmeteorites hav been found on the smface of the earth. WHIPPLE (1950, 1951)\nhas shown that the micrometeorite, if below a certain size, can dissipate the\nenergy gained sufficiently rapidly to permit the ·e particles to be stopped by the\natmosphere without melting. Recalling that the Herlofson model required that\nablation of the meteorite was the initial step in the production of light and\nionization, thi\npoint warrants some discussion.\nGREE HOW and HAWKINS\n(1952) have indicated that for radio meteors the amount of light produced is\ncorrespondingly reduced for small meteoric particles but the relative ionization is\nnot reduced, but rather is generally larger than indicated by HERLOFSON's treatment.\nIt seems worthwhile to review briefly the physical process involved in the\ninteraction of a micrometeorite with the atmosphere. Since it is not believed that\nablation results for these very small particle , one might question whether or not\nthe ionization efficiency would become correspondingly poorer. The physical\nproblem is one of considering a collision of the micrometeorite with a molecule or\natom of air, with the relative energy of collision in the range from 10 to 800 eV.\nThe mean free path of the air is much ·greater than the diameter of tho micro­\nmeteorite, and thus the problem may be treated by kinetic theory rather than\nfluid dynamics.\n•\nThere are everal proces es which might occur: (1) An elastic collision of a\nmolecule of air with the micrometeorite would yield a molecule with a velocity\ncapable of ionizing. (2) An inelastic collision of a molecule of air with the Inicro­\nmeteorites such that the air molecule enter the surface of the micrometeorite, and\nthereby heats the Inicrometeorite and al o forms a \"monolayer\" on the surface;\nsuch molecules if not chemically bonded to the surface might very ,easily evaporate\noff the surface with the velocity high enough for ionization. (3) Secondary ioniza­\ntion from collisions with a surface. (4) Attachment to oxygen by the collision and\nthe eventual addition of a free electron to the atmosphere; and (5) sputtering of" }, { "n": 213, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p213.jpg", "text": "115\nMeteor ionization in the E-region\nthe micrometeorite and the subsequent ionization by the freed particle_ Experi­\nmental information on collisions of neutral particles and the resulting excitation\nand ionization is very limited. Much of the available information is contained in\nMASSEY and BURHOP (1952).\nAlthough the ionization efficiency is much greater for electrons than for heavy\nions, as long as the ion energy is greater than the threshold value for ionization,\nthe possibility of ionization exists. For example. a recent technique for obtaining\nvelocities for neutral particles near the range of meteor velocities is the shock-tube\nmethod of RESLER et al. (1952). It was found that the extent of ionization as a .\nfunction of Mach number was rather large. In the case of argon at Mach 18,\nargon at 1 cm of\ng pressu,re was 50 per cent ionized. Mach 18 corresponds to a\nlinear velocity of 18 X 0·350 = 6 km/sec, somewhat less than meteor velocities.\nFor this low velo ·ty there also was a highly luminous region associated with the\nshock fronts in b h argon and air.\nBERRY et al. (1942) investigated the ionization of gases by collisions of their\nown accelerated\nolecules. They found that the onset energies observed for such\nionization were roughly only three times the ionization potentials of the atoms.\nThey also concluded that in the range of speeds for argon between 48 e V to 1,000 e V,\nrelatively little change had occurred in the kinetic energy delivered to the newly\nformed argon ion, and therefore it seemed unlikely that the mechanism of ionization\nwas one involving a transfer of kinetic energy. Also at energies of about 2,000 eV\nthe cross-section for ionization of argon was greater than for N 2 by only a factor\nof 2. In fact the arrangement of the cross-sections for ionization in decreasing\norder was found to be A, N 2, H 2, and He.\nAn estimate of the order of magnitude may be determined (for a few of the\nreactions) from MASSEY and BuRHOP. Although most experiments have been\nmade with positive ions, it seems that the cross-section for ionization in the case\nof neutral atoms is at least the same order, but usually somewhat higher.\nThe secondary emission coefficient for surfaces, y, is the :q.umber of ejected\nelectrons per incident positive ion. Some ob ervers have found a higher value of\ny for surfaces which oxidize readily, implying that higher values arise from the\noxide layer. PAE'.1.'0W and WALCHER {1938) reason tha.t since the electron emission\ncannot depend much on the work function of the adsorbed atoms, in th case of ·a\nmonolayer of ox~gen on caesium, it would follow that the extra electron emission\ncame from the bsorbed layer itself. The value of y for the low-energy range in\nthe case of mi rometeorites and based on positive ion bombardment would\nprobably be in\ne range from 0·02 to 0·5. Allowing for an energy absorption of\n10 e V for a secondary electron, these coefficients are in themselves sufficient to\ngive a ratio ofkinetic energy absorbed in ionization for 200 eV of better than 10 3 : 1.\nNegative ions have been found to result from the impact of positive ions on\nsurfaces. ARNOT and MILLIGAN (1936) have estimated that for incident Hg+ ions\nof about 200 e V energy, about 10- 3 Hg- ions were formed per incident ion. For\nneutral oxygen atoms and molecules which also form negative ions, this ratio\ncould very well be higher. Positive ions incident; on surfaces may be reflected\nwithout neutralization, although it is generally felt that an ion on striking a wall\nbecome, neutralized. For rare gas ions incident on nickel, the reflection coefficient" }, { "n": 214, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d015/p214.jpg", "text": "116\nMAURICE DUBIN\nfound by HEALEA and HouTERMANS (1940) wa in the range from 0·2 to 0·05 for\nions of He, Ne, and A at about 400 eV.\nThe impact ofions on a solid surface re ults also in a process known as sputtering,\nwherein atoms or clusters of atoms are ejected from the surface as a result of\nimpact. The threshold for sputtering is of the order of 40 eV, and most values\ngiven {or rate of sputtering lie between 1 and 10 gm/amp hour. For incident ions\nat 200 e V the sputtering rate would probably fall to one-third this range of values.\nFor a surface containing atoms of mass number 60, one gram per ampere hour is\nequivalent to approximll,tely 0·5 sputtered atoms per incident ion. Thus the\nsputtering rate for metallic meteorites might be of the order of one atom per\nincident air particle and possibly higher for stony meteorites.\nBasicall , for all these proces ·es the important parameter for ionization is the\nrelative vel city. The relative amount of energy absorbed by ionization should\nnot be diffe ent, whe~her or not ablation of the meteoric particle occurs. Because\nof the long-\nean-face path of air compared to the size of the meteoric particle, the\nair particles must act independently of each other. Effectively the cross-section\nfor ionizatio might increase during evaporation, but this is equivalent to increas­\ning the air density to allow for a larger number of collisions. Indeed, one may, as\na gross estimate, expect that on the average a fixed percentage of the kinetic\nenergy absorbed by the air is transmitted into ionization with an efficiency given\nby GREENHOW and HAWKINS' correction of HERLOFSON's treatment.\nRecently WHIPPLE (1952) has investigated the amount of meteoric material\nentering the earth's atmosphere. From experiments of BURNIGHT, and BOHN and\nNADIG, using rockets; CROZIER and SEELY on air pollution; VAN DE HuLST and\nALLEN by observations of zodiacal light and eclip e , and PET'l'ERSSON and ROTS HI\nfrom observation of deep-sea sediments containing nickel: WHIPPLE noted that\ndata from these methods generally agree as to order of magnitude of the amount\nof material falling into the earth's atmosphere. From this, the frequency of small\nmeteoric bodies encountering the earth's atmosphere should exceed the older\nestimates 'based on meteors and meteorites (WATSON'S) by a factor of possibly\n104 . The result is perhaps 103 tons or more per day on the entire earth.\nEarlier the value for the number of electrons formed per cc/sec was found to\nbe 2 X 10- 4 erctrons per cc/sec, based on WATSO ' 'S estimates and HERLOFSON'S\ntheory.\nSine\nGREE ' HOW has indicated that HERLOFSON's value should be\nincrea ed by\nfactor between 102 and 10, and the number of micrometeorites\nshould be inc ased by a factor of 10 4 to 103 , th rate of production of electrons\nshould be multiplied by a factor of about 105, giving an average production rate\nof electrons of twenty electrons per cc.\nHaving determined roughly the rate of production of electrons, the rate of\ndisappearance of electrons must be considered in order to calculate the equilibrium\nelectron density. The rate of loss of electrons along the meteor trail is given by\non\n-\n= D \\j 2n -\n('J.,n 2 -\nynn 0\nat\nWhere D is the diffusion coefficient,