(SpringerBriefs in Space Development) Anthony Young (Auth.) - The Apollo Lunar Samples - Collection Analysis and Results-Praxis (2017)

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
Anthony Young
The Apollo
Lunar Samples
Collection Analysis
and Results
SpringerBriefs in Space Development
Series Editor
Joseph N. Pelton Jr., Arlington, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10058

Anthony Young
The Apollo Lunar Samples

Collection Analysis and Results
Anthony Young
Orlando, FL, USA
ISSN 2191-8171 ISSN 2191-818X (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Space Development
ISBN 978-1-4614-6184-5 ISBN 978-1-4614-6185-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017931368
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Praxis imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Science+Business Media LLC
The registered company address is: 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, U.S.A.
This Springer book is published in collaboration with the International Space
University. At its central campus in Strasbourg, France, and at various locations
around the world, the ISU provides graduate-level training to the future leaders of
the global space community. The university offers a two-month Space Studies
Program, a five-week Southern Hemisphere Program, a one-year Executive MBA
and a one-year Master’s program related to space science, space engineering, sys-
tems engineering, space policy and law, business and management, and space and
society.
These programs give international graduate students and young space profes-
sionals the opportunity to learn while solving complex problems in an intercultural
environment. Since its founding in 1987, the International Space University has
graduated more than 3,000 students from 100 countries, creating an international
network of professionals and leaders. ISU faculty and lecturers from around the
world have published hundreds of books and articles on space exploration, applica-
tions, science, and development.
Preface
Project Apollo was an American geopolitical and technical response to the threat of
Soviet Communism in the second half of the twentieth century. Apollo was the third
of three human spaceflight programs conducted by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). Project Mercury was NASA’s first human space-
flight program to prove American capability to orbiting a single astronaut around
the Earth; the Soviet Union had already proved that capability with its first cosmo-
naut Yuri Gagarin in 1961. NASA’s Project Gemini followed using a larger capsule
for two astronauts, extending their time in Earth orbit for up to two weeks, to prove
the ability to rendezvous with another spacecraft. Project Apollo was the lunar land-
ing program meant to beat the Soviets putting men on the surface of the Moon and
then returning them safely back to Earth.
Project Apollo was unlike any national effort the United States had conducted in
its history. Science was not the imperative of Project Apollo; American technical
prowess and the superiority of the capitalistic system were the principal drivers.
However, the collective science community in the nation’s universities, corpora-
tions, and NASA’s own research centers provided the impetus behind what the
astronauts were to do while on the lunar surface. In the end, the scientific discover-
ies and the benefits of the multitude of technologies derived from Project Apollo are
what are remembered today. America’s national prestige was bolstered around the
world, and Project Apollo actually created a collective common human bond that
transcended borders and languages.
The essence of the Apollo lunar landing missions was sample collection and
surface experimentation. However, lunar scientific research preceded the Apollo
program and even President John Kennedy’s famous address to Congress in 1961.
Lunar probes were the essential precursors before astronauts could land and explore
the Moon’s plains, massifs, and curious rills. These NASA programs were Ranger,
Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter. These programs provided vital information that proved
that spacecraft could land there and astronauts could indeed walk on its surface and
aid in selecting the most desirable landing sites for exploration.
vii
viii Preface
To achieve the scientific goals of Project Apollo, virtually every piece of hard-
ware had to be designed from a clean sheet of paper. These included the sampling
tools and procedure for sample collection and storage and preservation for return to
Earth. A Lunar Receiving Laboratory had to be designed and built to examine, test,
and publish the findings. Numerous institutions outside of NASA competed for the
privilege of conducting research on the lunar samples.
Terrestrial geologic training had to be conducted for the astronauts to know how
to properly identify the samples while on the lunar surface. For the first several
Apollo landing missions, rudimentary sample collection of loose soil, rocks, and
core samples was all there was time for. On Apollo 14, there was an astronaut-pulled
tool and sample-carrying cart. However, something far better and more productive
was being designed and developed to help the astronauts with their surface tasks and
mission.
A separate lunar rover program was begun to give the astronauts a vehicle that
would permit them to travel many kilometers from the landing site and expand their
scope of exploration, sampling, and photography. In addition, the LRV had a sophis-
ticated tool carrier to secure the tongs, scoop, hammer, drill, and core tubes, as well
as sample-carrying and storage areas. All lunar samples were stored in the Lunar
Sample Return Container which was then placed inside the lunar module and ulti-
mately transferred to the Command Module for return to Earth.
While the returning Apollo astronauts embarked on tours and speaking engage-
ments, their precious lunar samples were delivered to the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory in Houston, Texas, and were sorted, cataloged, and stored for detailed
examination. Each sample had a story to tell of the history of the Moon and its for-
mation and even the history of the solar system itself.
Examination of the Apollo lunar samples has continued for many years since the
end of the Apollo program. It is with a profound sense of wonder that a scientist
with a lifespan of but 80 years can look upon a lunar sample more than four billion
years old.
There is a vast body of printed material covering all aspects of the Apollo pro-
gram. Many peer-reviewed technical papers have been published on the lunar sam-
ples. Most of the findings written in these papers are pure science of greatest interest
to fellow scientists and researchers. In this book I have striven to present the Apollo
lunar samples’ story of greatest interest to the lay reader. With regard to the Apollo
lunar surface missions, I have confined myself to mission timelines specific to sam-
ple collection and voice transcripts supporting that.
Orlando, FL, USA Anthony Young

October 2016
Contents
1 Lunar Probes Pave the Way�� 1

The Brilliant Machines: The Surveyor Soft Landers �� 3
Lunar Orbiter Maps the Moon �� 6
2 Planning the Apollo Missions Sample Collection
and Processing�� 9
In the Beginning, There Was the Sonett Report�� 10
Lunar Sample Collection Tools and Equipment�� 13
The Lunar Receiving Laboratory�� 22
3 Geological and Sample Collection Training for Missions�� 27
Early Geologic Field Trips�� 29
Training for Apollo 15, 16 and 17 �� 36
4 Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 11, 12, and 14�� 45
Transfer of the Apollo 11 ALSRCs and Delivery to Houston �� 51
Apollo 12’s Intrepid to the Ocean of Storms �� 52
A Pause in Apollo and Different Site for Apollo 14�� 58
5 Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 15, 16 and 17�� 67
The Plains of Hadley for Apollo 15 �� 68
Apollo 16 Ventures to the Descartes Highlands�� 75
America’s Last Manned Mission to the Moon: Apollo 17�� 83
6 Preliminary Sample Findings from the Apollo Missions
and Post-Apollo Findings�� 93
Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Samples �� 93
ix
x Contents

Post-Apollo Findings Regarding the Moon �� 105
Appendix �� 107

Glossary�� 111
Index�� 113
Chapter 1
Lunar Probes Pave the Way
The Soviet Union dominated the scientific and human spaceflight events of the late
1950s and early 1960s. The United States always seemed to be trying to catch up
and surpass the Soviets in their space accomplishments. Eventually, the United
States did indeed get behind an agenda to beat Russia in this newest phase of the
Cold War. In the early years, however, the Soviet Union basked in its great scientific
and human spaceflight achievements.
In January 1959, a massive Russian R-7 rocket lifted off with the first scientific
probe to be sent toward the Moon. The first of the Luna probes was intended to
impact on the lunar surface. Orbital mechanics were still in their infancy, and Luna
1 missed the Moon by 5,000 km. The second Luna probe impacted near the crater
Autolycus. In October of 1959, a third Soviet probe succeeded in orbiting the Moon,
and its onboard camera took pictures of the far side. A rocket engine fired to break
Luna 3 from the Moon’s gravity, and the probe was returned to Earth. The probe’s
small capsule was recovered, the film developed and the crude images were broad-
cast around the world. This successful mission said more about the Soviet Union’s
engineering and scientific capability than it did about the state of the Moon’s never-
before-seen far side. Other Russian probes followed well into the 1960s.
In December of the same year the Luna program began, 1959, NASA started its
Ranger program. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) would handle the engi-
neering and manufacture of America’s first lunar probe. Ranger could be considered
a remote observation probe of the Moon. It embraced several key emerging tech-
nologies, including solar power of the probe, flight propulsion and stabilization. A
series of Ranger probes would have increasing levels of technology and scientific
capability.
In less than 18 months the first Ranger probe was ready and sent to Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. It was secured inside an Agena upper stage
payload fairing to be launched by an Atlas D rocket. The Agena upper stage proved
very problematic for the Ranger program. The first Ranger launched in August 1961
and the second launched in November experienced failed Agena stages.
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 1

A. Young, The Apollo Lunar Samples, SpringerBriefs in Space Development,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2_1
2 1 Lunar Probes Pave the Way
Fig. 1.1 After a series of spacecraft and launch vehicle failures, Ranger 7 was able to return the
first images of the lunar surface from a probe. (NASA)
JPL moved forward with construction of its Block II Ranger probes. The third
probe, launched in January 1962, missed the Moon. Four months later Ranger 4 was
launched; the TV camera failed to function, and it impacted on the Moon without
providing images. Ranger 5, launched in October 1962, also missed its target com-
pletely. The Ranger team at JPL was discouraged, and some feared the program
would be canceled. The team was further demoralized with the failure of the TV
camera on Ranger 6, in which no images were recorded during its approach to Mare
Tranquilitatis.
Finally, with Ranger 7, there was success. Launched in July 1964, Ranger 7 had
six functioning TV cameras, and JPL engineers were thrilled to see high resolution
images on their monitors as the probe approached the Moon. Its target was Mare
Nubium, near the crater Copernicus. Image resolution was so good, in fact, that
scientists could discern boulders on the lunar surface. This fact undermined the
theory that the surface of the Moon was comprised of one to several meters of dust,
which would make a landing there impossible. This added impetus to the Surveyor
project probes that would soon soft-land on the surface.
Ranger 8 was launched in February 1965 and was successfully sent on a trajec-
tory that would impact in Mare Tranquillitatis, which would become famous as the
landing site of Apollo 11. The TV cameras performed to perfection, and the images
contributed to understanding of the formation of the lava flows that made up the
mare, as well as the ejecta from the craters within the mare basin. Ranger 9, the last
probe of the project, launched in March of that year, was targeted for the massive
The Brilliant Machines: The Surveyor Soft Landers 3
Fig. 1.2 Ranger 9

photographed Alphonsus
Crater in the Mare Nubium
basin. (NASA)
crater Alphonsus. It sent back nearly 6,000 images. In total, Rangers 7, 8 and 9
returned over 17,000 images of the lunar surface, having resolution that signifi-
cantly increased knowledge of lunar surface feature creation and characteristics.
The Brilliant Machines: The Surveyor Soft Landers
NASA initiated another lunar probe program long before President John Kennedy
made his historic speech before Congress in May 1961. As such, the Surveyor pro-
gram was fortuitous in ultimately providing information about the Moon and its
surface that would prove invaluable for the Apollo program. NASA again approached
JPL in the spring of 1960 to initiate and manage the development of a lunar soft-
landing probe. It was conceived as strictly a scientific probe, but was later adopted
in support of Apollo.
JPL conducted its first studies on mission objectives, design constraints and fea-
sibility shortly after getting the NASA directive. It was given the name Surveyor.
Evaluating several aerospace firms to perform design development and construction
of Surveyor, JPL selected the Hughes Aircraft Company in Los Angeles. However,
the Surveyor program did not get off to a good start. For one thing, it was hampered
by the need for the development of a more powerful upper stage to get the Surveyor
craft to the Moon. The projected weight of Surveyor precluded the use of the Agena
upper stage. The new upper stage was the Centaur. The Atlas-Centaur was actually
a new launch vehicle. JPL was thus forced to design and develop both the Surveyor
lunar probe soft lander having never before used technology and its launch vehicle
with an entirely new upper stage; it featured never before used propulsion technol-
ogy employing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
Centaur, often referred to as a booster in NASA literature, had its own develop-
ment issues that hindered the expected launch of Surveyor. The soft lander itself had
to undergo several redesigns to reduce weight to accommodate the changing perfor-
mance parameters of the Atlas-Centaur. In the end, the actual performance of the
Centaur upper stage proved more than adequate for the task of getting Surveyor in
orbit around the Moon. The ultimate cost of the Surveyor program was considerably
greater had been planned. However, the Centaur’s significant capability would
prove an asset in the many interplanetary missions it would perform for the rest of
the twentieth century. Surveyor was shifted from a discrete scientific mission to an
Apollo support program in 1964.
The Surveyor program had three primary mission objectives. They were: (1) to
develop and validate the technology for landing softly on the Moon, (2) to provide
data on the compatibility of the Apollo manned lunar-landing spacecraft design
with conditions to be encountered on the lunar surface, and (3) to add to scientific
knowledge of the Moon. Seven operational Surveyors were planned to be built, with
one spare. Not all the Surveyors were identical; they varied depending on the goals
of the mission and subsystems.
Among the spacecraft subsystems on several of the spacecraft relevant to lunar
sample collection and analysis was the Subsurface Sampling and Processing
System. This was comprised of a surface sampler with an extendible arm and scoop,
and a drill to obtain subsurface samples. Retrieved samples would be delivered to
the gas chromatograph, an X-ray spectrometer and the X-ray diffractometer for
analysis.
Surveyor I was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on May 30, 1966. Both
Atlas and Centaur performed perfectly. The spacecraft landed in the southwestern
area of Oceanus Procellarum on June 2. Among the first pictures transmitted back
to Earth by the television camera was one of the three landing footpads just lightly
compressed into the lunar soil. This confirmed, at least in that location, that the
lunar surface was stable and had far less lunar dust than suspected. The spacecraft
transmitted over 11,000 high-resolution images of the surrounding area and other
data over the next month and a half. In fact, the spacecraft continued sending scien-
tific data up to January 1967.
Surveyor II was launched on September 20, 1966. One of its mid-course correc-
tion thrusters failed to fire properly, and the spacecraft began to tumble; this could
not be corrected, and the spacecraft was lost.
Surveyor III was the first in the series with the lunar sampling arm and analysis
equipment. It landed – bouncing several times – in a 200-m shallow crater in the
eastern section of Oceanus Procellarum on April 20, 1967. The surface sampler
performed for a total of 18 hours. It succeeded in digging four trenches, with one
trench to a depth of almost 18 cm. It was established that the lunar regolith became
increasingly dense and was quite solid at 15 cm. It took over 6,300 images and
transmitted them to Earth.
The Brilliant Machines: The Surveyor Soft Landers 5
Surveyor IV was identical to III and launched on July 4, 1967. Its landing site
was in the Sinus Medii. During its descent to the lunar surface, signal contact was
lost with the spacecraft just two and a half minutes before touchdown. Mission con-
trollers could not reestablish contact.
Surveyor V was configured differently from III and IV. The surface sampler arm
was replaced with a backscatter instrument to determine the level of chemical ele-
ments in the lunar material. One of the landing pads also had a bar magnet to sense
the presence of iron or other ferrous material. This spacecraft was targeted to land
in the region of Mare Tranquillitatis. Surveyor V landed east of the Sabine and
Ritter craters on September 11, 1967. By September 24, it had taken and transmitted
over 18,000 television images. The JPL engineers were jubilant to learn the alpha-
backscatter instrument performed as designed and produced the first in situ chemi-
cal analysis of an extraterrestrial body. Analysis of the data proved the material very
similar to basalt on Earth. The spacecraft was put into a sleep mode for two weeks,
and responded to a startup command. The spacecraft took an additional 1,000
images during the month of October.
One month later, Surveyor VI landed in Sinus Medii, site of the failed Surveyor
IV mission. This proved to be the most successful spacecraft mission to date. It
transmitted nearly 30,000 images of the Moon. The alpha-backscattering instru-
ment performed for 30 hours, sending the sampling data back to Earth. On November
17, the spacecraft’s Vernier rockets were fired for 2.5 seconds to lift it off the lunar
surface and move laterally just over 2 meters. Engineers referred to this as a “lunar
hop.” It then transmitted images of the original landing site. This also allowed for
taking stereoscopic images when matched with previous photos. Surveyor VI also
performed many other scientific tasks while on the Moon. It completed the mission
objectives for the program and aided immeasurably in helping to establish landing
sites for the Apollo missions.
Fig. 1.3 Surveyor was the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s technically sophisticated lunar spacecraft
having the capability of soft lunar landing, imaging and sampling. This photo montage was taken
by Surveyor 7. (NASA)
NASA published its findings of the Surveyor program in its report SP-184 and
concluded the following, among other observations:
At all landing sites, the fine matrix, or lunar soil, is granular and slightly cohesive; the soil
is compressible, at least in its upper few centimeters, as indicated by the footpad and crushable
block imprints; and its static bearing strength increases with depth…
Television observations with color filters indicate a gray Moon even in disturbed areas. No
demonstrable differences in color were observed, which are all gray, but lighter than the
fine-grained gray matrix of the surface.
The analysis indicate that the most abundant chemical element on the Moon is oxygen
(57 +/– 5 atomic percent); second in abundance is silicon (20 +/– 5 atomic percent); and
third is probably aluminum (about 7 atomic percent). These are, in the same order, the most
common elements in the Earth’s crust. The three samples from the maria are almost identical
chemically, implying that the surface material of large fractions of the lunar maria have
this composition.
Lunar Orbiter Maps the Moon
Another program initiated by NASA in support of the Apollo program was Lunar
Orbiter. This program came under the auspices of NASA’s Lunar and Planetary
Program office. The goal of the Lunar Orbiter was specifically to photo-map the
nearside of the Moon to help determine prime landing sites for Apollo crews. NASA
considered, once again, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as manager of the program,
but JPL was fully committed to Project Ranger and Surveyor and did not have the
manpower to take on another program. The agency did an internal assessment of its
major centers and which one might best be able to handle the Orbiter program.
NASA asked Langley Research Center (LRC) in Hampton, Virginia, to evaluate the
requirements for the Lunar Orbiter and provide an honest assessment of its capabil-
ity to deliver the spacecraft and provide mission management. LRC came back with
a report that outlined the design for the spacecraft, its adequate workforce and tech-
nical capability to handle the program and deliver the Lunar Orbiter on time, in spite
of the fact that this would be its first spacecraft project. The center was given the
green light to proceed.
Having the technical design of the spacecraft and its needed capabilities to
photograph the Moon’s surface and be able to transmit them back to Earth, LRC
issued its request for proposals and proceeded with primary contractor evaluation.
The Boeing Corporation won with its design proposal, although it involved a costly
and complex system. Boeing and its sub-contractor Eastman Kodak were announced
as the winning bidders on December 20, 1963. Boeing organized its engineering
team from its former Bomarc and Dyna-Soar programs. More than 1,500 individu-
als were involved at Boeing and Kodak in the design engineering and development
of the Lunar Orbiter.
The photography system was adapted from a design Kodak developed for
America’s high altitude surveillance aircraft, the U-2 and SR-71 Blackbird.
Lunar Orbiter Maps the Moon 7
The 70-mm film would record images through a wide-angle 80-mm lens for medium-
resolution images, and through a 610-mm telephoto lens for high-resolution images.
The film transport mechanism and development system was indeed complex, but
the majority of it was proven in operation. The developed film images would then
be scanned and transmitted back to Earth. Once all images for each of the five
spacecraft were transmitted, the spacecraft would be deorbited and would impact on
the Moon.
The Lunar Orbiter spacecraft would not need the power of the Atlas-Centaur to
send it on to the Moon. The Atlas-Agena was deemed sufficient, and the reliability
issues with the Agena upper stage were being resolved. The spacecraft would weigh
less than 400 kg, within the Agena’s payload capability. By April 1965, the Lunar
Orbiter was in its final configuration, and Lunar Orbiter 1 underwent spacecraft
testing in preparation for a launch in the summer of 1966.
The spacecraft was delivered to Cape Kennedy, installed atop the Agena stage,
which in turn was secured to the Atlas-D rocket. It was launched on August 10, 1966
and placed in orbit around the Moon, but problems arose in the high-resolution
imaging system. Only a fraction of these photographs proved useful. The mission
called for the spacecraft to move to a lower orbit, but this phase was canceled. The
images from the wide angle system would return the bulk of photographs from
Orbiter 1. This spacecraft has the distinction of being the first to photograph the
entire Earth from space. It impacted on the far side of the Moon on October 29.
Lunar Orbiter 2 was launched on November 6, 1966. Twelve days later it began its
photographic mission. The spacecraft images were excellent. One of the telephoto
images was an oblique view across the crater Copernicus, taken on November 23.
The actual sizes of the lunar features in the foreground were deceiving; the largest
was 300 m in height. This image was dubbed ‘The Picture of the Century’ and
appeared on the front page of newspapers around the world. Landing site selection
began in earnest with the photographs returned from Lunar Orbiter 2. (Actual
landing site selection is covered in Chap. 2.) With Lunar Orbiter 2, all preliminary
candidate landing sites were imaged. From these photographs, the U. S. Geologic
Survey (USGS) created terrain maps of the potential landing sights that would be
given to the Apollo landing sites selection group.
The mission of Lunar Orbiter 3 was to provide stereoscopic views of the pro-
posed landing sites and oblique views as it orbited the Moon in order to establish
landing approach routes to the specific sites. The Atlas Agena was launched February
5, 1967, and Lunar Orbiter 3 began its imaging mission ten days later. The photo-
graphs from this third orbiting probe were almost as significant as those from Lunar
Orbiter 2, as they helped Apollo mission planners in starting the calculations for
descent of the Lunar Module to the surface from orbit. Even though the film advance
motor stopped working on March 4, over 70 percent of the needed images were
obtained.
Lunar Orbiters 1, 2 and 3 accomplished all the goals of the program in support of
the Apollo lunar landing missions. Two orbiters remained, but what should they be
used for? The hopes of lunar scientists for Lunar Orbiter 4 and 5 would be realized.
The orbital inclination for Lunar Orbiter 4 was established at 85 degrees to the equa-
tor, so it would be able to photograph the lunar poles with heretofore unobtainable
Fig. 1.4 Lunar Orbiter successfully photo-mapped nearly the entire surface of the Moon and
transmitted the processed and scanned images back to Earth. (NASA)
coverage and resolution. This probe was launched on May 4, 1967. One of the
problems that occasionally cropped up with the Lunar Orbiters was fogging of the
lens. To control this in between photographs there was a thermal door. Initially this
did not work properly on Lunar Orbiter 4. Boeing engineers and an engineer from
the Lunar Orbiter Program Office established a means of getting the thermal door
on Lunar Orbiter 4 to open, orienting the spacecraft to warm the lens, then reorient-
ing it to take the photograph. The procedure was repeated for the remainder of the
mission.
Lunar Orbiter 5, the last, was launched on August 1, 1967. It was placed in the
same orbital inclination around the Moon as Lunar Orbiter 4, but would fly a higher
apolune (maximum distance from the Moon in its orbit) and lower perilune (closest
distance to the Moon in its orbit). Apart from its lunar science mission profile, it also
contributed to helping pinpoint the Apollo 15 and 17 landing sites.
Don E. Wilhelms, in his book To a Rocky Moon, wrote this about the Lunar
Orbiter program: “Lunar Orbiter acquired the only global coverage of the Moon
obtained by any nation, covering most of the near side with resolutions better than
150 m and providing almost the only coverage of the far side useful for mapping
except for some narrow strips from Apollo and Zond.”
These unmanned probes were keys to establishing the locations for Apollo lunar
landing missions, dispelled concerns about surface depth and strength of the rego-
lith, sparked increased debate in the formation of the Moon, and stoked our curios-
ity of Earth’s nearest planetary neighbor. The Apollo lunar landing missions and the
samples they would collect would go far in answering the many mysteries that
remained.
Chapter 2
Planning the Apollo Missions Sample
Collection and Processing
On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress.
Although Kennedy addressed a range of urgent national needs, one in particular
electrified the nation and stunned the world. This one sentence is one often quoted
from his short presidency: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achiev-
ing the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon, and returning
him safely to the Earth.” Kennedy was not so much interested in scientific advance-
ment but wanted to finally get ahead of its Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, in the
race to the Moon. Volumes have been written on the geopolitical basis of Project
Apollo, but in May of 1961, the scientific benefits of Apollo were not the goal. In
Kennedy’s mind, America was determined to prove that it was superior to Russia.
In his 2001 book, Taking Science to the Moon – Lunar Experiments and the
Apollo Program, NASA engineer Donald A. Beattie wrote that the efforts to glean a
scientific benefit from Apollo were initially an afterthought: “Because the presi-
dent’s mandate did not require that any specific tasks be accomplished once the
astronauts arrived on the Moon, the initial spacecraft design did not include weight
or storage allowances for scientific payloads…The earliest thinking was, ‘We’ll
land, take a few photographs, pick up a few rocks, and take off as soon as possible.’
The need to do much more was not considered in the planning. For many NASA
engineers and managers, the lunar landing was a one-shot affair.”
How this initial ambivalent attitude toward deriving any scientific findings from
landing on the Moon and collecting a few samples grew to the development and use
of the magnificent Lunar Roving Vehicle and Lunar Module capability to spend
several days on the Moon exploring is a fascinating story, covered more thoroughly
in other books. However, the story of getting those precious lunar samples and find-
ing out what they might reveal about the Moon itself and perhaps Earth is the main
goal in this work.

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2_2
10 2 Planning the Apollo Missions Sample Collection and Processing
In the Beginning, There Was the Sonett Report
There had been a good deal of scientific inquiry about the Moon for many years.
However, these had all been of a remote nature using telescopes and hoped-for
space probes. Any manned lunar exploration up to 1961 was the stuff of science
fiction. There had been annual meetings in the United States for a number of years,
such as the Eighth Lunar and Planetary Exploration Colloquium, which took place
in March 1960 in Downey, California.
In the spring of 1962, NASA’s Office of Manned Spaceflight (OMS) contacted
Dr. Charles P. Sonett in the Office of Space Science at the agency’s Ames Research
Center in California. The OMS wanted Sonett to gather a team of scientists to for-
mulate a scientific rationale for the first several Apollo lunar landing missions and
make recommendations. The OMS provided guidelines with which to begin consid-
erations. Sonett, acting as chairman, drew on his professional affiliations with those
he knew within NASA, the scientific community and other personnel. The commit-
tee was made up of members and consultants who offered input via short reports.
There were a broad range of scientific disciplines represented in an effort to sat-
isfy the scientific requirements NASA was looking for. These included geology and
geochemistry, geophysics, biology, the atmosphere, plasma physics, solar physics,
astronomy and radio astronomy and similar disciplines. A number of participants
on this committee would become very prominent during the Apollo program.
Fig. 2.1 Eugene Shoemaker at the U. S. Geologic Survey was instrumental in the creation of the
field of astrobiology, exploration, sampling protocols and recommendations for lunar sampling
tools. (USGS)
In the Beginning, There Was the Sonett Report 11
Among them were Dr. Eugene Shoemaker of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Dr. Harold Urey, Dr. Thomas Gold and Dr. Gerald Kuiper.
During the late spring and early summer months of 1962, members of the ad hoc
Apollo Group Committee and consultants worked to establish the parameters of
activities by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface on missions ranging from just a
few hours to several days. Lunar surface feature observation and description,
sample collection and placement of scientific experiments were covered in the
developing report. The key activity of every Apollo lunar landing mission was sam-
ple collection for the purpose of extensive examination and testing by various means
back on Earth.
In the report that was delivered in rough draft in July 1962, it was clearly stated
that lunar samples needed to be collected and stored in sterile containers yet to be
designed. Methods of sample retrieval, collection in containers, and storage of sam-
ples and the handling environment back on Earth would also have to be established.
Significantly, the members of the group established the need to drill holes in the
lunar surface to collect core samples, not simply collect loose, small samples from
the surface alone. There was a separate section identified as “Drill Holes.”
Amusingly, in the first paragraph, it was suggested a shallow drill hole would be 100
feet deep. The report stated there was a “firm requirement for equipment that can
reach a depth of 20 feet.” Approximately half this depth was actually achieved dur-
ing Apollo 15, 16 and 17.
One of the key recommendations of the published report was the absolute need for
scientist-astronauts to be members of each Apollo crew going to the lunar s urface.
All such candidates, the report stated, should hold Ph. Ds and have at least ten years
working experience in their specialty. The committee’s first choice was for a geologist
with good knowledge of geophysics. NASA would eventually establish a distinct pro-
gram for the selection of scientist-astronauts. The first such scientist-astronauts were
selected in 1965, but only one would fly on an Apollo mission: Dr. Harrison “Jack”
Schmitt. He was Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 17, and his observations during the
mission are recounted in a later chapter. This report also provided a list of required
equipment to conduct geological work on Earth as a guide for similar equipment
needed during lunar exploration. The list included two picks, a shovel, sample con-
tainers and supplies, some of which was not practical on the Moon.
The Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Apollo Experiments and Training on
the Scientific Aspects of the Apollo Program, or the Sonett Report in short, was a
foundational document on lunar surface exploration in the early years of the Apollo
program. One member of the group, Verne C. Fryklund, worked as acting director of
the Manned Space Sciences Division within the Office of Space Science. In October
1963, Fryklund received tacit approval of the recommendations from Homer Newell
at the OSS and Joseph Shea at the OMSF. Fryklund then sent a memo to Dr. Robert
R. Gilruth, director of the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston, Texas.
According to Donald A. Beattie, this memo contained the first scientific guidelines
for the early Apollo missions.
Fryklund’s memo to Gilruth outlined three principal activities to be conducted
on the lunar surface as a minimum: “a. Comprehensive observation of lunar
p henomena; b. Collection of representative samples; and c. Emplacement of moni-

toring equipment.” Shortly after the memo was reviewed by Gilruth and others at
the MSC, it was announced 250 pounds would be allowed as the payload for scien-
tific purposes. That was just the initial assessment. After the circulation of the Sonett
Report, the Lunar Science Branch within the Manned Space Science Programs at
NASA headquarters began to further develop the goals, methods and means of sam-
ple collection and evaluation for the Apollo missions.
During 1964, even as the country was trying to recover from the assassination of
President Kennedy in November of 1963, NASA headquarters moved forward with
a more formal outline of Apollo missions and the duties of its astronauts on the lunar
surface. In December 1964, NASA issued Apollo Lunar Science Program Report of
Planning Teams (TM-84139). During the spring of 1964, separate planning teams
were established within the Lunar Science Branch for the separate disciplines that
needed to be represented on each of the early Apollo missions. Chief among these
disciplines were lunar sample collection, preservation and the methods of sample
analysis back on Earth.
This document stated the “…single major scientific objective of the Apollo land-
ings should be to return 60-80 pounds (limited by capability of the spacecraft) of
representative lunar samples.” Specifically, the geologic team recommended collec-
tion of a wide variety of small samples measuring 1 × 1 × 1 cm as sufficient for
analysis. It was stated a number of larger, 0.5 to 1.0 kg samples, also be collected
both from the surface and subsurface. The team stated that a chisel and hammer
should be sufficient to acquire samples from much larger blocks. Also needed would
be a sample scoop for fragmented pieces and particulate, or lunar soil. For sample
containers and packaging, the document stated: “The field geology planning team
indicated that most of the samples collected should be placed in individual, pre-
numbered, gas-tight soft bags, and the bags placed in a tight, pressure-proof, rigid
sample box which will be sealed outside the LEM before return to Earth. Besides
the soft bags, several small, rigid containers should be available so that unconsoli-
dated material such as dust samples can be taken and their structure preserved.”
The ability of the astronauts to actually collect lunar samples certainly had a
number of unanswered questions. The Apollo EVA suit had yet to be designed and
tested. The flexibility of the suit and specifically of the gloves would determine, in
large part, whether the astronauts could handle the chisel, hammer and scoop, as
well as the sealing of the sample bags and closing of the sample containers. Members
of the geochemistry, mineralogy and petrography, and geology planning teams
wanted the sample containers to be capable of retaining their original vacuum con-
dition once the container was closed and locked on the lunar surface. This would
preserve the lunar samples in their original state. Another issue involved how far
from the landing site the astronauts would be able to venture in order to obtain
samples. The methods of sampling, depending on the type of sample desired, would
also have to be developed so the astronauts could be trained in this method.
Accommodation of the sample container or containers would have to be provided
first aboard the lunar module that would descend to the landing site, inside the
ascent stage that left the lunar surface and transfer of the containers to the Apollo
capsule in a secure location for return to Earth.
Lunar Sample Collection Tools and Equipment 13
TM-84139 was the first NASA document produced by the Lunar Science Branch
to state the need for a laboratory in Houston, Texas, within the Manned Spacecraft
Center to receive the collected lunar samples, catalog them, conduct requested test-
ing by the various teams and disseminate the findings. It was initially identified as
the “sample receiving laboratory.” This ultimately became the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory. A new ad hoc committee was established in the summer of 1964 to draw
up the comprehensive requirements for the LRL in Houston. The LRL would also
draw up the requirements for the sampling tools and the containers that would hold
them. Most examination and testing of the samples would be performed at the LRL,
but very specialized tests, such as gas analysis or isotopic studies, would be per-
formed by an established outside laboratory approved by NASA.
This document also noted the need for the selection of investigators and experi-
menters and how the selection process would equitably satisfy the scientific commu-
nity at large, be they individual scientists, universities or research institutions. There
would be a great deal of prestige attached to the selection of a person or laboratory to
examine the samples, apart from the findings that would emanate from that work.
There would be the very human trait of ambition and professional honor in the com-
petition for selection. TM-84139 also covered the scientific experiments the planning
teams had recommended that would be deployed and left on the lunar surface.
Around the same time TM-84139 was published in December of 1964, Homer
Newell queried the National Academy of Sciences’ Space Science Board members
to get opinions on the need for a laboratory to receive and handle the lunar samples.
That board released its report to Newell at the Manned Spacecraft Center in February
1965. The report concurred there should be such a laboratory but questioned if it
should be at the MSC. Stakeholders with regard to lunar sample evaluation wanted
this laboratory removed from the control of personnel at the MSC. As with every-
thing else regarding the Apollo, politics and pride came into play regarding the
location of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. It was finally decided that the labora-
tory would be built at MSC.
Lunar Sample Collection Tools and Equipment
In the mid-1960s, the Apollo program was moving quickly across all areas of space-
craft and launch vehicle design and testing, ground support equipment, mission
planning and lunar site selection, astronaut training and related matters. The design
of the lunar sampling tools and sampling procedures were developed by the
U.S. Geologic Survey’s Field Geology Team under the direction of Eugene
Shoemaker. The USGS was headquartered in Flagstaff, Arizona. The facilities and
geology of the surrounding area was ideal for astronaut training and design develop-
ment of the sampling tools and collection equipment. Members of Shoemaker’s
team in Flagstaff coordinated efforts with the Manned Spacecraft Center Flight
Crew Systems Division, which performed tests on the supplied prototypes. The fin-
ished lunar sampling tools and related equipment for the lunar landing missions
were manufactured at the MSC, which was equipped to do so.
Fig. 2.2 Close-up of the

large box scoop and
hammer secured to the
Modularized Equipment
Stowage Assembly
(MESA) (NASA). Detail
of the extension handle,
tongs and two stowed
Apollo Lunar Sample
Return Containers
(ALSRC). Note the
polished finish of the upper
ALSRC. (NASA)
In February 1967, a Critical Design Review of the Apollo lunar hand tools was
held at the MSC in Houston. At this meeting, the tools were selected that would be
used on the early lunar landing missions, although some were not yet ready for
review. A number of tools were not yet ready and were still undergoing design
development to be used on the latter Apollo missions. The list of essential tools in
this CDR included: (1) tool carrier, (2) tongs, (3) hammer, (4) drive tubes 1, 2 & 3,
(5) scoop, (6) extension handle, (7) gnomon, (8) sample bags, (9) sample bag dis-
penser and sealer, (10) aseptic sampler, (11) spring scale, (12) color chart, and (13)
a combination tool brush/scriber/hand lens. A surveying staff was originally pro-
posed by the USGS but was eliminated due to the inordinate amount of time the
astronauts would need to accomplish the tasks using it. Not included in this CDR,
apparently, was the Contingency Soil Sampler; this was the first lunar sampling tool
that would be employed on Apollo 11.
MSC and the USGS team agreed all the individual tools, extension handle, core
tubes with caps, sample bags and essential items should be kept in a tool carrier so
the astronauts could have them all in one place while on the lunar surface. The
Small Tool Carrier had three legs with angled sides. Two sides stored the majority
of the equipment. It was constructed of sheet aluminum, aluminum tube and
machined aluminum parts. It also held a small tote bag. The Small Tool Carrier was
manufactured at the Johnson Space Center. It was not used on Apollo 11, but was
used on Apollo 12 and on the Apollo 14 Modular Equipment Transporter. (All lunar
sampling equipment for Apollo 13 was destroyed along with its Lunar Module
Aquarius after it separated from the Command Module and reentered Earth’s atmo-
sphere and burned up.)
Fig. 2.3 Detail of the

extension handle, tongs
and two stowed Apollo
Lunar Sample Return
Containers (ALSRC). Note
the polished finish of the
upper ALSRC. (NASA)
Fig. 2.4 Neil Armstrong

training in the storage of
lunar samples into the
ALSRC. (NASA)
The Bendix Corporation had won a NASA contract to design and develop some
of the sampling tools and support equipment for lunar surface operations. Joe
O’Connor of the USGS recalled evaluating one Bendix concept for the Lunar Tool
Carrier. It had multiple legs that O’Connor said was unduly complex. He decided to
take the Bendix engineers out for a couple of drinks to try to convince him that
design simplicity was essential for astronauts in bulky EVA suits trying to handle
Fig. 2.5 The Modular

Equipment Transporter
(MET) was designed to
transport the Hand Tool
Carrier and stow collected
samples (NASA)
equipment. USGS geologist Gerald Schaber interviewed O’Connor as part of a his-

tory of the USGS in support of the Apollo program (see Bibliographical Sources).
O’Connor said the following regarding the Lunar Tool Carrier:
I got a bar napkin – and I said you want a tripod. That’s stable; that’s as stable as you can
get. I said you don’t want a heck of a lot on it. And on the tripod you probably want a place
to put hand sample containers that are easy to get at – not too high…but not too low that he
has to do a lot of bending. So I sketched out these things on the napkin – and one of the guys
from Bendix said, ‘Oh, could I see that – would you mind if I keep it? That was the last thing
I ever saw it until it came back in the RFP for the actual Apollo Tool Carrier. Well, that’s
how the Lunar Tool Carrier got designed.
The Modularized Equipment Transporter (MET) was employed only on Apollo

14. It was a two-wheeled hand-drawn cart designed to carry the Small Tool Carrier
with all its tools and accessories, close-up stereo camera, two Hasselblad 70-mm
cameras, a 16-mm data acquisition camera (stored in the small tool carrier), film
magazines, lunar sample bag dispenser, the trenching tool, and the Lunar Portable
Magnetometer. The MET was designed almost entirely of aluminum alloy tubing,
sheet metal and machined aluminum parts. The MET’s two tires were engineered
and made by Goodyear; they measured 4 inches wide and 16 inches in diameter,
mounted to machined aluminum rims. The tires were inflated to 1.5 psi with nitro-
gen prior to flight and had an operational temperature range between –70 degrees F
to +250 degrees F.
The MET measured 86 inches long by 39 inches wide when deployed. It had two
vertical legs forward of the tires to keep it level when not being pulled by its handle
by the astronaut. The MET was fully collapsible and was stored aboard the MESA
in Quad 4 of the Lunar Module descent stage for Apollo 14. (Note: Because
Fig. 2.6 The stowed

Modular Equipment
Transporter in one
quandrant of the lunar
module. (NASA)
Goodyear was the manufacturer of the MET tires, the company is often erroneously
credited with the design and manufacture of the wheels of the Lunar Rover Vehicle
used on Apollos 15, 16 and 17.)
The principal sampling tool used on Apollo 11, 12 and 14 was the large box-
shaped scoop. It was fabricated of 6061 aluminum sheet metal and had a handle
approximately 12 inches long. To this handle could be fixed the short extension
handle to minimize the astronaut bending during sampling. There was also a small,
non-adjustable scoop with a stainless steel front edge and handle designed to accept
the extension. The small scoop was used on Apollo 12 and 14. A small adjustable-
angle scoop was machined from 17 to 7 PH stainless steel with a hinge on the
machined aluminum handle and was designed to accept the extension. This scoop
was used just on Apollo 15. A large adjustable-angle scoop was used on Apollo 16
and 17. It was made of the same materials having a larger scoop and slightly longer
handle.
Two different style hammers were used on the Apollo lunar missions. The one
used on Apollo 11 and 12 is identified as the lighter weight hammer. The head was
machined from AISI S5 tool steel with a vacuum-deposited aluminum finish. The
handle was 6061-T6 aluminum, with the head pinned to the handle. It had an overall
length of 41 cm and weighed 860 g. The hammer used on Apollo 14 through 17 had
a more massive head also machined from tool steel and aluminum coated. This
hammer had a stronger machined aluminum shank and was pinned to the head. It
had an overall length of 39 cm and weighed 1,300 g. Both hammers were designed
to accept extension handles.
A vital sampling tool were the tongs employed on all the lunar landing missions
to pick up individual rocks between 6 and 10 cm. The first design had a length of
67 cm with aluminum tines and the latter design had a length of 80 cm and had tines
made of 17-4 PH stainless steel. The tines could be opened and closed using the
spring-loaded handle at the end of tool. The astronaut’s gloved hand was considered
in the design of the tongs’ handle design.
The trenching tool featured an adjustable 310 alloy stainless steel shovel with an
aluminum handle. It had an overall length of 93 cm. This tool was used only on
Apollo 14. The large adjustable-angle scoop replaced it on Apollo 15, 16 and 17.
For the later Apollo missions, a special rake was designed. It was an elegant and
efficient design with curved 6061-T6 aluminum sheet metal sides, stainless steel
tines, stainless steel reinforcing band and an adjustable aluminum shank that was
secured to an extension handle. The tines along the bottom and curved tines at the
back were spaced to gather and sift 1-cm pebbles from the regolith. This tool was
dragged across the lunar surface in a specific technique developed during training.
The rack basket measured 29.4 × 29.4 × 10.4 cm.
The Contingency Soil Sampler was developed to allow astronauts the opportu-
nity to collect a sample of lunar soil and pebbles as one of the first tasks at the land-
ing site in the event of an aborted mission. It featured a 10-cm stainless steel ring
that held a sample bag and a multi-piece aluminum handle with internal lanyard that
had to be assembled by the astronaut. It was placed in the leg pocket of the pants of
one of the astronauts. Shortly after stepping onto the lunar surface the Contingency
Soil Sampler was retrieved from the leg pocket, the handle assembled and the sam-
ple taken from the lunar surface. Once the sample was collected, the bag was closed
and placed aboard a segment of the Lunar Module ascent stage. This tool was not
manufactured at Johnson Space Center but by a contractor, Union Carbide.
Several core tubes were designed for the Apollo missions. The first tubes mea-
sured 2 cm in diameter and were made of 6061 T-6 aluminum. One end had a hard-
ened bit, the other end an adapter fixed to it to accept an extension handle that was
used to protect the tube and permit it to be hammered into the lunar regolith. When
the core tube was extracted, the bit was removed and cap installed, and the extension
handle removed and tube capped. These tubes had an internal length of nearly 32 cm
and a capacity of 100 cm3. The 2-cm core tubes were used on Apollo 11, 12 and 14.
For the Apollo missions of 15, 16 and 17, larger and more sophisticated drive
tubes were designed. The tubes were made of 6061-T6 aluminum. There was a lower
tube with 17-4 PH stainless steel bit and internally threaded on one end; this was
affixed to the upper tube. Additional parts of these drive tubes included a plug, keeper,
cap, cap dispenser and a ram. These assembled drive tubes were initially forced into
the lunar regolith by hand, then hammered to the desired depth. When the entire tube
was removed, the bottom was capped. The upper tube had a keeper inserted, a cap
with small hole in the center secured to the end, then the ram was inserted through the
hole in the top plug cap to push the keeper against the collected sample.
The most sophisticated lunar sampling tool employed during Apollo was the
Apollo Lunar Surface Drill (ALSD). Martin Marietta in Denver, Colorado, was the
prime contractor for this sampling tool. The drill was comprised of the battery,
power head, drill stems and bit, and the treadle assembly. The power head was
designed and built by Black and Decker. It was of a rotary-percussive design that
delivered 2,270 blows per minute and 280 RPM to the drill stems. Due to the heat
generated by its operation, a wire thermal shroud covered the entire power head.
The battery was made up of 16 silver-oxide-zinc cells inside a housing that
accepted the power head. A handle was mounted separately to the battery housing
and allowed the astronaut to turn the drill on and off. The battery and housing were
manufactured by the Yardney Electric Corporation. Martin Marietta manufactured
the drill stems from titanium alloy. The stems had an outer diameter of 2.5 cm and
inner diameter of 2.0 cm. The exterior surface of the stems had flute-like screw
threads to aid in drawing the stems into the regolith during drilling. A cutting bit was
made of high-strength steel with five tungsten carbide teeth; this cutting bit was
screwed into the lower drill stem.
On the lunar surface, the astronaut would remove the components of the ALSD
from its carrier assembly in the MESA on the Lunar Module. The handle was
mounted to the battery, which was attached to the power head and set aside. The
drill bit was secured to the lower drill stem and an upper drill stem assembled to the
lower stem. The astronaut attached the power head to the assembled drill stems, but
the bit to the surface??, and turned on the drill. When the stems had drilled into the
surface sufficiently, the drill was stopped, the power head removed and another drill
stem attached. Then the power head returned to the drill stem to continue the drill-
ing operation. As many as eight drill stems could be driven into the lunar surface. To
remove the stems, a treadle was attached to the last stem, and the assembled drill
stems were extracted using the method similar to an automobile jack.
All the components of the ALSD were carried on the Lunar Roving Vehicle dur-
ing Apollo 15, 16 and 17. The assembled drill stems with core samples were sepa-
Fig. 2.7 Apollo 15 astronauts James Irwin and David Scott train using their pedestal-mounted
Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). Irwin stands next to the large tool carrier in the open position. (NASA)
rated, each end capped and secured on the LRV for placement inside the Apollo
lunar sample return container with the collected samples. Only the core stems with
caps were returned to Earth.
There were several different sample collection bags of various sizes used during
the Apollo lunar surface missions. The first of these used on Apollo 11 and 12 were
described as weigh bags that measured 42 cm high, 22 cm wide and 15 cm deep.
They were made of white Teflon; a wire frame gave them shape. These bags could
be attached to the astronaut’s suit or to the base of the Lunar Module. The weigh
bags used on Apollo 14 were of white woven cloth and also had a wire frame to
retain its shape.
The weigh bags were eventually replaced with sample collection bags (SCBs)
having more features, including pockets and different construction, but having the
same essential dimensions. The extra sample collection bag was of the same size but
without the pockets. There were also the smaller documented sample bags, which
were seen being handled by the astronauts on the lunar surface. The protective sample
bag was designed with padding inside to cushion the larger collected rock samples.
They measured roughly 15 cm × 14 cm × 5 cm. These were used on Apollo 16 and
may have been used on Apollo 17.
The special environmental sample container (SESC) was a rigid circular con-
tainer with the can and its sealable lid made from 304 L stainless steel. The con-
tainer measured 6 cm in diameter, had an overall length of 21 cm and had an interior
volume of 360 cc. A removable protective seal was left on the can lip while lunar
soil and pebbles were poured inside. When filled, the protective seal with its tab
were removed by the astronaut, and the lid secured using its torque handle. According
to documentation, the SESC was used on all the Apollo missions, but is clearly seen
in the photo of Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean taken by mission commander Pete
Conrad, who is reflected in Bean’s helmet visor.
The core sample vacuum container (CSVC) was designed to hold a single 4-cm
drive tube while retaining the lunar vacuum environment once the lid was secured.
It was also manufactured from 304 L stainless steel, and the lid functioned the same
way. The CSVC was used on Apollo 16 and 17, but documentation indicated these
were never opened in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory.
The gas analysis sample container (GASC) was a shorter version of the SESC
and was of the same construction and functional design. It had a capacity of 69 cc.
It was designed to sample the molecular makeup of the lunar environment when a
small amount of soil was also collected.
The magnetic shield sample container (MSSC) had special alloy housing and a
non-metallic exterior protective coating. It was first included on Apollo 14, but there
were no subsequent records or documentation indicating that lunar samples were
collected and returned to Earth using the MSSC.
Two Apollo lunar sample return containers (ALSRCs) were taken on each mis-
sion. These were manufactured by the Y12 National Security Complex, in Oakridge,
Tennessee. This facility had the manufacturing capability of producing containers
that could hold nuclear material. The bottom container and its lid were machined
from the same block of 7075 aluminum alloy. The exterior dimensions of the
ALSRC were 48 cm wide by 27 cm deep × 20 cm high with generous curved edges
Fig. 2.8 View of the large

tool carrier on a stand with
a few of the lunar sampling
tools, including two tongs,
extension hand and
hammer. (NASA)
and corners. A lip ran around the entire edge of the bottom and the lid to provide a
triple seal made up of a knife edge against a soft indium band with two fluorosilicone
O-rings along the entire perimeter. The lid was not hinged to the bottom. The inte-
rior was lined with wire mesh woven from 2024 aluminum wire. After the sample
bags, rocks and core or drive tubes were place in the container, Teflon seals were
removed from the edge of the lid and bottom and the lid closed over the bottom.
Two cam latches at the front of the ALSRC used four steel straps running over the
lid to provide uniform sealing pressure. Two latch pins were pushed into position to
keep the container closed. Both ALSRC containers were preloaded with sample col-
lection bags and tools prior to flight and secured in the MESA of the Lunar Module.
On Apollo 15, 16 and 17 the astronauts used the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) to
greatly expand the range of exploratory operations. The LRV used the large tool
carrier at the rear of the vehicle to expand the tool and sample carrying capability
for these missions. It was capable of storing the rake, tongs, scoop, hammer, exten-
sion handle, and sample collection bags and had provisions for related tool compo-
nents. Two large sample collection bags could be secured to the back of the large
tool carrier, which was hinged on the left to open for access to the tools. It was
constructed of aluminum tubing, sheet metal and machined parts. It was designed
and built at the Manned Spacecraft Center and shipped to the LRV prime contractor,
Boeing, for installation.
Fig. 2.9 The opposite side

of the large tool carrier
could accept two large
lunar sample bags.
(NASA)
Another tool designed exclusively for use by the lunar module pilot while seated
in the LRV was the LRV soil sampler. It had an 8-cm diameter metal ring with wire
frame mounted to a universal handling tool. The wire frame held up to 12 sample
bags in the shape of a long cup, and these were nested as each cup bag was filled; it
could then be removed from the tool, sealed and set aside. This tool allowed the
astronaut to scoop up samples without having to leave the LRV. It was used on
Apollo 17.
The Lunar Receiving Laboratory
It naturally followed that the gathering and return of lunar samples to Earth would
require a laboratory to catalog the samples and have facilities to examine and test
them to determine their composition. What was originally conceived was a modest
laboratory. Apollo was a government program of immense size and management, so
it is little wonder what became known as the Lunar Receiving Laboratory would
end up far larger and more complex than NASA program managers themselves even
thought it would be, as mentioned earlier. In addition, the LRL was started late in
the Apollo program and had to be rushed to completion in order to receive the first
The Lunar Receiving Laboratory 23
samples from Apollo 11. Progress on the laboratory was hampered by debates
among the various groups, committees and individuals involved with lunar samples
and even agencies outside of NASA as to where the laboratory should be built,
which delayed the start of its construction.
An additional issue that emerged during discussions of the design of the LRL
was that of back contamination. In addition to the need to protect the lunar samples
from any contaminants from Earth’s environment, there were concerns that Earth
and humans needed to be protected from potential and unknown lunar sample con-
taminants; this was labeled as back contamination, and it added a whole level of
complexity to the LRL with its attendant cost.
Another contributor to the size and sophistication of the laboratory was the deci-
sion to bring the Apollo capsule there for quarantine as well as the astronauts.
Naturally, all of this required procedures never before established. What originally
begun as a recommendation of the Sonnet Group for a small laboratory to examine
the lunar samples grew to involve the Public Health Service and the Centers for
Disease Control along with the creation of the Interagency Committee on Back
Contamination. Ultimately, the name of the Lunar Sample Receiving Laboratory
was changed to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory to reflect its vastly expanded scope.
Serious discussions for the LRL did not begin until 1964. It became clear that the
LRL would need its own program management, much like Apollo itself, if it was to
be completed on time. The LRL’s location was to be at the Manned Spacecraft
Center in Houston. Dr. Robert Gilruth was the center director, and initially, he did
not believe a dedicated laboratory was necessary; another NASA facility could con-
duct examination of the samples with an existing laboratory. Even the U. S. Geologic
Survey had its champions who argued that placing the LRL in Flagstaff made per-
fect sense for the examination of the lunar samples. Like many such proposals gen-
erated at NASA, Gilruth requested more research on the matter. Gilruth came to
support the LRL, but even he would be surprised as to the size the facility would
become.
One memo, written by Aleck Bond, manager of Systems, Tests and Evaluation at
NASA in April 1964, detailed the scope of the laboratory duties believed essential
up to that time. In part it stated: “MSC should build a facility that…initially receives
the samples collected by the astronauts on the Apollo missions; opens the containers
under precisely controlled, uncontaminated, sterile conditions; checks the samples
for the presence of viable organisms; performs some control testing of the samples;
carefully divides the samples into appropriate amounts for distribution to the vari-
ous investigators; prepares and repackages the portion of each sample in accordance
with the analytical technique to be used by each investigator; and delivers the por-
tion of the sample to the individual investigator.”
Three months later, the planning teams for mineralogy and petrology, geochem-
istry and biology detailed the specific functions the LRL would be dedicated to,
stating in a memo, “…the primary purpose of such a facility at MSC is to provide
a central laboratory for preliminary biological, geological and chemical examina-
tions and analyses of lunar samples.” While there were advocates for the LRL to
be located outside of the MSC and even outside a NASA facility to maintain its
scientific independence, those in favor of the laboratory’s location at the MSC and
won the day.
Soon, the issue of back contamination began to have an impact on the size and
scope of the LRL, as relevant departments of the U. S. government learned of its
creation. Even the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior
entered the fray. What would the astronauts bring back with them while on the lunar
surface? Clearly, the astronauts would have to be quarantined, and their capsule as
well, and there would need to be facilities for this. Interestingly, management at
NASA headquarters in Washington had a far less ambitious view on the scope and
operations at the LRL in 1964.
Over the next two years, the creation of the design and standards for the LRL
were written and rewritten, and funding for the ever-increasing complexity of the
facility even resulted to budget hearings in Washington, D. C. By 1965, there was
concern for scheduling of construction and completion of the facility because all the
procedures the LRL would conduct had to be put into practice and validated before
a single sample or astronaut entered the building. All personnel who would work
there would have to be trained. The LRL program office was established to accom-
plish this and keep the project on schedule.
Establishing operational procedures and protocols for each area of the LRL
began in 1966. These were crucial because they affected the design of the facility.
One of the institutions the MSC contracted with to investigate and draw up recom-
mended protocols was the Baylor University College of Medicine, also in Houston.
Baylor’s biological protocol was conceived to examine the effect of the lunar sam-
ples upon plant and animal life and had three main areas of interest: “(1) crew
microbiology, (2) in vitro attempts to culture microorganisms from the lunar sam-
ple; and (3) the direct challenge of the lunar sample in biological systems.” The
procedures to achieve this were detailed in an extensive report, but came with a
caveat. There were obviously many unknowns with regard to the effects of lunar
samples upon plant, animal and human life. The MSC did not know if there might
be catastrophic effects upon biological life. This was the cautionary approach.
However, after the first several missions returned from the Moon with their samples
and the LRL developed definitive results from this testing, it would prove that the
lunar samples were not a danger.
Construction of the LRL at the Manned Spacecraft Center began in 1967. It was
to be a multi-story building that would include the Crew Reception Area, Operations
Area, Administration and Support Area, the Radiation Counting Laboratory (which
was partially underground), and the Sample Area, which ironically was the smallest
portion of the LRL in terms of square footage.
Due to the highly specialized tasks that the LRL would perform and the disci-
plines that would be required to do all the tasks, MSC Director Gilruth recom-
mended the employment of contract personnel to fill these very specific jobs. Thus,
the LRL contracted for individuals from laboratories, universities and research
institutions for many of these open positions. It brought in civil servants for many
of the support roles from within NASA and other government agencies.
The Lunar Receiving Laboratory 25
Even during the LRL’s construction, those who would become Principal
Investigators from across America and overseas wanted their concerns heard and
addressed. NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) was charged
with selection of more than 100 PIs to conduct testing, research and report findings;
curiously, much of this work would not be conducted at the LRL but at the PI’s own
institution.
In January 1967, a meeting was held at the Communicable Disease Center in
Atlanta, Georgia, with personnel from the LRL, George Low from NASA and
officials from the Public Health Service. The outcome of the meeting was to state
the most important function of the LRL would be quarantine of the crew, spacecraft
and samples. It seemed at this point that the scientific findings that would derive
from examination, analysis, experimentation and testing were secondary.
In August of 1967, NASA appointed Dr. Persa R. Bell as Chief of the MSC’s
Lunar and Earth Sciences Division and as manager of the LRL. He came from
Oakridge National Laboratories in Tennessee where he had been director of the
Thermonuclear Division. Bell would manage the LRL until January 1970, when he
resigned his position to return to ORL. For all the emphasis on back contamination
and quarantine, Bell would prove to have more interest in seeing the lunar samples
remained uncontaminated and that the maximum possible level of science was con-
ducted there in lunar sample analysis. Bell did not believe back contamination to be
a very great concern, and this later proved to be true.
To ensure the LRL certification was completed in time to receive the Apollo 11
samples in July 1969, Gilruth putd Richard S. Johnston in charge of this task.
However, Johnston became the defacto operational manager of the LRL. As assis-
tant to Gilruth of the MSC, Johnston had management experience that Pell lacked.
Johnston’s new role in fact proved vital in getting all certification completed on
schedule.
NASA Administrator James Webb did not want the science findings to come out
of the lunar sample research to be overwhelmed by all the issues over quarantine
and related concerns. To supplement the efforts of the LRL, the Lunar Science
Institute was created. This was so significant a development that President Lyndon
Johnson announced LSI’s formation during a visit to the MSC. The LSI was created
to operate independently of the LRL but would work with the laboratory to permit
scientists the means to gather the scientific findings they sought from the lunar
samples and disseminate the information.
Once the LRL was built, the certification began. The standards laid down by the
Interagency Committee on Back Contamination (ICBC) were very stringent because
they employed a double barrier system. Gilruth implemented the Operational
Readiness Inspection Team in October 1968. Practice sessions on the receiving of
the astronauts, spacecraft and simulated samples would be conducted almost up to
the flight of Apollo 11. There were a number of failures that had to be resolved
before certification was completed. These practice sessions often went on for 10 to
12 hours or more. The Lunar Sample Analysis Planning Team (LSAPT) was instru-
mental in many aspects of not only proper testing procedures for the samples but
also during the certification process.
Full-scale simulations of LRL operation began in early 1969. The lunar sample
simulants were handled in a vacuum environment comprised of glove boxes with
transparent Lexan windows and flexible arm-length gloves that permitted techni-
cians to handle the samples. The vacuum was between 10−6 and 10−8 tort. As the
simulations were conducted in this environment, examination and distribution of
simulated lunar samples proved difficult. During June and July of 1969, the LRL
was still continuing its certification procedures and operations. The LRL was in
readiness mode by July 14.
This vacuum environment would remain in place through Apollo 11 and 12. To
prepare the samples for distribution, they were processed in a small sterile glove
box in a dry nitrogen atmosphere. This proved to be a faster and less cumbersome
method of processing. This was adopted for the actual lunar samples from Apollo
11 and 12 and proved so efficient without degrading the lunar materials that the
cumbersome vacuum system was replaced by the nitrogen atmosphere throughout
the lunar sample facility for all remaining Apollo missions. With the increased
quantity of lunar samples after Apollo 12, an additional processing line was con-
structed at the LRL.
The rigorous quarantine requirements were lifted after the Apollo 14 mission.
The established procedures with respect to handling and scientific methods at the
LRL remained in place. It was determined after the first several missions that no
potential biological threats were detected in any of the lunar samples.
Chapter 3
Geological and Sample Collection Training
for Missions
Among the most influential scientists involved in lunar science and the establish-
ment of astronaut training for their missions on the lunar surface was Eugene
Shoemaker. He also established a support team of many qualified geologists and
geophysicists to assist in the training of the Apollo astronauts. The Apollo program
drew to it, as if by some grand design, the finest engineering, scientific and manage-
ment minds in the United States during the 1960s. Every one of them was vital to
the success of the Apollo program. Eugene Shoemaker ensured the astronauts
exploring the lunar surface could identify and rapidly collect the lunar samples that
would tell the history of the Moon and, by extension, expand our knowledge of the
Earth.
Astronaut training for Apollo had many facets, only one of which involved famil-
iarity with geology as well as sample collection and storage. Thus, the astronaut’s
training was very carefully scheduled, and their available time had to be used to
maximum effectiveness. For sample identification and collection, the Apollo astro-
nauts had classroom study and field training, as well as training in their EVA suits
in the methods of lunar sample collection.
Shoemaker had established the USGS branch of astrogeology in Flagstaff,
Arizona, in 1963. It was located a short drive away from America’s most impressive
existing impact crater, Meteor Crater. This crater measures roughly 1 km in diame-
ter and about 170 m in depth. Shoemaker knew the best way to capture the astro-
naut’s interest in terrestrial and lunar geology should start with a field trip there. In
January 1963, Shoemaker brought nine of the astronauts selected for the Gemini
program, many of whom would end up being selected later for Apollo lunar surface
missions. The astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Charles “Pete”
Conrad, James Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Thomas Stafford, Edward White
and John Young.
“Gene subjected them to an intensive two-day field trip in and around Flagstaff
that included Meteor Crater, nearby volcanic features, classroom lectures, tele-
scopic observing of the Moon at Lowell Observatory, and little sleep,” Don Wilhelms

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2_3
28 3 Geological and Sample Collection Training for Missions
Fig. 3.1 Eugene
Shoemaker brought in
geologists from the U. S.
Geologic Survey and from
universities to establish
field training exercises for
the Apollo astronauts.
(USGS)
wrote in To A Rocky Moon. “The astronauts were favorably impressed and seemed
eager for more.”
This carefully scheduled two-day field trip served as the prototype for the design
of future classroom lectures and field training for the Apollo lunar surface missions.
Shoemaker’s workload increased significantly that same month when he was offered
the position of Principal Investigator of the Surveyor television equipment. Along
with all his other duties, Shoemaker could not take on the task of structuring the
classroom and fieldwork training of the astronauts. He selected Dale Jackson from
his USGS staff for this task. Shoemaker also added Gordon Swann, Don Wilhelms
and several others to the USGS staff in Houston to help with this vital area of train-
ing for the astronauts who would eventually be selected for the Apollo program. By
October 1963, the third group of astronauts selected to train for the Apollo missions
were also announced. (Of the original Mercury seven astronauts, only Alan
B. Shepard would command an Apollo mission, Apollo 14.)
The first syllabus for this training included 58 hours of classroom lectures and
four field trips. The first class lecture took place in February 1964. Four general
lectures were conducted by Dale Jackson and Don Wilhelms that month. In March,
the first formal field training took place, in the Grand Canyon in Arizona. There
were two separate trips into the canyon that month. The first included “Buzz”
Aldrin, William Anders, Neil Armstrong, Charles Bassett, Alan Bean, Scott
Carpenter, Eugene Cernan, Roger Chaffee, Mike Collins, Walter Cunningham,
Donn Eisele, Theodore Freeman, Richard Gordon, Rusty Schweikart, Dave Scott,
Elliot See, Alan Shepard and Clifton Williams. A second, smaller group participated
Early Geologic Field Trips 29
in a similar sojourn into the Grand Canyon 1 week later. This included Frank
Borman, Pete Conrad, Gordon Cooper, Gus Grissom, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt,
Wally Schirra, Deke Slayton, Thomas Stafford and John Young. Harrison “Jack”
Schmitt was not among these astronauts, as he had applied as part of the group of
scientist-astronauts. He was already working with the USGS in 1964 in the estab-
lishment of various forms of lunar studies, the Lunar Field Geological Methods and
even testing of prototype vehicles that might be used in lunar exploration by astro-
nauts. Schmitt would make the final group of scientist-astronauts (out of more than
5,000 applicants) eventually announced by NASA and the National Academy of
Sciences in 1966.
The geologists accompanying the astronauts discussed the layering visible on the
canyon walls, ages of the layers, and their composition. This was a unique experi-
ence for the USGS geologists as well; they were able to relate Earth’s formative
history to a keenly interested group of men who aspired to explore the surface of the
Moon. The information was conveyed in an engaging manner that gave the astro-
nauts a new appreciation for the formations of Earth’s crust and just the beginning
of being able to identify the many types of rocks and their composition.
The team at the USGS and NASA’s Geology Group at the Manned Spacecraft
Center in Houston worked to provide diverse locations for future field trips. In 1964
these included Big Bend and Marathon, Texas, lava flow areas outside of Flagstaff,
Arizona, with observation time at the Kitt Peak Observatory, Philmont Ranch in
New Mexico, Newbury Crater in Bend, Oregon, and Valles Caldera, New Mexico.
There had been almost continuous disagreement and friction between Dale
Jackson at the USGS and Ted Foss at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.
Eugene Shoemaker eventually had to shut down the USGS Houston office in June
of 1964 and transfer the small staff there to Flagstaff, Arizona, and Menlo Park,
California.
Early Geologic Field Trips
The first geologic field trip of 1965 was to the volcanic lava flows on Hawaii. This
was vital to the astronauts’ knowledge of basaltic features that the astronauts would
probably encounter on the Moon. Each specific field trip location was taught by one
or more local USGS experts. The following month and again in March, various
Apollo astronauts were taken to the Nevada Test Site to study impact craters.
However, the greatest impact crater on North America is Meteor Crater in Arizona.
It was there the astronauts saw a crater that could rival those they would see on the
Moon. This trip was led by Eugene Shoemaker himself.
Most of the remaining field trips during 1965 emphasized observing recent and
ancient volcanic activity around the globe. During the last week in June and first
week in July, the future lunar explorers visited Katmai, Alaska, where there were
volcanic eruptions during 1912. The USGS geologists partnered with their counter-
parts in Iceland to study regional calderas, ash cones, lava flows, volcanic steam
Fig. 3.2 Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong conducting an early field exercise. Armstrong holds the
large box scoop and tongs. (USGS)
vents and other features of the Askje Caldera. Other volcanic areas visited by the
astronauts and geologists included Medicine Lake, California, and Zuni Salt Lake
in New Mexico during September. The field trips had become some of the most
enjoyable and enlightening parts of the Apollo astronauts’ training. Four astronauts
went to Pinacate, Mexico, in November, with Bassett, Cernan and Chaffee going
there in December.
By mid-July of 1965, the astrogeology’s office of Manned Lunar Exploration
Systems had appointed specialized project chiefs in various disciplines in support of
the Apollo program. John M’Gonigle was Acting Project Chief of Apollo Geological
Methods; Gordon Swann was Project Chief of Apollo Extension System Methods;
Joseph O’Conner was Project Chief of Advanced Systems Geological Methods;
P. G. Ables was Project Chief of Scientific Task and Biogeological Investigations;
E. C. Philippi and Henry Holt were Project Chiefs of Lunar Field Imaging Systems;
and Rutledge “Putty” Mills was Project Chief of Lunar Vehicle Systems.
The Apollo astronauts’ every waking hour was filled studying and training for
missions to the Moon. However, specific mission crew selection would not take
place for several more years. Specific mission training with respect to the landing
sites could not begin until both the landing sites were selected and the crews assigned
to them. The pacing hardware included the Saturn V rocket and the mission-critical
Lunar Module. Astronauts had to be trained in rendezvous and docking techniques.
The Saturn V, the Command and Service Modules, and the Lunar Module had to be
operational before crews could train in these flight operations. At the same time, the
crews would validate the many systems while learning to use them.
Fig. 3.3 Indoor training

with full EVA suits was
performed by all lunar
landing astronauts. Neil
Armstrong is shown
closing and sealing an
Apollo lunar sample return
container. (NASA)
To give perspective to the general nature of geological training for the Apollo
astronauts with respect to the announcement of lunar landing crews, the following
lists three of the crew announcements by NASA. The crew of Apollo 10, Commander
Thomas P. Stafford, Lunar Module Pilot Eugene Cernan and Command Module
Pilot John Young, was formally announced by NASA on November 13, 1968. This
mission was planned to replicate everything but the landing of the lunar module on
the lunar surface. The crew of Apollo 11 – the first lunar landing mission – made up
of Commander Neil Armstrong, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin and Mike Collings, was
announced by NASA on January 9, 1969. The crew of Apollo 12, including
Commander Charles “Pete” Conrad, Alan Bean and Richard Gordon, was announced
on April 10, 1969.
The geological field training trips from 1966 through 1968 for the most part
revisited the above listed locations. After the announcement of the Apollo 11 crew,
the prime crew members Neil Armstrong and “Buzz” Aldrin and their backups Jim
Lovell and Fred Haise conducted a geological field exercise at Sierra Blanco, Texas,
on February 24, 1969. This location was selected by the USGS geologists because
it was believed to resemble the general features of the landing area within the Mare
Tranquillitatis. Armstrong and Aldrin also trained at the Manned Spacecraft Center
in the high-bay building in EVA suits with a Lunar Module mockup on a simulated
lunar terrain. They practiced their sample collection and deployment of the surface
experiments. The sequence of events was carefully timed to coincide with the two
and a half hours they would spend on their only EVA.
Fig. 3.4 Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean during an indoor training session.
The small tool carrier is in front of Conrad. Bean holds a folded sample bag and open sample bags
hang from a corner of the MESA. Note the Surveyor mockup in the background. (NASA)
One of the most tedious aspects of this training involved the loading of the lunar
sample return container into the ascent stage of the lunar module. The astronauts
needed both hands to climb the ladder up to the entrance of the module and could
not hold onto the LSRC. A cable and pulley system was designed, tested and retested
so that the precious container of ancient lunar samples could be returned to Earth.
Armstrong and Aldrin trained using this procedure with the knowledge that the one-
sixth gravity on the Moon would make getting the LSRC into the lunar module
much easier. At the MSC, there was also an exterior training area over several acres
that provided the astronauts the freedom to venture further away from the lunar
module mockup. There was an additional training area used at Kennedy Space
Center for lunar surface training.
The geological field exercises for the Apollo 12 prime and backup crews were far
more extensive than Apollo 11. The landing site selected was a specific target within
the Ocean of Storms. In fact, it would be within sight and walking distance of the
Surveyor III spacecraft. The prime landing crew, including Commander Charles
“Pete” Conrad and Lunar Module Pilot Alan Bean. With this knowledge, the USGS
team scheduled field exercises for Conrad and Bean in the Quitman Mountains in
Texas for mid-March 1969. The following month they explored and observed
Kilbourne Hole, New Mexico. In May, the two astronauts were taken to Big Bend,
Texas. Bean, without Conrad, visited Meteor Crater in July, and in August they
traveled to Hawaii. Their last geological field trip before their mission was to Sunset
Crater in Arizona in October 1969.
The geological training of the Apollo astronauts took an interesting turn with the
prime and backup crews for Apollo 13. Harrison Schmitt had studied geology under
Dr. Leon T. Silver at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and then
went on to receive his Ph. D. in geology from Harvard University. Schmitt felt
Silver’s expertise, and that of other geologists he respected and admired, would
greatly help the Apollo crews selected for lunar landing missions. Silver had been
serving as Assistant, Associate and finally Professor of Geology at Caltech. Schmitt
understood a new, focused geologic training program was needed for the astronauts
to be truly effective in their lunar sample collection.
“I went to Al Shepard with a proposal that we, number one, begin to focus our
science training on an actual simulation of lunar traverses in areas of Earth where
we could learn something about the kinds of problems we would encounter on the
Moon,” Schmitt told an interviewer for the Johnson Space Center Oral History
Project in July of 1999. “And number two, is to go out and recruit the best teachers
that we could possibly find to do this, who not only were very good scientists but
very good teachers, and who could understand what we were trying to do... I called
people like Richard Johns, who was an old teacher of mine at Caltech. I got hold of
Bob Sharp, also a Caltech professor of mine who was the best observer of detail and
what he called “belly geology” that I ever encountered. Lee Silver was invited to
participate. And I called a number of lecturers, particularly people I knew from
Harvard such as Jim Thompson and Jim Hayes, Gene Simmons, and others to prepare
lectures that were stripped of the vocabulary of general science rather than the
vocabulary of geology.
“And so,” Schmitt continued explaining, “the lecture program was reoriented much
more towards what would be useful to them when they got to the Moon. And the
field program, about a one-a-month training plan, was reoriented towards simula-
tions, where the field geology was learned and the geological concepts were learned,
but in the context of actually performing as if you were on the Moon in everything
but a pressure suit. To Al Shepard’s credit, he agreed that the Astronaut Office
should take over management of the science training. And the first crew that we
really worked with in detail was the Apollo 13 crew.”
What Schmitt had in mind was personalized field training with Silver and the two
prime Apollo crew members over and above the field training exercises the USGS
had been conducting. Schmitt arranged a meeting between Silver and Lovell and
Haise in Houston. Silver recalled the meeting in an interview with a Johnson Space
Center historian in 2002.
“Jack was going to introduce me to Jim Lovell and Fred Haise,” Silver stated.
“I persuaded them to make a deal, and that deal was that they would give me a week.
They’d come out to the desert with me in southeastern California and we would see
whether or not I could make a case that their working with me would be worthwhile
to their missions…We went to a place about sixty miles southeast of Palm Springs.
Fairly important in that was the fact that Jack was with us for the first three days, to
make sure they got to know me. And another important thing was that there was a
backup crew. The Apollo 13 backup crew was led by Captain John Young and by
Charlie Duke, and their interest was just as high.”
Fig. 3.5 Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell pulls the Modular Equipment Transporter (MET)
while Alan Shepard steadies the TV camera loaded on the MET during a field training session.
(USGS)
All the astronauts remarked at how engaging, knowledgeable and patient Silver
was in applying geological knowledge to the terrain the astronauts would explore on
the Moon and how this kind of training would improve the quality of their lunar
missions. To ensure the Apollo 13 backup crew received the same personalized field
training, geologist Dr. Gary Lofgren of Stanford University handled these duties
with Young and Duke. On December 10, 1969, NASA’s landing site selection board
selected the Fra Mauro region within the Imbrium Basin.
Mission-specific field training exercises for the Apollo 13 prime and back crews
took place at Mono Crater, California, during the last week in October 1969. Silver
then took them to Meteor Crater in October, Kilbourne Hole, New Mexico, in
November and back to Hawaii in December. Finally, Silver took them to Flagstaff,
Arizona, in March of 1970. The crew of Apollo 13 was launched April 11, 1970, but
a ruptured cryogenic oxygen tank on their way to the Moon changed their mission
and nearly ended their lives. The landing mission at Fra Mauro was abandoned
while NASA worked feverishly to devise all the solutions needed to get the crew
back home. The bold lunar gravity assist return to Earth was successful, and the
disappointed but grateful crew of Apollo 13 splashed down in the South Pacific
ocean on April 17.
The Apollo 14 prime lunar landing crew of Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell
had been training along with their backup crew of Eugene Cernan and Joe Engle at
Fig. 3.6 Shepard and Mitchell also trained with the MET in their EVA suits during partial gravity
flights to replicate their movements on the Moon. (NASA)
volcanic sites since August 1969. Fra Mauro remained a most intriguing landing site
location, so Apollo 14 was assigned to the crew in May 1970 to land at Fra Mauro.
The crews explored and inspected Kilbourne Hole, New Mexico, and Flagstaff,
Arizona, in June, Ries Crater in Germany in August, the Nevada Test Site in
September, and Black Canyon Crater Field in Verde Valley, Arizona, in November
Shepard and Mitchell completed an EVA-2 simulation at Verde Valley, perform-
ing planned lunar surface photography and sampling with their descriptions of their
findings over a live link back to Mission Control Center at the MSC in Houston.
During the EVA simulation, they pulled the actual Modular Equipment Transporter.
(The prime and backup crews even trained using the MET on parabolic flights inside
the aircraft designed to mimic the Moon’s one-sixth gravity.) As with all EVA simu-
lations, the astronauts’ performance was evaluated after it was completed. One of
the supervising geologists during this simulation, Henry Moore, reported Shepard’s
and Mitchells performance was excellent. Gerald Schaber wrote: “They demon-
strated a complete understanding of the principles of sampling the rims of fresh to
young craters of various sizes to obtain materials from various depths. As a result,
they collected samples from all the stratigraphic horizons below the surface of the
crater field which, when combined with the knowledge of the crater sampled, would
permit reconstruction of the pre-crater stratigraphy. The sampling was accompanied
by astute and pertinent observations.”
The crew of Apollo 14 was launched on January 31, 1971, and Alan Shepard and
Edgar Mitchell took with them the personalized geological training Leon Silver had
given them. This mission would expose the limits of exploring the Moon on foot,
but that would change dramatically with the next three Apollo missions.
Training for Apollo 15, 16 and 17
The backup crew of John Young and Charlie Duke received the nod to become the
prime crew for Apollo 16, and with this, the promise from Leon Silver to be their
principal geological mentor for mission traverse training. This naturally led Silver
to become the principal trainer to the prime Apollo 15 crew of Dave Scott and Jim
Irwin. The backup crew included Richard Gordon and Harrison “Jack” Schmitt.
Silver first went through a “courtship” with Scott and Irwin, much as he had with
Lovell and Haise. Silver, Scott and Irwin had a lengthy discussion at Cape Kennedy,
a familiarity field exercise much like Silver had conducted with Lovell and Haise,
and the team of Scott and Irwin secured the geological training services of Silver for
the Apollo 15 mission. On these training sessions, Scott and Irwin would be joined
by their mission capsule communicator, or Capcom, Joseph Allen.
Apollo 15, 16 and 17 were identified by NASA as ‘J’ missions. These were far
more ambitious in their scope of exploration and duration on the lunar surface. The
crews would be assisted in their exploration by the addition of the Lunar Roving
Vehicle (LRV). The LRV would permit the astronauts to venture much further from
the Lunar Module and the possibility of exploring more locations, or stations, dur-
ing each traverse. The landing site selection board, after due deliberation with the
crew, selected Hadley Rille adjacent to the Apennine range within the Imbrium
Basin. Silver and the team at the MSC immediately worked on selecting the most
suitable locations for Scott and Irwin to conduct their geological and traverse
training.
In April 1970, prior to the start of Apollo 15-specific training, Rutledge Mills
received a call from NASA that the 1-G LRV trainer would not be completed in time
for the crew to use in the traverse training exercises. Mills was asked if he could
build a much simpler vehicle of basically the same size for use by the crews in time
for their training. Mills asked for blueprints of the LRV, and once he received them,
he and several others at the USGS in Flagstaff got to work. Mills delivered the
Geologic Rover, or Grover, in time for the crew’s training. Grover could be operated
by a single T-handle controlled by its driver to accelerate, brake and steer, just as the
LRV would. It had a control panel much like that on the LRV and even had mockups
of the antenna dish and the television camera mounted in the front of Grover. Each
wheel was powered by an electric motor similar to that on the LRV. Grover was a
brilliant and effective training vehicle for the Apollo J-mission crews.
Apollo 15 prime and backup crew mission-specific geological field training
began on May 6, 1970, in the Chocolate Mountains in southern California. Scott,
Training for Apollo 15, 16 and 17 37
Fig. 3.7 Apollo 15 astronauts James Irwin and David Scott conduct a field sampling exercise.
Irwin holds the extension handle with tongs while Scott breaks off a rock sample with the hammer.
(USGS)
Irwin, Gordon and Schmitt consistently trained together for the next year. Their
geological field training exercises took them to Arizona in June and July, followed
Alberta, Canada, in July. During the remainder of 1970, the crews conducted field
exercises in Colorado, Minnesota, the San Gabriel Mountains in California and wit-
nessed more volcanic activity in Hawaii. In January and February 1971, the crews
traveled to Kilbourne Hole, New Mexico, and Ubehebe Craters in California.
At the top of the list of locations to serve as a Hadley Rille traverse analog was
the Rio Grande Gorge near Taos, New Mexico, in March of 1971. Using photo-
graphic maps of the Hadley-Apennine region, the exploration teams traced the EVA
traverses to be taken on the Moon, and then replicated these traverses on terrain
maps of the Rio Grande Gorge. A team was then displaced to that location near the
Rio Grande, and the actual traverses were planned and executed in real time.
“We all agreed to start running our field trips exactly like we would conduct an
excursion on the Moon,” Scott told an editor at Engineering and Science, published
by the California Institute of Technology. “…take the tongs and the hammers and
the bags and the cameras and do an actual simulated lunar traverse. We had station
tasks just like on the Moon. Our capsule communicator, scientist-astronaut Joe
Allen, was with us. We had our radios, and after a while, we worked with the people
Fig. 3.8 Apollo field training exercises were conducted as far away as Iceland. Scott is speaking
to Dr. Elbert King. Between them is Eugene Cernan, later to become commander of Apollo 17.
(NASA)
in the back room at Capcom. We’d run this excursion for four hours, come back and
brief Professor Silver on what we saw and why we saw it. He’d listen, not saying
anything until we were all through. Then he’d take us back and show us what the
real story was.”
The 1-G LRV trainer was used for outdoor training sessions at KSC near the
Operations and Checkout Building in an area nicknamed “the rock pile.” Both the
prime crew and the backup crew of Harrison Schmitt and Richard Gordon trained
using their EVA suits and performed all the tasks with the 1-G trainer they would
perform at Hadley-Apennine, except for the full-distance traverses. By this point,
the lunar drill was used in training as well. Exercises were also conducted at KSC
with the 1-G trainer indoors in the Flight Crew Training Building, as well as all
other tasks related to lunar sample collection and storage.
“Backup crews trained on different days from the prime crews,” Dave Scott told
this author. “We might spend one day out on the rock pile with the rover while the
backup crew was in the simulators. It was how the support teams could best support
us in the various exercises. Training with the 1-G trainer at KSC involved only pro-
cedural things. In other words, where you put the tools [in the LRV Large Tool
Fig. 3.9 Dave Scott using the lunar drill during training at Kennedy Space Center. The 1-G LRV
was also used in all these training exercises at KSC for Apollo 15, 16 and 17. (NASA)
Carrier], how you align the antenna, that sort of thing. It was really a procedures
trainer rather than trying to teach us to drive.”
The Apollo 15 prime and backup crews completed their geological field training
exercises with trips to Coso Hills, California, in April, the Nevada Test Site in May
and one last trip to Flagstaff, Arizona, at the end of June. One month later, Dave
Scot, Jim Irwin and their command module pilot Al Worden lifted off from Kennedy
Space Center for their lunar destination at Hadley-Apennine.
The first mission and crew-specific field geology session for Apollo 16 took
place in the San Juan Mountains, New Mexico, in July 1970. They flew north to
Alberta, Canada, later that month. Their next field exercise was on the Colorado
Plateau in September. In October Young and Duke went to northern Minnesota.
Traverse training over a distance of 8 km using Grover took place in November at
Merriam Crater and Cinder Lake Crater Field at Flagstaff, Arizona. The crews also
trained with Grover at the Rio Grande Gorge. At the Nevada Test Site, Young and
Duke toured the Sedan, Collapse and Danny Boy craters. An extended six-hour
technical traverse with Grover was conducted at Schooner nuclear crater.
Mentioned almost in passing in published histories of the geological training of

the Apollo astronauts, the command module pilots also received a portion of geo-
logical training from the USGS geologists and others on the USGS teams. These
astronauts would need to be knowledgeable and conversant in the language of lunar
features as they observed and photographed the Moon from lunar orbit. Instead of
attending traverse training on the ground, they were flown over the training sites
with the geologist on the aircraft.
In January 1971, Young and Duke participated in a field exercise at Kilbourne
Hole, New Mexico, with their geologists Gary Lofgren and Bill Muehlberger, and
the astronauts’ Capcom, Tony England. Muehlberger had taken over training duties
from Silver, who had pressing commitments at Caltech. Muehlberger was chairman
of the department of geological sciences at the University of Texas and Principal
Investigator for the Lunar Surface Geology Experiment for Apollo 16 and 17. The
traverse simulation lasted four hours as Young and Duke traveled along the rim of
Kilbourne Hole. The astronauts identified and relayed back to England their find-
ings of geomorphology, stratification of basalt flows, rim deposits, erosional fea-
tures and source of magma flows. This simulation was typical of the others the
prime and backup crews performed during the remainder of the year. The crews
Fig. 3.10 Geologist Leon Silver from CalTech was brought in by the USGS to help in the training
of the Apollo astronauts. Directly behind Silver is Charlie Duke, center is Edgar Mitchell, and right
is John Young. (NASA)
completed geological field exercises nearly every month through February of 1972
at locations chosen for previous mission training. John Young and Charlie Duke,
along with their command module pilot Thomas Mattingly, lifted off from Kennedy
Space Center on April 16, 1972. Young and Duke successfully landed their lunar
module several days later in the Descartes Highlands, and their training paid off
handsomely during their EVAs and traverses on the LRV.
Apollo 19 and 20 were effectively canceled during NASA’s budget appropria-
tions. Eventually, even Apollo 18 would be canceled and its scheduled Saturn V
reallocated to launch Skylab, America’s first space station. Thus, Apollo 17 would
mark the last of the greatest U. S. missions of exploration. The prime crew of Apollo
17 included Commander Eugene Cernan, Lunar Module Pilot Harrison “Jack”
Schmitt and Command Module Pilot Ronald Evans. It was fortuitous that Schmitt
was selected from among the group of scientist-astronauts; Schmitt had the geo-
logic education and training to bring knowledge to the Apollo 17 mission. He had
also been instrumental in helping to structure the geological training process for the
J-missions.
Cernan and Schmitt began their mission-specific geological training with William
Muehlberger at Big Bend, Texas, during the third week of October in 1971. Both
men had a profound sense of responsibility as prime crew members of the Apollo 17
lunar landing mission in the twilight of the Apollo program. Cernan was the veteran
astronaut, having flown Gemini 9 and as lunar module pilot of Apollo 10. Schmitt
was the rookie, having never flown in space before. It might seem an odd crew pair-
ing, but Schmitt’s selection to the astronaut corps and to the Apollo 17 mission was
calculated and correct.
The following month the prime and backup crews of Apollo 16 and 17 shared the
exploratory venue in Coso Hills near China Lake, California. The astronauts used
the full suite of sampling tools and cameras they would be using on their missions.
They also employed the USGS traverse training vehicles, Grover and Explorer.
Their next stop in December was at Kilbourne Hole, New Mexico.
The traverse training sessions during 1972 were the most thorough and compre-
hensive to date. The astronauts’ observations, sampling procedures and communi-
cations with the Capcom and the “back room” geologists honed the abilities of
everyone involved. They were dedicated to making the mission of Apollo 17 the
most fruitful of the lunar landing missions and to expand the knowledge base of the
history and makeup of the Moon. In the last year of Apollo crew training, Cernan
and Schmitt traveled to Boulder City, Nevada; the Chocolate Mountains in
California; returned to Flagstaff, Arizona; explored the Sierra Madera Crater in west
Texas; traveled over the San Gabriel Mountains of California; ventured up to
Ontario Canada; improved their knowledge of volcanism in Hawaii; studied the
formations in Stillwater, Montana and the craters surrounding the Nevada Test Site;
traveled to Tonopah, Nevada; then returned to California to study the Blackhawk
Slide and Mojave Desert. The crew of Apollo 17 completed their geological training
during the first week of November 1972 in Flagstaff, Arizona. They then returned to
KSC in Florida for their final weeks of mission training in preparation for their
December 7 launch. Their lunar destination was the rugged Taurus Littrow region.
Fig. 3.11 The USGS built the geologic rover, called Grover, for later Apollo mission EVA traverse
trainings. Shown are Charlie Duke and John Young during a field exercise in Taos, New Mexico,
in September 1971. (USGS)
Fig. 3.12 Eugene Cernan (red arm band) and Harrison Schmitt during training at the KSC “rock
pile.” On the left side of Cernan’s PLSS is a large sample bag holding core tubes and the adjustable
scoop. (NASA)
At the end of their training, Muehlberger had praise for both of the crew mem-
bers. “Even though Jack started with the advantage of scientific training and vocab-
ulary,” Muehlberger told the journal Engineering & Science, “Gene Cernan has
done a remarkable job of closing the gap. The two of them have developed an
exceptional working relationship, and to an amazing extent they supplement each
other’s special abilities.”
The geological training of the Apollo astronauts proved pivotal to their ability to
observe their landing site in general and the formations, lunar features and identifi-
cation of the regolith, blocks and larger boulders during their EVAs. They were able
to provide real-time observations to the principal investigators during the missions,
often aided by the live video broadcast from the Lunar Roving Vehicle during
Apollo 15, 16 and 17. What had begun as a geopolitical decision to beat the Russians
to the Moon ended by collecting a vast body of information of the history of the
Moon’s formation and composition, which continues to be studied today.
Chapter 4
Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 11, 12, and 14
The site for the first manned lunar landing mission had been made from a combina-
tion of both geological and orbital mechanics factors. All the Apollo landing sites
would be along the lunar equator. Possible locations for these landing sites had been
photographed by orbiting probes and the mapping cameras on Apollo 8 and Apollo
10. The selection of sites was narrowed down to five possible locations. The first of
the five selected was in the dark-colored Mare Tranquillitatis. The specific landing
site selected for Apollo 11 was approximately 25 km southeast of the Surveyor 5
landing site.
The months of geological training and years of mission planning and training
were culminating in the launch of SA-506 and its crew of Commander Neil
Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin and Command Module Pilot Michael
Collins. In one of the most-watched televised events in broadcast history, the mighty
Saturn V with its Apollo 11 crew lifted off from Kennedy Space Center on July 16,
1969, at 9:32 a. m. After one and a half orbits of Earth, the crew received the wel-
come words, “You are go for TLI,” and the SIV-B stage fired its engine for trans-
lunar injection. The crew was in lunar orbit three days later. Aldrin and Armstrong
climbed into the Lunar Module Eagle and at 100 hours and 12 minutes, undocked
from the Command Module and prepared to descend to the lunar surface. Armstrong
had to initiate manual override of the lunar module to safely land, having to clear
craters and boulders. In some of the tensest moments of the Apollo program with the
landing computer giving several program alarms, the seconds ticked by as Armstrong
slowly moved the Lunar Module over a dangerous crater to a safe landing site, and
Eagle finally touched down on the Sea of Tranquility July 24 at 12:50 p. m. Eastern
Daylight Time. The first objective as part of the Apollo 11 mission had been
achieved. Now, humans would set foot on the Moon. But several hours of rest and
preparation would have to take place before the two astronauts could do that. The
two astronauts stared in respectful wonder at the lunar surface outside the LM’s
windows. Aldrin spoke on his first impressions of the view out his LM window to
the rapt attention of Mission Control and the scientists in the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory.

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2_4
46 4 Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 11, 12, and 14
Fig. 4.1 Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin works before the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly
(MESA) on the Lunar Module Eagle at the Tranquility Base landing site. (NASA)
“We’ll get to the details of what’s around here, but it looks like a collection of
just about every variety of shape, angularity, granularity, about every variety of rock
you could find. The colors – well, it varies pretty much depending on how you’re
looking relative to the zero-phase point. There doesn’t appear to be too much of a
general color at all. However, it looks as though some of the rocks and boulders, of
which there are quite a few in the near area, it looks as though they are going to have
some interesting colors to them.”
Armstrong and Aldrin then went through their procedures to secure the lunar
module and ensure it was capable of departing – immediately if necessary. They
spent several hours resting, having something to eat, and then they prepared for their
lunar surface activities. Not all the focus was on Armstrong and Aldrin, however.
Back in Houston, the scientific teams were in a state of nervous excitement. The
scientists who made up the Preliminary Examination Team for the samples, the
principal investigators and the consulting geologists who all had a stake in the pre-
cious lunar samples that would be returned to Earth occupied Building 31 and
Building 37 at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas. Building 37 was
Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 11, 12, and 14 47
specifically the Lunar Receiving Laboratory that would be the focus of lunar sample
analysis. Dr. Elbert A. King was the director of this laboratory, and like many other
scientists in Houston, he was trying to grasp the reality of what the United States of
America had just achieved. The Apollo 11 lunar landing was perhaps the greatest
achievement in the history of humankind. Another eminent Nobel Prize-winning
scientist, Dr. Harold C. Urey, flew to Houston to witness the event and be among
fellow scientists during this historic time, and anxiously waited for his opportunity
to examine samples. Dr. Urey was a proponent of the ‘cold Moon’ theory, which
holds that there may have been some volcanic activity in the early history of the
Moon, but that the vast majority of visible features of the Moon were formed early
and it did not have a liquid core like Earth did. History of sample analysis would
soon prove Dr. Urey very wrong.
Dr. John Dietrich, who had trained and briefed Armstrong and Aldrin on what
lunar features to look for as the Lunar Module Eagle was approaching the landing
site, had an office in Building 31. He respected the two astronauts’ lunar geology
knowledge and was confident they would be able to identify many characteristics of
the rocks and soil on sight.
Armstrong and Aldrin had just over two hours to perform all their scheduled
tasks on the lunar surface. After Armstrong uttered his immortal words at placing
his boot on the lunar surface, events moved quickly. Aldrin joined him on the lunar
surface. The two pioneering astronauts went about their tightly scheduled tasks for
which they had trained many months on Earth. Armstrong was primarily tasked
with collecting the various different samples and Aldrin with setting up the surface
experiments. Armstrong was to gather three different lunar sample collections. In
order of priority, these were the contingency sample, the bulk sample and the docu-
mented sample collections.
The contingency sample was to be collected by Armstrong almost immediately
upon walking on the lunar surface in the event the astronauts had to curtail their
EVA and return to the Lunar Module. Armstrong retrieved a folding handle scoop
with small collection bag attached. He informed Mission Control the difficulty of
gathering the contingency sample.
“This surface is very interesting,” Armstrong stated. “It's a very soft surface, but
here and there where I [played] with the Contingency Sample collector, I run into a
very hard surface. But it appears to be very cohesive material of the same sort. I'll
try to get a rock in here. Just a couple.” He collected the contingency sample made
up of small rocks from five different locations near the LM, detached the bag and
sealed it, then put it into the pocket on the leg of his suit. He then took the handle
from the sampling tool and pressed it into the lunar surface to see how deep it would
go, and he drove it in roughly 6 to 8 inches with no difficulty. Between the two
astronauts, there was only one Hasselblad camera, and it was mounted to a special
bracket on the chest of his suit. During their time on the Moon, the camera would be
used by both of them to take photographs.
While performing his surface activity, Aldrin stated he thought one rock he stud-
ied might be biotite, a light purple-colored rock on Earth. However, he said that
could only be determined with further analysis. Both astronauts made a continuous
Fig. 4.2 The MESA was designed to hold the lunar sampling tools, bags, camera equipment and
other needed items for easy access by the astronauts. (NASA)
dialog of their observations of the landing site, the condition of the Lunar Module
and the surface features around the landing site.
Armstrong then went to the Modular Equipment Storage Assembly (MESA) in
quadrant IV of the Lunar Module and lowered it. On the MESA he opened the two
Lunar Sample Return (LSR) containers. In the first LSR he would put the bulk
samples, and in the second he would put the documented samples. Armstrong
removed the scoop and its extension handle. The MESA had provisions for hanging
sampling bags to be used for collecting the bulk samples. Armstrong would collect
the materials for these himself. Aldrin set about deploying the scientific experiments
package, which included the Lunar Passive Seismology instrument and the Laser
Ranging Retro-Reflector, as well as the Solar Wind Composition instrument. The
astronauts had made sure to set up the TV camera so it could transmit their activities
back to Mission Control in Houston.
Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 11, 12, and 14 49
According to the surface operations plan, Armstrong would collect from 30 to 60

pounds of lunar soil and rocks. Armstrong removed the large scoop and the exten-
sion handle from the MESA and assembled them for collecting the bulk samples.
One of the ALSRC was opened and remained on the MESA table. A sample bag
was hung from a scale mounted to the MESA. Armstrong wanted to obtain bulk
samples sufficiently distant from the LM to avoid contamination from the descent
engine exhaust. For this reason, the time necessary to collect the bulk samples took
longer than the simulations during training. Armstrong made two to three motions
to fill the scoop before returning to the MESA to dump the collected sample into the
collection bag. Once weighed, Armstrong sealed it, placed it in the SRC and quickly
went out for the next sample. Armstrong made nine trips out to various locations to
collect the samples over a period of 14 minutes.
When the bulk sample collection was complete, the SRC had to be sealed.
Armstrong attempted to close the lid, but it would not close completely. Because
the MESA was in the LM’s shadow, Armstrong could not see what the problem
was. It took practically all his strength to close the lid, and he thought he had mis-
takenly left the protective seal in place that had to be removed before the lid could
be closed and locked. Houston noticed his heart rate was climbing from the exer-
tion of trying to close the lid. He finally succeeded, but it took over five minutes to
do this task.
Collecting the documented sample had different criteria and was more methodi-
cal. It involved collecting at least one core sample. The astronauts were to also
examine, describe to Mission Control, photograph and then collect specific lunar
geological samples. Another documented sample was to be collected as a lunar
environment sample from the same area as the bulk sampling. Finally, the astronauts
were to study and describe field relationships of rocks and lunar surface features
that might aid in discovering more about the samples collected. During this time
both astronauts would use the Hasselblad to photograph what they were describing.
Thus, the samples were meant to be verbally and photographically documented.
Armstrong was to perform the photographic and verbally documented samples
while Aldrin would collect the core tube samples. Due to time constraints, Mission
Control informed Armstrong to dispense with the photographed sample phase and
was told to simply get specific grab (scooped) samples to put in numbered collec-
tion bags. As the bags were weighed and sealed, they were put into the second SRC.
Aldrin had retrieved one core tube from the second SRC as Armstrong started his
documented sample collection. Aldrin secured the extension handle to the core tube,
retrieved the hammer from the MESA and walked over to the area near the Solar
Wind Composition Experiment. He placed the end of the core tube on the lunar
surface, pushed it in about 4 inches, and then started striking the top of the extension
handle with the hammer. It was not driving further into the lunar surface, so Aldrin
started using harder and harder strikes with the hammer. Aldrin was forced to hold
the tube in his left hand as he struck the extension handle with the hammer. The tube
would not stay up on its own. When it appeared it would not go in any further,
Aldrin removed it carefully. When he looked at the compacted material in the tube,
Fig. 4.3 Buzz Aldrin

drives a core tube into the
lunar surface using the
hammer. (NASA)
he stated later in the technical crew debriefing that it looked like compressed wet
sand. He screwed on the end cap, disconnected the extension tube, capped the other
end and placed it in the SRC. He went to another location with the second core tube
about 10 feet away from the original core sample. When Aldrin took the second core
sample and sealed the ends of the tube, he returned to the SRC and placed it inside.
Aldrin had difficulty in opening the second SRC and even more difficultly closing
and locking it, just as Armstrong had experienced.
The astronauts were being urged to complete their tasks as quickly as possible,
load the SRCs and the Hasselblad camera into the LM and get back inside Eagle.
Once they were both inside, they disconnected their mobility units from their suits
and disposed of them through the LM hatch, down the ladder and onto the lunar
surface; there would no further need for them. The SRCs were stowed in secured
bags. The crew of Apollo 11 repressurized the LM and removed their helmets. They
would spend the next several hours resting, having their last meal on the Moon, and
making final preparations for liftoff and ascent to rendezvous with Mike Collins in
the Command Module.
At 124 hours and 22 minutes, the ascent stage severed its connections to the
descent stage, the engine ignited and the astronauts lifted off. Powered ascent went
as planned, and the crew rendezvoused with Columbia. The SRCs in their stowage
bags were transferred to the Command Module and secured. What remained was the
last declaration President Kennedy had made: “and return them safely to Earth.”
The Apollo 11 crew of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins splashed down in the northern
Pacific Ocean on July 24, 1969.
Transfer of the Apollo 11 ALSRCs and Delivery to Houston 51
Transfer of the Apollo 11 ALSRCs and Delivery to Houston
Apollo 11 crew members were individually lifted up from their raft to a crew recov-
ery helicopter along with the SRCs and flown to the recovery ship U.S.S. Hornet.
The SRCs accompanied the astronauts to the Mobile Quarantine Facility aboard the
ship. The bulk sample SRC was later flown from the Hornet to Hawaii, then trans-
ferred to a range instrumentation aircraft that departed for Houston for delivery to
the LRL at the Manned Spacecraft Center. The documented sample SRC was flown
on a different aircraft from the recovery ship to Johnson Island and with the mission
film canisters were placed on a C-141 aircraft and flown to Houston. The contin-
gency sample was removed from Armstrong’s flight suit and was delivered to the
crew reception area at the Manned Spacecraft Center, and then transferred to the
physical chemical testing laboratory for petrographic study and chemical analysis.
After arriving in Houston, the documented sample, ALSRC, No. 1004, was
transferred on July 25 from the crew reception area to the sample laboratory within
the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, where it was placed in the decontamination enclo-
sure. The following day, it was moved into the F-201 Vacuum Laboratory system
and the chamber pressure reduced. The F-201 was used for sample brush cleaning,
peracetic acid cleaning, rinsing and drying, sample photography, microscopic
examination and storage in vacuum containers. The preliminary examination team
opened the SRC and made an inspection of the samples, after opening the Teflon
bag containing them. Sample No. 10003 was selected for gamma counting in the
radiation counting laboratory. The two core tubes were transferred to the biological
Fig. 4.4 The
environmental storage
container with the Apollo
11 lunar sample return
containers arrives at the
Lunar Receiving
Laboratory. (NASA)
Fig. 4.5 One of the lunar sample return containers from the Apollo 11 mission with the priceless
rock samples photographed inside a glove box within the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. (NASA)
preparation laboratory. A portion of the core tube sample 10004 was placed in the
gas reaction cell, where it was exposed to various gases with no apparent reaction or
change to the sample.
A leak developed in one of the inspection gloves of the F-201 enclosure, but most
of the samples inside were in sealed beakers. The F-201 had to be sterilized with dry
heat so the damaged glove could be replaced. The vacuum was restored, and inspec-
tion of the samples continued. Sample 10020 was sterilized, placed in a vacuum jar,
where it could be viewed by the lunar sample analysis planning team and visitors to
the LRC.
The bulk sample ALSRC, No. 1003, was transferred to the biological preparation
laboratory on August 2. This SRC contained 15 kg (33 pounds) of rocks, fines (rocks
smaller than 10 mm) and soil. Select samples were prepared and chosen for exami-
nation. Preliminary findings from the Apollo 11 lunar samples can be found in
Chap. 6.
Apollo 12’s Intrepid to the Ocean of Storms
On April 12, 1969, the Apollo Site Selection Board chose a landing site for Apollo
12. It would be within the region identified as the Ocean of Storms. More specifi-
cally, the landing site was to be as close to the Surveyor III spacecraft as possible.
This was chosen to not only collect samples from a most intriguing area of the
Moon but also to demonstrate NASA astronauts’ ability to make pinpoint landings.
Commander Pete Conrad and Lunar Module Pilot Alan Bean would have signifi-
cantly more time on the lunar surface for the mission. The astronauts would conduct
Apollo 12’s Intrepid to the Ocean of Storms 53
two EVAs on consecutive days with a combined time of nearly eight hours of lunar
surface exploration and deploying of lunar surface experiments.
The launch of Apollo 12 was scheduled for 11:22 a. m. on November 14. The
weather that morning was not conducive for a launch; it was, in fact, raining.
Nevertheless, all systems were “Go” on the Saturn V and the spacecraft, and NASA
launch control gave the approval for launch. Conrad, Bean and their Command
Module Pilot Richard Gordon lifted off on time. During ascent, their Saturn V was
struck by lightning twice, but all systems remained operational except the Command
Module’s instrumentation. Bean later stated he had never seen so many warning
indicators during training. Fortunately, the mission was not aborted, all the instru-
mentation reset properly and the crew proceeded to their orbit around Earth. After
Mission Control in Houston was satisfied their third stage, the Command-Service
Module and the Lunar Module were fine, they were given the news they were “Go
for TLI,” and the crew of Apollo 12 were soon on their way to the Moon.
The transposition and docking of the Lunar Module Intrepid with the Command
Module Yankee Clipper occurred shortly after TLI. As soon as the crew achieved
their proper lunar orbit three days later, Conrad and Bean transferred to the Lunar
Module. The mission continued to go smoothly as they descended to the lunar sur-
face. Both astronauts could clearly see Surveyor III on the side of the crater where
it had landed on April 20, 1967. Together, Conrad and Bean brought Intrepid to a
pinpoint landing on the rim of Surveyor Crater on November 18, 1969.
Unlike the reserved communication from the crew of Apollo 11 after landing,
Conrad and Bean kept up an animated description of the landing site as they looked
out the windows of their Lunar Module. Three hours after landing, the astronauts
began their preparations for their first EVA. These preparations took two hours, then
the lunar module cabin was decompressed, hatch opened, and Conrad descended
the ladder. As he left the LM, he deployed the modularized equipment stowage
assembly and then stepped onto the lunar surface. Bean followed while Conrad col-
lected the contingency sample, scooping from several locations, sealed it and stored
it in the leg pocket of his EVA suit. The majority of their nearly four-hour EVA
would be devoted to deploying the various experiments and instruments and taking
photographs with their chest-mounted Hasselblad cameras. On this mission, Conrad
and Bean had the three-legged small hand tool carrier that could hold the tongs,
scoop, hammer, sample bags and core tubes.
“We could play geologist for two days and never get further than we are right
now. Seeing all kinds of things,” Conrad said, roughly 500 feet from the Lunar
Module during the course of the first EVA.
“Hey, here’s a rock they’ll be glad to see in Houston,” Bean remarked on a dis-
covery near Head Crater. “It’s an interesting one. It looks like a solid glass chunk.
It’s really shiny black.”
Conrad and Bean kept up a running dialog with their Capcom during the entire
EVA, commenting on everything they observed. At the furthest point during the
EVA they reached Middle Crescent Crater. Bean provided his observations.
“There’s some big boulders that are resting inside the rim,” Bean told Houston.
“None on the rim like we see on a large crater that’s further to the west by another
Fig. 4.6 Apollo 12 commander Pete Conrad landed his Lunar Module Intrepid within several
hundred meters of the Surveyor 3 spacecraft in the region known as the Ocean of Storms. (NASA)
thousand feet. But you don’t see any outcroppings of rocks either that – that we
could look down and say, well, from the top of the rim down to about 20 feet or
something, then we come to the underlying rock. But there is this rock that is very
large – an arm’s spread around. We are going to try to collect some of the
samples.”
The astronauts were finally ordered back to the Lunar Module after more than
three hours on the lunar surface, but they were having difficulty staying on the time-
line with so many intriguing samples to collect and photographs to take. Conrad
extracted a core tube from the surface and prepared the sample return container to
take their samples and core tube. This was then transferred to the ascent stage of the
Lunar Module. They closed out their duties at the Lunar Module and each climbed
the ladder to enter Intrepid.
After a rest period of seven hours, Conrad and Bean were ready for their second
EVA. The astronauts had discussed the particulars of the upcoming traverse stops
with their Capcom in Houston based on their observations during the first EVA. It
would focus on sample collection from numerous points along their traverse, visit-
ing the Surveyor III and removing several of its components for examination back
Fig. 4.7 Unlike Apollo 11, Apollo12 would have two EVAs and more time to take samples and
photographs. Pete Conrad is shown driving a core tube into the lunar surface. (NASA)
on Earth, and as much photo documentation as they could achieve. They would have
nearly four hours to conduct their carefully timed EVA duties. They would first visit
Head Crater, followed by Bench Crater, then Sharp Crater before working their way
back toward Surveyor Crater.
Emerging from Intrepid for the second EVA, Conrad commented, “Right now,
this stuff, this material around the spacecraft reminds me – in this Sun angle, look-
ing into the Sun – a very rich brown color…it reminds me of a good plowed field.”
The geologists in the mission back room in Houston smiled at Conrad’s comment.
Bean grabbed the hand tool carrier and after some local photography, they both set
off.
At one of the craters, Conrad, with the concurrence of the Capcom, rolled one of
the rocks at the rim down the crater wall. Judging from the voice transcript, the rock
just continued to roll until it finally came to rest near the bottom of the crater. Bean
gave a description of his location as they set out, and the geologists took satisfaction
in what they heard; their geological training was paying dividends.
“I can see everything from fine-grain basalt as I come running across the area
here, to coarse-grain ones; I see some sort of light reddish-gray colored rock that I
would call…it looks almost like granite, but of course it probably isn’t, but it has the
Fig. 4.8 Alan Bean stands next to the small tool carrier near Halo Crater. The cuff checklist on his
left arm helped the astronauts keep to their EVA timeline. (NASA)
same sort of texture. The individual components – constituents, so to speak – are

crystals, but it still has the same appearance.”
During their traverse around the rim of Head Crater, down to Bench Crater, west
toward the small Sharp Crater, then east toward Halo Crater, the astronauts used the
scoop, tongs and hammer to collect surface samples of fines and rocks. A double-
length core tube was driven easily into the lunar surface by Bean and extracted. At
Surveyor Crater, Conrad walked down the crater wall with the tool necessary to
remove the spacecraft’s sampling arm. Before doing this, Bean took what became
an iconic photograph of Conrad with one hand on the TV camera and the other on
Surveyor’s sampling arm. In the background was the LM Intrepid, confirming their
pinpoint landing. Once back at their LM, they hurried to store their samples in the
sample return container, and to get the TV camera and robotic arm safely stowed to
take back to Earth. They closed out their EVA and reluctantly climbed the Lunar
Module’s ladder to re-enter the spacecraft. They would spend the next nearly seven
hours going over their activities that day with Mission Control, having something to
eat and drink, rest, and go through their checklist in preparation for blastoff from the
lunar surface. The command module pilot, Richard Gordon, had been busy as well,
taking photographs from orbit and other mission-critical activities in preparation for
the return and docking of Intrepid and its two lunar explorers.
The ascent stage of the LM lifted off at 142 hours, three minutes and 48 seconds
MET and rendezvoused and docked with the CM three and a half hours later. The
sample return container was transferred to the Command Module along with the
film canisters. Conrad, Bean and Gordon continued to orbit the Moon for the next
30 hours, taking additional photography, noting lunar features and conducting other
mission objectives before initiating the trans-Earth injection burn. Their capsule
landed in the southern Pacific Ocean on November 24, 1969.
In the pilot’s report, written by Pete Conrad after the mission, he stated: “The
hand tool carrier was light but was still troublesome to carry about. When a number
of samples had been accumulated, it was tiring to hold the carrier at arm’s length so
that rapid movement was possible. If a means could be found to attach the carrier to
the back of the portable life support system during the traverse from one geology
site to another, the total geology operation could be carried out more efficiently. It
was generally necessary to set the carrier down with great care to prevent it from
tipping over.”
Conrad went on to write that the hammer proved to be an effective tool, but the
head was too small to drive the core tube, choosing instead to use the side of the
hammer. He thought the pick end of the hammer was questionable because of his
concern over flying rock fragments striking the helmet visor or suit. Conrad thought
Fig. 4.9 Bean holds the special environmental sample container prior to sealing. It had a capacity
of 350 cm3. (NASA)
the tongs were several inches too short to properly collect rock samples. He also felt
the jaws of the tongs did not open wide enough to get rock samples of sufficient
size. Conrad criticized the size of the sample bags as being too small to contain the
most desirable samples. The extension handle for the shovel also received criticism
as being too short as well. However, the core tubes performed effectively and the
core tube caps sealed the tubes well.
Conrad wrote that closing the sample return containers was not difficult and in
fact was almost identical in operation as he experienced during partial gravity flight
training. However, it was discovered that the vacuum had not been kept after sealing
during the return to Earth because of the lunar dust on the lid seal.
Apollo 12 returned nearly 75 pounds of lunar samples in the form lunar regolith
fines, chips, rocks and core tube samples, compared to just under 49 pounds col-
lected during Apollo 11. Preliminary findings of the samples at the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory proved they were composed of primarily igneous rock. Compositions
ranged from anorthositic to rocks having up to 30 percent olivine. Findings also
revealed the presence of Ilmenite, trachyte, iron and pyroxene, with quartz poly-
morphs occurring in many of the igneous rocks. One of the breccias contained
sanidine.
A Pause in Apollo and Different Site for Apollo 14
In December 1969, less than three weeks after the return of Apollo 12, the Apollo
Site Selection Board announced the location for the landing of Apollo 13. It was the
region of the Fra Mauro Formation on the edge of the massive Imbrium Basin.
Apollo 14 would venture to the dark volcanic flow area of Mare Seneitatis. The
crews for Apollo 13 and 14 were announced by NASA in August 1969. Apollo 13
would be commanded by Gemini mission veteran James Lovell. His command
module pilot was Jack Swigert, and the lunar module pilot who would join Lovell
on the Moon was Fred Haise.
The mission of Apollo 13 was launched on April 11, 1970. During the space-
craft’s transit to the Moon almost 56 hours into the mission, Houston gave the com-
mand to stir a cryogenic oxygen tank, which was a planned-for and routine
procedure. When the switch was flipped to do this, there was an explosion. When
Lovell sensed the gravity of the situation, he said, “Houston, we’ve had a problem.”
In that moment, Apollo 13 changed from a mission of exploration to a mission of
survival and getting the crew home. Through the concerted efforts of many people
back on Earth and diligent efforts of the Apollo 13 crew and their will to survive,
they did indeed return to Earth. Their capsule splashed down in the South Pacific on
April 17.
The Apollo program was temporarily put on hold as the root cause of the oxygen
tank explosion was analyzed. This would take months. There were long-range
implications as well. The funding for Apollo 18 and 19 was canceled. With the
Apollo 13 problem pinpointed and component replaced, Apollo 14 was now sched-
A Pause in Apollo and Different Site for Apollo 14 59
uled for launch for January 31, 1971. The crew selection included Commander Alan
B. Shepard – America’s first astronaut in space aboard a Mercury capsule nearly a
decade before in May 1961. Stu Roosa was command module pilot. Edgar Mitchell
was the lunar module pilot. NASA still wanted to have astronauts explore the
intriguing Fra Mauro region, the original landing site for Apollo 13, so this would
now become the landing site for Apollo 14. The Fra Mauro Formation resulted from
the ejecta blanket created by the excavation of the Imbrium Basin. The specific site
of exploration would be Cone Crater, roughly 340 m in diameter. The impact that
formed Cone Crater, in turn, ejected massive blocks of lunar crust that would be
sampled and photographed. The findings from these samples would tell much about
the history of the Moon and the formation of that region of Earth’s planetary
satellite.
To aid Shepard and Mitchell on the lunar surface, they were taking with them the
new modular equipment transporter, or MET (see Chap. 3). The MET was stowed
on the MESA of their Lunar Module Antares. Once configured at their landing site,
the lightweight MET would carry all the tools, cameras, core tubes, sample bags
and other items as they traversed along the planned two EVAs.
The crew’s Saturn V was launched at 4:02 p. m. on January 31, 1971. After the
go for TLI, there were several failures of the docking probe during the transposition
and docking maneuver. After 13, NASA was particularly sensitive to any mechani-
cal anomaly. Fortunately, this issue was resolved, the spacecraft docked success-
fully and the mission proceeded to the Moon. Roughly 82 hours into the mission the
spacecraft was inserted into lunar orbit. Shepard and Mitchell entered Antares, and
continued through their checklist. When the crew received the go for landing,
Shepard responded, “It’s a beautiful day in the land of Fra Mauro.” The spacecraft
performed its descent burn, and the astronauts landed at Fra Mauro roughly 1,100 m
west of Cone Crater at 108 hours, 15 minutes and 9.3 seconds MET.
Just over five and a half hours later, mission commander Alan Shepard exited the
LM. He pulled the lanyard to deploy the MESA and descended the ladder. Shepard
set up the TV camera, which recorded Mitchell coming down the ladder. It was
Mitchell who collected the contingency sample, then positioned it temporarily on
the LM ladder while Shepard worked to deploy the MET from the MESA. Mitchell
climbed up the ladder with the contingency sample to place it inside the LM, then
returned to the lunar surface.
“[T]he soil is very fine here. Very fine grained,” Shepard reported to Houston,
“and as we mentioned before, there are very few samples that – of any size at all.
Mostly hand sample size and blocks of generally under two inches or less.”
Both astronauts continued to work smoothly through the checklist with the help
of the Capcom in Houston. For the first EVA scheduled to last just over four hours,
the astronauts would remain in the general vicinity of the LM and work on deploy-
ing and setting up the ALSEP, erecting the American flag, taking samples and pho-
tography. Roughly two hours into the EVA, Shepard recorded the progress he was
making loading up the MET.
“Got the core tube cap assembly, extension handle, two sets of tongs,” he com-
municated to Houston. “We have a numbered geophone anchor on the front. We have
Fig. 4.10 Apollo 14 Commander Alan B. Shepard works with a core tube next to the Modular
Equipment Transporter. (NASA)
the tether, the gnomon, the hammer, the scoop. Three core tubes, 35 bag dispenser,
Close-up Camera, two SESC’s (Special Environmental Sample Container), two
70-mm cameras with solar exterior, one 16-mm camera and one mag, four weigh
bags, two maps, extra number geophone flag, large scoop is on, right. Large scoop is
on, and we’re taking the trenching tool with us.”
While Mitchell carried the ALSEP in barbell fashion out to the designated
deployment site, Shepard followed, pulling the MET. The TV camera had been
positioned so Mission Control could monitor the astronauts’ movements out to the
ALSEP site. The experiments and monitoring equipment from the package were
deployed and photographs taken. Their Capcom Fred Haise told them they had 18
minutes to get back to the LM, but they got a reprieve and received a 30-minute
extension. Then, Shepard and Mitchell headed back toward Antares with the goal of
taking samples along the way. They had been on the lunar surface four hours at that
point.
“Okay, Houston,” Shepard said, “on this comprehensive sample, we’re about a
third of the way back to the LM, I’ve not found an area exactly what I want, so I
have drawn a circle which is approximately two meters in radius, and I’m going to
pick the surface rocks from that and a sampling of the surface fines from the area.”
Shepard took a location photograph of their documented sample with the LM in

view. Mitchell helped using the tongs, and together they worked to put their samples
in the bags and put the sealed bags on the MET. They would have to weigh the
sample bags they collected. This was crucial on this and the second EVA, and the
collected sample weight was calculated in the spacecraft liftoff weight. They wanted
to be sure to also collect a significantly sized rock around the size of a football, and
they referred to it as that during their return to the LM.
“Okay, Houston, you can see the area where the football-sized rock is coming
from,” Shepard relayed. “It’s essentially two-thirds of the way back toward the LM,
from the ALSEP site. The rock appears to have been ejected from the crater which
Ed was describing earlier, in his 12:30 position. It’s a large hard sample. It’s essen-
tially nonvesicular. Just some very small vesicles.
“The number of surface rocks, or rocks compared with the number of surface
fines is very, very small, Houston,” Mitchell added. “There’s a few boulders lying
around and there’s a few blocks around some of the craters, but by and large, it’s a
powdery surface.”
Fig. 4.11 Alan Shepard studies an eroded boulder. He is holding sampling tongs in his left hand.
(NASA)
While back at the LM and the MESA, the astronauts began their methodical
closeout procedures for their first EVA. Shepard relayed more information regard-
ing the comprehensive sample they had collected.
“And on the comprehensive sample, Houston, I feel we have about 15 rocks, and
some fines. One weigh bag is going into the SRC.”
They were asked by their Capcom to collect an addition sample bag near the LM,
so Shepard and Mitchell picked a nearby small crater, and placed this bag in the
same SRC. However, there was an abundance of samples collected, and Shepard
confirmed with the Capcom the status of these other samples.
“…Houston, we were unable to get all of the weigh bags in the SRC,” Shepard
noted. “It’s full. We’re putting the samples of small rocks from the comprehensive
sample in the weigh bag along with the two small football rocks.” These precious
samples in their weigh bags in the Equipment Transfer Bag along with some photo-
graphic equipment would go into the second SRC temporarily. “Okay, so SRC serial
807, Houston, contains, then, the organic control sample, the fines from the
comprehensive sample, and the extra fines from that small crater we collected near
the LM,” Shepard stated.
Shepard sealed the first SRC. The two finished their closeout procedures, dusted
themselves off as much as possible, reentered the LM and pressurized the space-
craft. The astronauts would have the next 17 hours to recount their activities with
Houston, have something to eat and drink, rest as much as the cramped quarters in
Antares would allow, and then prepare for their second EVA.
The second EVA had as its objective the traverse to the rim of Cone Crater. The
astronauts went through a checklist with the Capcom on the equipment needed on
the MET for this EVA.
This traverse would prove challenging and frustrating to the astronauts both for
the distance they would have to cross to get to the crater’s rim and the deceptive
contours of the area that made it difficult to determine their precise location along
the traverse.
Shepard exited Antares for the second EVA at 131 hours, 13 minutes Mission
Elapsed Time. Mitchell followed about five minutes later. Then Mitchell said some-
thing very curious:
“Beautiful day for a game of golf,” Mitchell quipped. What the lunar module
pilot was referring to was a planned-for, light-hearted moment later in the EVA after
the two astronauts had achieved all the objectives. Shepard and Mitchell went
through voice confirmation of the items needed on the MET.
Shepard confirmed the MET was loaded, then said, “Okay, up on the top of the
hill.” They positioned the TV camera in the shade of the LM and pointed it toward
Cone Crater. Shepard and Mitchell were embarking on the longest walking traverse
of the Apollo missions that would prove the limits of exploring the Moon on foot
while remaining within the margins proscribed by their environmental backpacks.
Their first sampling stop during this EVA was approximately 175 m from the
LM, designated Point A, where Shepard would take a core sample. It was here
Mitchell took one of the iconic images from the Apollo program that showed
Shepard alongside the MET holding the assembled core tubes. Shepard sealed the
Fig. 4.12 Apollo 14 proved the limitations of walking traverses and the physical demands this
placed on the astronauts. The traverse to the summit of Cone Ridge was arduous and deceiving.
This boulder field was photographed at Cone Ridge. (NASA)
ends of the core tubes he had driven into the surface and extracted, and stored them
on the MET. The astronauts moved on toward the rim of Cone Crater, but the light-
ing and deceptive lunar surface and shape of the rim itself gave Shepard and Mitchell
a false sense of distance. They kept up a running commentary with their Capcom,
Fred Haise. They were an hour and 15 minutes into their second EVA at this point.
“Incidentally, I see a string of craters down to the south of us,” Shepard reported,
“that may prove to be a ray pattern from Cone. And I observe, as we get closer to
Cone, the number of large boulders is increasing. We’re going to go past some here
in a couple of minutes – near about a 20-foot-wide, fairly fresh crater. The boul-
ders – a dozen of them or so – are four or five feet in diameter.”
Roughly 200 m from Point A, they stopped to take samples using the tongs and
scoop. The astronauts were, in fact, only about one-third of the distance to their final
goal. Their stops were identified, during the traverse and subsequently, as B, B1, B2
and B3. At B3 if Shepard and Mitchell had gone true north, in short order they
would have indeed stood on the flat rim of Cone and looked into its impressive
depth. Instead, they ended up venturing further east, in search of the elusive center
of the crater. However, all along this traverse, they had been sampling and photo-
graphing. They were, in fact, achieving the mission goal of obtaining lunar samples
from the Cone Crater ejection blanket.
Mitchell was determined to achieve the goal of truly looking down into Cone
Crater and knowing they had achieved that mission milestone, but other minds at
Mission Control were cautiously looking at the clock, knowing the astronauts would
have to soon turn back toward the LM. They took samples again at what was termed
C-prime, then moved on to their next sampling point, C1. During his photographic
panorama, a photograph was taken of a shattered, angular boulder with unique col-
oration. Beyond this boulder lay the vast Fra Mauro basin below, and in the distance
more than a kilometer away was Antares. Behind their scheduled timeline, the two
disappointed astronauts began the trek back to the spacecraft. Nevertheless, they
took samples on the way back, and a more southerly route. The terrain was littered
with rocks that made the MET hop from one tire to the other. One of the astronauts
would pull the MET while the other would keep an eye out for items that might fall
off the MET as it jostled across the lunar surface.
Finally back at the LM, the moment came for revealing the meaning of Mitchell’s
glib remark about golfing. Shepard replaced the bag type scoop on the contingency
sampler with a special fitting perfectly suited for hitting a golf ball. Shepard
announced his intention to the Capcom, and there were knowing smiles all around
Mission Control. He retrieved the golf ball and dropped it onto the regolith. He
swung with one hand and missed on the first attempt. Finally, he made good contact
with the ball, which went sailing with the aid of the Moon’s one-sixth gravity.
The two astronauts were now in the closing moments of their time on the lunar
surface. The second lunar sample return container was loaded with the samples and
core tubes collected and then sealed. Mitchell grabbed the handle of the container
and managed to climb the ladder, holding onto the rungs with his other hand. This
container would go into its designated storage location, along with the film maga-
zines and the movie camera with its film, and a separate sample bag.
Once back aboard Antares, the door was closed and the cabin repressurized.
Shepard enumerated the new sample weights collected during their second EVA to
their Capcom, Fred Haise.
“We gave you the weights of the rocks that we put in the left-hand stowage yes-
terday. We have some additional rocks that are in the ISA (Interim Stowage
Assembly). Total weight of the ISA is 50 pounds. Total weight of the [second] SRC
is 29 pounds, and we have a couple of large rocks in the sample bag, that’s the Z-27
and that weight is 30 pounds.”
“Okay, Al,” Haise responded. “Copy that. Looks like a pretty good haul.” They
had spent a total of nine hours and 22 minutes combined from their two EVAs.
“There are so many things we’d like to have done,” the lunar module pilot said to
Haise, “so many things to do, so many interesting things to look at here, and we
didn’t even have the chance to scratch the surface. We hope we’ve brought back
something that you can sort out, as time goes on.”
Antares lifted off from Fra Mauro and several hours later docked with the
CSM. The return to Earth was uneventful, and the capsule Kitty Hawk splashed
down in the Pacific Ocean on February 9. Two days later the crew and their samples
Fig. 4.13 Apollo 14 astronauts Edgar Mitchell and Alan Shepard examine some of the lunar sam-
ples deposited at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. (NASA)
departed the prime recovery ship for Samoa via helicopter. The first lunar samples
arrived at the LRL in Houston on the 11th. The crew and second portion of samples
arrived in Houston on the 12th.
From the Lunar Samples Handbook: “The Apollo 14 samples were processed in
stainless steel, N2-filled glove cabinets that were held under negative pressure as
required by quarantine procedures. The exhaust N2 was monitored for contamina-
tion by H2, O2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O by gas chromatography. Soils were described
superficially in the lab by looking into open documented sample bags. Each sample
was then sieved into >1 cm, 4–10 mm, 2–4 mm, and >1 mm fractions. Each fraction
was weighed, assigned a sample number, then stored in stainless steel bolt top cans.
Aliquots of several soil samples were used by the preliminary examination team for
grain size, chemical and petrographic analysis. The <1 mm aliquots were set-sieved
(with Freon) at 500 μm, 250 μm, 125 μm, 62.5 μm and 31 μm intervals using 3-inch
diameter stainless steel sieves. Thin sections were made of the 250–500 μm and
125–250 μm size fractions.”
After each Apollo mission, a Mission Report was compiled of all events. Within
these reports was the Pilot’s Report, written by crew members. From that Apollo 14
Pilot’s Report:
“Even though extravehicular preparations and post-extravehicular procedures
were quite adequate, meticulous effort is required to properly stow a large number
of lunar surface samples. Although there is adequate stowage space when samples
are properly handled, it is impossible to estimate the number, size and shape of the
samples prior to flight. Thus, much time is required to sort, weigh and stow all of the
material in the lunar module cabin in accordance with stowage area weight con-
straints. Marking of weigh bags as they are sorted and stowed is important.”
The manual that described the deployment and configuration of the MET had
numerous steps involved, but apparently this did not prove to be a problem on the
lunar surface. Shepard and Mitchell had even trained for this phase aboard a NASA
aircraft that replicated the 1/6th gravity during its flight profile. The only issue the
astronauts felt was an issue with the MET was its propensity to bounce each time
one of the wheels hit a rock when they were moving briskly. Several times during
their second EVA approaching the ridge of Cone Crater, Mitchell and Shepard had
to pick up the MET to clear dense rock obstructions.
“The geology hand tools are good and, if time had permitted, they would have all
been used,” the pilot’s report stated. “As in previous missions, the hammer was used
by striking with the flat of the hammer rather than the small end. The only discrep-
ancy associated with the geology tools was the use of the geology sample bags. It
was difficult to find rocks small enough to fit into the small sample bags. Furthermore,
they are hard to roll up. The tabs which should facilitate rolling up the bags became
entangled, making it difficult to remove them from the dispenser.”
It was also written in this report that the great majority of the visible area around
the landing site contained less than one percent of rocks that could be sampled.
It was not until the astronauts were roughly half the distance to Cone Crater that a
significant number of rocks could be seen on the lunar surface. Boulders were not
evident until they neared the rim of the crater.
Detailed initial findings of the Apollo 14 lunar samples are in Chap. 6.
Chapter 5
Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 15, 16 and 17
During the mid-1960s, as NASA, its contractors and sub-contractors were working
on the designs of launch vehicles and spacecraft, the space agency was also looking
into means of expanding the tools for exploration for astronauts on the lunar sur-
face. At first, these vehicles were very large and heavy, incapable of being sent to
the Moon. They were proof-of-concept vehicles and a great deal of design engineer-
ing was gleaned from these first-generation vehicles. In time, the phrase lunar rov-
ing vehicle, or LRV, was adopted.
As size and complexity of these vehicles was reduced, NASA made the decision
that a single Saturn V launch vehicle would be used for all lunar missions, not two.
Now, size and weight of the LRV was a new design driver. Various design proposals
had been evaluated by NASA in the late 1960s for a means of expanding the scope
of exploration by astronauts on the Moon. In May 1969, the agency announced the
basic design of the lunar roving vehicle that would be used on later Apollo
missions.
NASA issued a memo to the Manned Spacecraft Center titled, “Requirements
assessment for Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV).” These requirements formed the basis
of a request for proposals that went out to a number of interested aerospace compa-
nies to design and build the LRV for NASA. The winning proposal was presented
by Boeing and it subcontractor, General Motors. Marshall Spaceflight Center in
Huntsville, Alabama, managed the program.
The LRV was designed, tested, built and validated for flight in less than two
years. The first LRV was delivered to Kennedy Space Center just weeks prior to the
launch of Apollo 15. The prime crew of Apollo 15 that included Dave Scott and
James Irwin had been training on a 1-G trainer at KSC and on the rover called
Grover, used during training in the western United States. (For a more complete
history of the Lunar Roving Vehicle, see Lunar and Planetary Rovers – The Wheels
of Apollo and the Quest for Mars, Springer-Praxis, 2007.)

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2_5
68 5 Apollo Lunar Landing Missions 15, 16 and 17
The Plains of Hadley for Apollo 15
The prime crew for Apollo 15 was formally announced by NASA on March 26,
1970. David R. Scott would be commander; he was a veteran of Gemini 8 and
Apollo 9. The lunar module pilot who would join him on the Moon was James
Irwin, who had never flown a mission but had proved to be more than capable for
Apollo 15. The command module pilot would be Al Worden. Scott was a strong
proponent of landing the lunar module in the rugged Hadley-Apennine region. It
would require an aggressive descent profile to clear the Apennine Mountains, then
descend to the desired landing site near Hadley Rille. NASA formally announced
this landing site for Apollo 15 in September 1970. Launch was tentatively scheduled
for the last week in July of 1971.
The last three missions of the Apollo program were all very ambitious in terms
of their landing sites, duration on the surface, level of exploration tasks and increased
risk. These three missions were classed as “J.” They benefited from increased con-
sumables and carrying capacity of the Lunar Module, improvements in the personal
life support system (PLSS) that would extend the duration of the EVAs, and the
inclusion of the LRV that would permit the astronauts to venture many kilometers
from the LM and reduce the burden of taking samples and providing for their stor-
age during the EVAs. They would also have with them improved TV and 16-mm
cameras to film them during their tasks. The TV camera, which could be mounted
to the rover and beam back live images to Mission Control, was a tremendous asset
in getting direction and input during their sampling stops.
Apollo 15 was launched at 9:34 a. m. on July 26, 1970. The Saturn V performed
perfectly, and soon the astronauts were on their way to the Moon. Their Command
Module was named Endeavor and the Lunar Module was named Falcon. Scott
undocked the LM from the CSM 100 hours and 39 minutes into the mission and
began the descent to the lunar surface. During the dramatic moment the LM per-
formed its programmed pitch-over, the astronauts could see their target near Hadley
Rille. Scott landed Falcon approximately 2 km west of the rille’s edge. The rille
itself more than a kilometer wide along most of its serpentine length.
During mission planning meetings, it was decided that Scott would perform
what they termed a “standup EVA.” Scott and Irwin would put on their EVA suits,
depressurize the cabin, and then Scott would open the roof hatch and stand on the
engine cover to survey the entire area around the landing site. During the meetings
there was concern that many boulders and rocks would prevent smooth operation of
the LRV.
When Scott performed his standup EVA, Mission Control was relieved to hear
from Scott there would be no problem operating the rover. He also described Mount
Hadley to the south, which stood over 4,000 m in elevation, the other craters identi-
fied as the North Complex, and the mysterious Hadley Rille. When he completed
this portion of the mission, he returned to the cabin and closed the hatch and repres-
surized the LM. The two astronauts had their first meal on the Moon, and would rest
the scheduled number of hours before beginning their first EVA.
The Plains of Hadley for Apollo 15 69
Fig. 5.1 James Irwin scoops a soil sample during an EVA on the plain near Mount Hadley.
(NASA)
First Scott, then Irwin, emerged from the Orion. In previous missions, deploying
the ALSEP was one of the key activities during the first EVA, but Apollo 15 was
different. The LRV would determine the success and extent of exploration and dis-
covery, so that was the first order of business for the two astronauts. The rover
deployed much as they had experienced during training with only some minor and
correctible issues. Once Scott settled into the LRV’s left hand seat, though, he dis-
covered the front steering did not work. Fortunately, the LRV was equipped with
both fore and aft wheel steering. He reported the anomaly to Mission Control, but
also stated driving the rover with just rear steering was acceptable, so the mission
proceeded. Together they configured the LRV with all the needed equipment, took
the needed contingency sample that Irwin returned to the LM, and the two astro-
nauts proceeded to become the first lunar drivers.
“Let’s do a little geology!” Capcom Joe Allen exclaimed. Both astronauts gave
their hardy approval. They drove toward the towering Mount Hadley before them
and, at the base, a crater identified as Elbow because of its proximity to Hadley
Rille. The lunar terrain was rolling and Scott was busy maneuvering the LRV to
avoid large rocks, or blocks as they were sometimes referred. This would be the
Station 1 stop for sampling and photography, where they would spend about 15
minutes. Scott and Irwin kept a running commentary during their sample collection
and photography, stored the samples and cameras and got back on the LRV, which
had already placed them more than 3 km from Falcon. Both astronauts displayed
their comfortable knowledge of geology in describing the samples they collected,
and this kept the principal investigators and fellow geologists eagerly attentive as
they listened to Scott’s and Irwin’s findings.
“By golly, I see olivine,” Scott stated as he picked up one rock with the tongs.
“And there’s a big lath of plage in there, about a centimeter long. It’s a light gray
matrix with millimeter-sized grains and 2 millimeter phenocrysts in it.”
Next stop was the much larger and more prominent St. George Crater. During
their Station 2 stop at St. George, Scott voiced his observation of the lunar soil to
Capcom Joe Allen.
“Joe, the soil is dark gray, and it’s really fine-grained, and I haven’t seen any dif-
ference in granularity between the LM and our [current] position at all. It all looks
about the same. It’s fairly cohesive with very few fragments in it.”
The rover had allowed the two astronauts to climb a significant elevation from
Hadley up the side of St. George crater. They took rake samples, scoop samples and
core tube samples during their first EVA as well as needed photographs. Scott
inspected, sampled and photographed a 1-m boulder that was conspicuous for being
the only one at this station stop, indicating it had landed there from an ejection event
of some kind. In terms of distance from Falcon, this traverse would be the shortest
of the three scheduled.
In July of 2005, David Scott told this author about the smaller size of the Moon
compared to Earth and the distance to the horizon, and how the LRV’s navigation
system proved invaluable during their EVAs.
“One thing we were always aware of,” Scott said, “was that when you are on the
Moon you go over the horizon quickly and you don’t see the LM. We were the first
crew to travel over the horizon and be out of site of the LM – a big change in plan-
ning and preparation. And so, on our first excursion, the backup navigation to get
back to the LM was the old ‘Hansel and Gretel’ trick of following our tracks. Once
we were comfortable after the first EVA, then we’d take side excursions and come
back a different way. But in the process of planning this, we knew to use the Sun
compass, so that if the navigation system broke down or didn’t work, we could still
find our way back. But the system worked brilliantly on the Moon.”
There was originally a Station 3 stop scheduled, but Allen vetoed that due to time
constraints. On the way back to the LM, Scott made an unscheduled stop to collect
a desirable sample, then continued their return. Back at Falcon, they deployed the
ALSEP packages. In addition, Scott employed the lunar drill for the first time on an
Apollo mission. The drill was used to permit the placement of the Heat Flow
Experiment. The goal was to drill to a depth of 3 m, but Scott could not achieve a
2-m depth before being stopped. It turned out to be a result of the compacted core
tubes and other difficulties. Nevertheless, the first EVA was indeed a success. The
two astronauts stored their samples and equipment and returned to the relative com-
fort of the LM and commence their closeout for the first day.
After a period of rest and food, they prepared for their second EVA. This time,
Scott went through a routine of cycling several switches on the rover and was
rewarded with the fact that the front steering was now operating. This made the
Fig. 5.2 David Scott ventured from the LRV to take a sample from this small boulder near the
base of Mount Hadley at Station 2. (NASA)
vehicle’s handling much better and intuitive. This time, the astronauts drove directly
south toward the Apennine Front. They would go the farthest point selected for this
EVA without stopping, then work their way back, sampling as they did so. As they
passed the 2-km mark from the LM, Capcom Joe Allen reminded Scott and Irwin of
the priorities for the EVA.
“We’re looking in particular,” Allen stated, “for fresh craters, lots of frags, good
sampling drill holes into the Front and mare.”
Scott told Allen that the small craters they were seeing were shallow and subtle,
which indicated they were far from fresh. They made their first station stop near the
small crater named Spur. However, looking toward Hadley Rille was the large crater
St. George. Even though specific station stops were occasionally made outside those
planned for prior to the mission, St. George Crater was not a required stop during
this EVA. At this general location near Spur, the two astronauts made several sam-
ple collections, photographed the samples collected, and took photographic pans.
As with the previous EVA, when Scott stopped the LRV, he repositioned the TV
camera antenna toward Earth and made sure the camera was pointing in the right
direction so live broadcasts could be made during each stop. The camera was con-
trolled from Earth by Ed Fendell in Mission Control; Fendell could pan the camera
to follow the astronauts.
“Running the TV camera was really intense,” Fendell told this author during an
interview in 2005. “When the astronauts stopped and I took control of the camera,
Fig. 5.3 David Scott using the lunar drill in order to place the heat flow experiment probes below
the lunar surface. The drill was also used to collect deep core samples. (NASA)
you didn’t fool around and you didn’t take your eyes away for an instant. We had a
TV monitor up on the console, as well as the big screens at the front. If you turned
away, it was all over. It was pretty intense staying focused on the job.”
They continued filling sample bags with soil and small fines and took more pho-
tos before stowing the samples on the LRV. The long drive from the LM, coupled
with lunar soil covering the LRV’s battery radiators’ mirrored surface, had dramati-
cally raised battery temperature. This lunar dust was brushed off the radiators. They
would now move on to Station 6A. Due to the severity of the slope the LRV was
parked on, Scott could not orient the TV antenna; this was one of the few station
stops where there was no televised activity. After Scott had moved the LRV further
down slope, Irwin had to keep the rover from sliding sideways. They completed
collecting their samples and taking photos, and then moved onto Station 7 and Spur
Crater.
Once they were on station, Scott got off and aligned the antenna, and televised
activity with Fendell controlling the TV camera continued. It was at this stop that
the astronaut’s geological training and skills of observation would pay off. Scott and
Irwin stopped and stared at a block they both identified from their training.
“Guess what we just found,” Scott told Capcom Allen, and for emphasis said,
“Guess what we just found! I think we found what we came for.”
“Crystalline rock, huh?” Irwin responded.
“Yes sir – you better believe it,” he replied.
The astronauts had discovered an anorthosite with a crystalline structure that was
known. This meant it was most probably a piece of the Moon’s early crust. Indeed,
this rock sample would reveal many secrets after being examined back on Earth.
They stored the sample with soil, and a chipped sample from a nearby boulder. After
spending 45 minutes there, they backtracked to what was identified as Station 4,
near the south rim of Dune Crater. From their location, they could clearly see the
LM several kilometers away. Still, Scott relied on the LRV’s navigation system to
get them back to Falcon.
Once back at the LM, there was still much for the astronauts to do for the remain-
der of their second EVA. They had to perform soil mechanics experiments that took
up five pages of their “Cuff” checklist. Scott also had to make a second attempt in
embedding a heat flow sensor using the lunar surface drill, but this proved as diffi-
cult as the first attempt. Then, Scott was informed that the need for a deep core
sample using the drill was still on the “to do” list. This time, he was able to drill to
a depth of nearly two and a half meters. However, getting the core tube out proved
difficult. Trying to extract the intractable core tubes caused his heart rate to climb,
and Allen advised Scott to stop and move on to the next task. Attempting to get the
core tube removed would wait until the third EVA. By the time Scott and Irwin
climbed the LM ladder, they had been on the lunar surface over seven hours, setting
an EVA record.
Fig. 5.4 David Scott retrieves the hammer from a small boulder while holding a sample bag at
Station 9A close to the rim of Hadley Rille. (NASA)
Their third and last EVA would consummate a very successful mission in the
collection of samples and photo-documentation. After configuring the rover, Scott
and Irwin drove over to the ALSEP site for Scott to attempt extraction of the drill
core tubes. Using a specific technique devised by the combined efforts of several
people back on Earth, Scott was finally able to remove the core tubes with their pre-
cious contents. However, Scott suffered a minor shoulder injury in the attempt. The
problems were not over. It took half an hour to separate the core tube sections from
one another. The fact the astronauts were given that amount of time – whatever it
took – was proof how valuable the core tube samples were. Allen emphasized how
important that effort was.
“Quite seriously, Dave and Jim, “Allen stated, “that’s undoubtedly the deepest
sample out of the Moon for perhaps as long as the Moon itself has been there.”
After performing an experiment with the LRV to judge its performance, the
astronauts then ventured over to Hadley Rille about 2 km from the landing site.
Their first stop short of the Rille was Station 9, which was a heavily debris-strewn
crater. It was also hoped that they would have time during the EVA to explore the
Fig. 5.5 James Irwin

(right) and David Scott
(left) inspect a few of their
collected lunar samples in
one of the glove boxes at
the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory. (NASA)
Apollo 16 Ventures to the Descartes Highlands 75
wonderfully cratered North Complex. They took samples and photos there, then
moved to what would be Station 9A. As they approached the Rille, Scott drove
slowly in parallel to the massive valley and gave a running description of the appear-
ance and debris strewn along its walls. Scott could identify clear stratification layers
of darker and then lighter formations as it descended from the lip of the rille. It was
believed this was the result of several different lava flows that made up the mare in
the Hadley plain. The astronauts stopped, making it to 9A, and actually ventured
over the lip of the rille and walked a short distance to get samples and take more
photos.
With the ever-present time constraints, they hopped aboard the LRV and traveled
further to Station 10 to take photos. It was determined by Mission Control that sepa-
rating the core tubes and getting them into the sample collection boxes was more
important than exploring the North Complex. The decision was passed along to
Scott and Irwin. They reluctantly agreed, and began their trek back to the ALSEP
site and tackle separating the core tubes. This time, the core tubes did separate, they
were stored on the LRV and then they headed back to the LM. The collected sam-
ples and core tubes were dutifully stored in the rock boxes, which were then sealed
and then transported up to and inside the LM, along with the cameras and their film
canisters.
Then, Scott drove the LRV several hundred meters from the lunar module, parked
it, aligned the TV antenna, verified it was good with Houston, then walked back to
Falcon. The liftoff of the ascent stage would be televised. Irwin had entered the LM
first, and then Scott took one last photo with a part of the LM in the foreground and
the LRV in the distance with the rolling hills surrounding Hadley plain in the back-
ground. He climbed the ladder, closed the door and ended the EVA. Several hours
later, the ascent stage fired, and climbed to orbit to rendezvous with the CSM and
their fellow crewmate, Al Worden.
The return to Earth was nominal in all respects, except for the collapse of one of
the three main parachutes during its descent to the ocean. Astronaut Dave Scott, a
spaceflight veteran, did not find the reentry out of the ordinary, but Irwin later wrote
in his autobiography he was astounded at the level of Gs he experienced, as if a mas-
sive weight was on his chest. When the lunar samples Scott and Irwin had collected
had been weighed, it totaled 77 kg. And indeed, much of the Moon’s history and
makeup were eventually determined from these samples. This is described in the
next chapter.
Apollo 16 Ventures to the Descartes Highlands
On March 3, 1971, Deke Slayton of the astronaut office announced the prime and
backup crews for the Apollo 16 mission. Mission commander would be Capt. John
Young; he had flown two Gemini missions and was Command Module Pilot on
Apollo 10 as prelude to the first lunar landing mission that followed. In following
the pattern set by the Apollo 15 crew, the lunar module pilot for Apollo 16 was also
a spaceflight rookie, Charles Duke. He had been the Capcom during the landing of
Apollo 11. Finally, Slayton selected Ken Mattingly to be command module pilot.
Mattingly, like Duke, had never flown in space before. The decision to select astro-
nauts for flight missions was very rigorous, and the fact that an Apollo crew member
had not flown before did not prevent them from being considered for an Apollo
mission. After all, all the Mercury astronauts had never flown in space before, and
this was also true of almost all of the Gemini astronauts.
Exactly three months later, on June 3, the NASA Site Selection Board also issued
its decision for the Apollo 16 landing site. Young and Duke would land their lunar
module in the Descartes region just below the lunar equator. It took its name from
Descartes Crater in the south-central highlands of the Moon. The crew specifically
trained for exploring this area of the Moon, and specifically the geological training
that would involve traverse training on Grover at various sites in the United States
and field training in other sites often outside the country.
NASA revealed a bit more about the area that would be explored by Young and
Duke in the Apollo 16 press kit released to the media in April 1972, a week and a
half before the scheduled launch. It described in geological terms why it was desir-
able for exploration.
A hilly region north of the Descartes crater in a highlands area of the southeastern quad-
rant of the visible face of the Moon is the landing site chosen for Apollo 16. The Descartes
site appears to have structural characteristics similar to volcanism sites on Earth and has
two separate volcanic features – Cayley Plains and the Descartes Mountains – which will
be extensively explored and sampled by the Apollo 16 crew.
The Cayley Plains segment of the landing site is characterized by terrain ranging from
smooth to undulating – possibly a result of fluid volcanic rock flow. The Descartes
Mountains, part of the Kant Plateau, are characterized by hilly, furrowed highland plateau
material that is thought to have come from a more viscous volcanic flow. Additionally, the
Descartes landing site provides an opportunity to study the evolution of young, bright-
rayed craters and to extend age-dating to similar craters in other regions of the Moon.
The landing site has two basic areas which will be explored and sampled: Cayley Plains,
including North Ray and South Ray craters; and Stone Mountain and Smoky Mountain of
the South and North Descartes Mountains.
The low crater density in the Cayley Plains suggests an Imbrian age for the rolling, ridged
portion of Cayley in the Apollo 16 traverse area. Stone and Smoky mountains, on the other
hand, appear to have shapes typical of volcanic formations on Earth – shapes that might be
formed by movement of rather viscous material.
April 16, 1972 was launch day for Apollo 16. Considering the complexity of the
Saturn V rocket and all the systems being monitored for the slightest anomaly, it is
miraculous there were no unscheduled delays or holds. The countdown proceeded
to a 12:54 p. m. liftoff, and the most powerful machine on Earth lifted off on time.
The ascent to orbit was uneventful, and after one and a half orbits, it was announced
that there had been Trans-Lunar Injection. The J2 engine of the S-IVB fired to break
free of Earth’s gravity and send them on to their ultimate destination. Three days
later the CSM and the docked Lunar Module were orbiting the Moon. There had
been a problem regarding the circularization burn by the Service Propulsion System.
This engine burn was eventually performed but pushed the lunar landing timeline
back by several hours.
With the final approval by Mission Control to board their LM Orion, the two men
bid their Command Module Pilot Ken Mattingly to keep an eye on them for the next
couple of days. Both were eager to get to the lunar surface before any other unfore-
seen issues came up. The LM undocked from the CSM Casper, and Young and Duke
proceeded with their descent to the landing site. As Orion pitched over, they could
both see the Descartes plain below. They worked with trained ease as Young guided
the spacecraft and Duke read of descent and speed figures. The intended landing site
was heavily cratered. Young succeeded in just avoiding a crater as he set the LM
down. It was April 20, at 140 hours, 29 minutes and 38 seconds, Ground Elapsed
Time (GET).
“The Descartes region was pervasive in the number of craters it had,” Young told
this author during a phone interview in March 2003. “We landed, fortunately, in the
middle of a big, flat 75-m crater, and landed about as flat as you could land. We
landed about three or four meters away from the side of a 10-m crater. If we had
landed in that we would have been in real trouble.”
Fig. 5.6 Apollo 16 commander John Young often kept the hammer in the shin pocket of his suit
when gathering samples chipped from large rocks or boulders. (NASA)
Young and Duke spent the next several hours going through the required check-
list prior to ensuring their EVA suits were ready to perform, and they exited their
LM. They deployed the LRV. Charlie Duke described to this author the sequence of
events that followed.
“Then, we picked it [the LRV] up and walked out with it and turned it around so
John could drive it off,” Duke explained. “We then mounted the TV and movie cam-
eras, various antennas, put the geological experiments on the back, raised the seats,
and checked it out. The next three to four hours were involved with placing the
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) near the landing site, planting
the U. S. flag and taking photos. After that, we climbed into the rover and our objec-
tive was a place called Plum Crater, about a mile west of our landing site. We aligned
our navigation system and off we went.”
As with Apollo 15, the EVAs conducted with the LRV were designed to drive to
the furthest station stop from the LM, then work their way back to the remaining
station stops for each traverse. During the first EVA, this proved treacherous because
of the direction of the sunlight. Lunar features were washed out, described as
zero-phase.
“There were block fields that would rise from these new craters,” Young said.
“What I was worried about while driving the rover at Descartes was that we would
run across one of these block fields and take out the suspension system. We were
very careful in going around all the blocks with the rover.”
The LRV’s navigation system was crucial in ensuring they were traveling in the
right direction and that they stopped precisely where they needed to for their first
station stop for sampling and photography. Duke stated that the maps he referred to
while Young was driving were not always helpful in identifying the craters they
passed. With Young focused on controlling the LRV, Duke kept up a running com-
mentary as they drove toward Plum Crater. Plum Crater was a steep-walled crater
near the vicinity of the larger Flag Crater almost 1.5 km from the LM.
“Driving down Sun in zero-phase is murder,” Young confessed to Capcom Tony
England, who could do nothing but agree and sympathize.
It was at Plum Crater, with Mission Control watching their activities via the TV
camera, that they were asked to retrieve the largest rock sample ever collected dur-
ing the Apollo lunar landing missions. As stated, Plum was a very steep-walled
crater. England had been directed by Bill Muehlberger and his team of the back-
room lunar surface geologists that included Dale Jackson and Gordon Swann to
have the astronauts retrieve a sizable rock from the lip of Plum Crater. The rock was
so large it could not be picked up with the tongs. It was up to Duke to devise a way
to pick it up by hand. The pressurized EVA suit made bending over difficult. His
first attempt to pick it up failed, and he nearly fell.
“If I fall into Plum Crater getting this rock, Muehlberger has had it,” Duke com-
plained. He finally succeeded in retrieving the large rock sample, examined it while
describing it as having crystals of plagioclase for the geological team and then
stored it under his seat of the LRV. Young had been busy doing sampling of his own,
chipping samples from a much larger rock resting close to Plum’s rim. They also
Fig. 5.7 The rack, core tubes and other sampling tools were kept stored in the Large Tool Carrier
at the aft end of the lunar roving vehicle. Charlie Duke is shown at the rover parked on the flank of
Stone Mountain. (NASA)
took scoop samples and placed them into the sample bags. The astronauts stored
these on the LRV, climbed aboard and headed off to their next station stop.
This stop put them near Spook Crater and nearby Buster Crater. Duke took sam-
ples from the area near the lip of Buster Crater while Young set up the lunar personal
magnetometer near Spook Crater. Duke stored the samples, and once back on the
rover, they headed back to the LM. The next task was to record Young driving the
LRV as aggressively as possible while Duke televised the performance. Like every-
thing else planned for during each EVA, this exercise had a purpose. Engineers at
Boeing and GM wanted to study the vehicle’s performance under harsh driving
conditions. Young did not disappoint. This exercise was dubbed the Lunar Grand
Prix.
Afterwards, Young was asked by the Capcom to provide his general impression
of the Descartes region they were exploring.
“My general impression of this thing [the area] …I’m a lot more surprised at how
really beat up this place is,” Young said. “It must be the oldest stuff around, because
it’s just craters on top of craters or top of craters. I mean, there’s some really big old
subdued craters that we don’t even have mapped on our photo map, I’m sure of it.”
An unfortunate event during the EVA was the damage done to the heat flow
experiment when Young snagged his boot on the cable and tore it from instrument.
Except for this, their first EVA was a great success. They dusted each other off as
much as was possible, climbed the LM ladder, and once inside, closed the LM hatch
and repressurized the cabin. They spent the next several hours relating the events to
Houston, resting and having their meal and water.
Their second EVA would be spent predominantly at Stone Mountain, roughly
4 km from their LM. They climbed aboard the rover and set off for Station 4 on the
slopes of Stone Mountain.
“The rover could climb a 25-degree slope,” Duke stated during the interview.
“We climbed Stone Mountain, which was to the south, on the second day. That was
the steepest slope, and we were 300 to 400 up from the Cayley Plains at the highest
point.”
Both astronauts were amazed at the LRV’s hill-climbing ability. They reached a
level plateau area and stopped there to mark Station 4. This was, in fact, one of the
highest if not the highest elevations explored during the Apollo lunar missions. The
astronauts spent an hour at Station 4 taking samples and photographs. Young made
particularly good use of the rake. While they performed their tasks, Ed Fendell
panned the TV camera so their activities and the spectacular Descartes plain below
them could be seen. They again boarded the LRV and headed down hill for Station
5. The samples there were much like those collected at Station 4; they did not give
evidence of volcanic activity.
“At our site,” Young said during this author’s interview, “they predicted we’d find
rille-like volcanic rocks, and there were none. They were all anorthosites and anor-
thositic breccias. That’s a totally different kind of rock. We found rocks at our site
that were age-dated between 4.2 and 4.5 billion years old.”
Young and Duke continued their trek back toward the LM, stopping at Station 6,
but Houston eliminated the planned stop at Station 7. This freed up time to spend at
Stubby Crater, the bright ejecta rays at South Ray Crater and other areas of the val-
ley plains that completed their stops at Station 8, 9 and 10. Station 8 in particular
had a group of boulders with a diversity of composition Young and Duke took plea-
sure in sampling and photographing.
However, it was during this leg of the traverse that Young inadvertently tore off
the right rear LRV fender extension. No attempt was made to reattach it, and
Houston did not seem overly concerned about the consequence of this. However, it
soon became apparent the missing fender extension was resulting in lunar soil being
thrown forward on both the astronauts and the LRV as they drove.
During the sampling procedures, one astronaut collected the sample and the
other made sure to photograph the site before the sample was taken and during the
sampling. Verbal indications of the sample, where it was being taken and often the
bag number were mentioned to be recorded by Mission Control. The two astronauts
felt good and thought they could spend more time on the surface during this EVA,
but Capcom England directed them to get back to the LM, store the samples and get
inside their spacecraft.
Fig. 5.8 John Young photographed Charlie Duke collecting a rake sample during one of the EVAs.
The rake was effective in collecting small fines and sifting the lunar soil. (NASA)
Their third and last EVA would be devoted to driving north past Palmetto Crater
and on to North Ray Crater to the west of Smoky Mountain around 3 km from the
LM.
“One of the most significant places we went to was on the third day up to North
Ray Crater,” Duke said, “which was four to four and a half miles away. There were
some significant geological areas up there. We found House Rock – a huge boulder.
Looking across North Ray Crater, you could see layering in an outcropping of the
rock. The rover just extended the radius of operations ten to fifteen times.”
North Ray Crater, measuring 900 m across, had a depth of 200 m, Young and
Duke discovered. This was corroborated by the photography taken earlier showing
North Ray and its adjacent and similarly sized crater, Kiva, were partially in shadow.
This indeed would be a very rewarding area to explore, photograph and sample.
Both astronauts had respect for the steep walls of North Ray and did not venture
beyond the crater’s rim. After completing their sampling and photography, they set
their sights on the massive boulder in the distance – House Rock. This was the larg-
est piece of the Moon’s crust that had been created by a violent impact and thrown
to where it had now been resting for millions of years.
It was hard to gauge the boulder’s size and therefore distance as they drove
toward it. Finally, Young stopped the LRV and, after taking the requisite samples,
set off for House Rock. It took longer to get to than Duke expected, but Young was
not surprised. Unfortunately, they did not take photographs of House Rock in its
entirety, and just segments of it were photographed once they approached it. They
estimated the big boulder was 12 m high and 25 m in length. Once they reached
House Rock, Tony England informed them they had only 17 minutes at that station
stop.
Curiously, they did not chip samples from this massive boulder, but chipped
samples from a smaller dark colored boulder nearby, gathered rake samples and
took photographs. They stored their samples and cameras, got onto the rover, and
headed off for Station 13, bypassing Station 12. At one point, driving down a dra-
matic slope, the LRV reached a speed of 17 kph.
The decision of where exactly to stop for Station 13 was made for them when
they discovered a boulder more than 2 m high on the open plain; this boulder had
landed there as a result of an impact of some kind. Tony England, with the concur-
rence of the scientists in the back room, agreed the boulder needed to be sampled.
This boulder had a significant overhang, and Duke realized the soil underneath this
overhang had been in shadow for undoubtedly millions of years. The two took sam-
ples from the boulder, shadowed area underneath, and area around the boulder. They
spent half an hour at Station 13 before having to head back toward the LM to make
a stop near Station 10. This was their final lunar sample location. Young oriented
and parked the LRV to permit the TV camera to record the liftoff of the ascent stage,
with Ed Fendell controlling the TV camera from Mission Control.
They took the last of their precious lunar samples, placed them inside the ALS
(storage box) and together worked to get them into the LM and secured, along with
the film canisters. Neither astronaut offered momentous words as they left the lunar
surface and climbed back into Orion. Their third EVA had lasted five hours and 40
minutes. All three EVAs had been very productive and would reveal a tremendous
harvest of lunar science as the samples were examined in Houston. As Young and
Duke prepared to leave Descartes, Apollo 15 lunar module pilot Jim Irwin took over
as Capcom.
The two astronauts were as pleased as those back in Mission Control on the suc-
cess of their mission of discovery. At 171 hours and 31 minutes GET, the ascent
stage of the LM lifted off smoothly, and Ed Fendell made sure the liftoff was beamed
back to Earth. After rendezvousing with Ken Mattingly piloting the CSM, the three
astronauts continued in lunar orbit until it was time for the SPS engine burn to break
free of lunar gravity. The ascent stage of the LM undocked and was sent on a trajec-
tory that would eventually send it crashing into the lunar surface. As the astronauts
returned to Earth, Young was moved to appropriately say, “Mr. Descartes said it…
’There is nothing so removed from us as to be beyond our reach, or so hidden that
we cannot discover it.’”
Their capsule landed in the Pacific Ocean on April 27, and the crew, lunar sam-
ples and film canisters transferred to the USS Ticonderoga. As before, the lunar
samples were immediately sent on their way to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory to
begin examination of them.
America’s Last Manned Mission to the Moon: Apollo 17 83
Fig. 5.9 Apollo 16 principal lunar geology investigator William Muehlberger (right) inspects
lunar sample 61016, nicknamed “Big Muley,” one of the largest samples collected during the mis-
sion. With him is David White. (NASA)
America’s Last Manned Mission to the Moon: Apollo 17
Apollo 18, 19 and 20 had fallen under the budget ax at NASA as the space agency
looked to the future that included an orbiting space station – Skylab – and some
radical proposals for a reusable shuttle spacecraft for the 1980s. Apollo 17 would
mark the end of America’s lunar exploration missions. Thus, it was fortunate Apollo
17 would benefit from the knowledge and skills of a geologist, Harrison “Jack”
Schmitt. Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 10, would now get to actually land
his Lunar Module on the Moon’s surface. Schmitt and Cernan had trained together
for months, honing their skills using Grover, and Cernan benefitting from Schmitt’
formidable geological knowledge. Schmitt had been selected from the ranks of the
U. S. Geologic Survey and had survived the astronaut selection process up to and
including his selection of a small number of scientist-astronauts.
Following months of careful scientific review and deliberation as well as the
orbital mechanics involved with one particular site by stakeholders, on February 11,
1972, the Apollo Site Selection Board met to select the landing site for Apollo 17.
The decision to land at Taurus-Littrow was made. This was a rugged location with
very tall massifs – mountains – and a crater-pocked valley. They were both pleased
with the selection. Their geological training would reflect this landing site selection.
In addition, the Apollo Field Geology Investigation Team would work to carefully
plan the exploration of the specific area surrounding the proposed landing point in
Taurus-Littrow. Principal investigator and coordinator of the backroom geological
team for this mission was Bill Muehlberger. Apollo 15 had conducted orbital pho-
tography while Irwin and Scott were exploring the surface, and this photography
was pivotal in selection of Taurus-Littrow for Apollo 17.
“The Apollo 15 Service Module mapping camera had incredibly good photogra-
phy,” Muehlberger said. “From 65 nautical miles above the lunar surface it gave us
2-m resolution. That really gives you a different capability in planning. We could
see these huge boulders that had rolled down the sides of the massifs, and some
went all the way to the bottom. That is why, of course, we went to those specific
boulders…[to] get a little better geological context into how that eight or nine-
thousand-foot massif face was put together. That was our rationale for sampling
those big boulders.”
SA-512 was moved to LC-39A on August 28, 1972, and underwent months of
tests. Launch was scheduled for December 6. This launch would be the first to take
place at night, in order for the TLI burn of the SIV-B stage to take place over the
Atlantic Ocean and permit the CSM to enter lunar orbit for the LM landing at
Taurus-Littrow. Command module pilot for Apollo 17 was Ronald Evans; the Lunar
Module was named Challenger.
Their Saturn V lifted off at 12:33 a. m. on December 7, as a result of a hold to
resolve a problem with the terminal countdown sequencer. The launch went per-
fectly, lighting up the night sky, and the Saturn V was visible from over 100 miles
away. Earth orbit was uneventful, the astronauts were cleared for TLI, and they were
on their way to the Moon. Cernan indicated what it was like inside Challenger as the
spacecraft began its approach to the landing site.
“When we pitched over at 7,000 feet,” Cernan said, “we were already below the
mountaintops. I mean, we were down there…we were in it! Once we pitched over
in the valley, I almost felt like I’d been there before. I recognized a lot of craters. It
was just a case of driving vehicle down to where I wanted to land it. We landed in a
valley that was surrounded by mountains on three sides higher than the Grand
Canyon is deep, to give you an idea of what the terrain looked like, and at the far end
of the valley there was what I would call an escarpment but it was almost like a dam.
If you could have filled this valley with water, that dam might have held it.”
Cernan landed Challenger with more than two minutes of propellant left. He and
Schmitt received the “Go” from Mission Control to stay. Both astronauts noted the
marvelous view out the windows of their LM. They would spend the next four hours
preparing for their first EVA. Cernan came down the LM ladder first, and Schmitt
followed shortly thereafter. Schmitt took in the views of the surrounding Taurus-
Littrow valley and towering massifs. He recalled his impressions with the trained
eyes of a geologist during his first few moments on the lunar surface to Carol Butler
in a 2000 interview for the Johnson Space Center Oral History Project:
It was the most highly varied site of any of the Apollo sites. It was specifically picked to be
that. We had three-dimensions to look at with the mountains, to sample. You had the mare
basalts in the floor and the highlands in the mountain walls. We also had this apparent
Fig. 5.10 Apollo 17 commander Eugene Cernan test drove the LEV around the LM Challenger at
the Taurus Littrow landing site. With Lunar Module pilot Harrison Schmitt, they configured and
outfitted the LRV for the ambitious EVAs planned for their mission. (NASA)
young volcanic material that had been seen on the photographs and wasn’t immediately
obvious, but ultimately we found in the form of the orange soil at Shorty crater.
But as soon as you had a chance to look around, you could tell, everything we expected to
find there, and more, was going to be available to us, and that’s what geologists like. And
they really like to have the unexpected. I mean, it’s one thing…trying to anticipate every-
thing you could possibly anticipate, but then you get a new surge of adrenaline when you
find there are things that you never could have anticipated. And that’s discovery. That’s
when science really becomes exciting, those things that you didn’t anticipate and they
occur, and that’s where scientific discoveries are made.
They first deployed the LRV, Cernan verified that all the rover’s systems worked
perfectly by driving it around the LM, and then the two astronauts configured the
vehicle in preparation for their first traverse. Schmitt was tasked with positioning
the ALSEP at the desired location from the LM. However, the weak link in the
mechanical chain of the LRV reared its head again when Cernan inadvertently tore
off the right rear fender extension, much like John Young had done during Apollo
16. With little fuss, Cernan literally taped the extension back on to the fender using
duct tape that had been stored under the seat. This would prove a temporary fix.
Cernan drove out to the site near the ALSEP Schmitt was setting up. He retrieved
the drill, core tubes and drill tip for placing heat flow probes. After doing this and
sealing the holes, he then proceeded to collect a 3-m core tube sample from the
same area. He achieved the depth he wanted, but when he reversed the drill to extract
the core tubes, they proved recalcitrant. Cernan resorted to the jack and treadle, with
Schmitt’s assistance, which effectively did the job, but it was slow-going and ended
up taking 20 minutes to get the tubes out. Cernan broke down the tube sections,
capped them and stored them on the rover.
The astronauts were more than half an hour behind their EVA timeline when they
got into the LRV seats and made for their Station 1 stop. The original plan to stop at
Emory crater was canceled in favor of a stop 150 m from the rim of Steno Crater.
The goal at this stop was to collect samples of ejecta from Steno and photograph the
area. Cernan and Schmitt also collected rake samples, deployed an explosive charge
for the lunar seismic profiling experiment and engage the gravimeter at the rear of
the LRV to take readings; this had already been done near the LM and one or two
other locations. This first EVA turned out to be the least ambitious of the mission,
with the shortest traverse. The temporary fender fix did not hold, and lunar soil was
again raining down on the astronauts and their rover. Mission Control decided to
curtail further exploration until a solution could be found.
During the first EVA, which lasted seven hours and 12 minutes, Cernan drove a
total of 3.5 km and they collected 18 samples that weighed 14 kg.
A team of engineers and astronauts in Houston formed a small team to brain-
storm the problem and discover what could be used to make an expedient fender
extension that could be installed by Cernan or Schmitt. It was determined the
plastic-coated USGS Lunar Surface Map Package could be taped together using
duct tape (which proved its worth on Apollo 13). The taped-together maps could be
secured to the rear fender using the alignment optical telescope clamps in the
LM. The fabrication and clamping instructions were relayed to the astronauts dur-
ing the rest period after their first EVA.
At the start of the second EVA, Cernan and Schmitt worked to clamp the expedi-
ent extension on the fender, and the clamps worked. Fortunately, this did an ade-
quate job during EVA 2 and 3 in keeping the lunar soil to a minimum. The traverse
to the base of the South Massif was the second order of business. This huge lunar
formation displayed a lighter gray mantle, and samples needed to be taken from it.
On their way, they passed by a crater they would name Camelot. Schmitt and Cernan
commented to Mission Control that they were excited by the blocks strewn along
the rim of the 600-m crater.
During this traverse, Schmitt first used the LRV Sampler, a new sampling tool
that permitted collecting scoop samples from his seat on the rover. Cernan would
stop the LRV in a desired location, Schmitt would scoop a surface sample into one
of the stacked cups, cap the cup and store it, and they would move on. To distinguish
between station stops, these samples were identified as LRV-1, -2, etc.
Once at the base of the South Massif, Cernan began to drive the LRV up the slope
toward Nansen Crater. The improved orbital photography from previous missions
Fig. 5.11 Harrison Schmitt gathers a rake sample at Station 1 during the first EVA. (NASA)
provided detailed images the astronauts needed to readily identify them once they
were on the surface. Together, they easily identified Hole-in-the-Wall, Lara and
Horatio craters as they drove to their most distant station stop. They took samples
from boulders, performed panoramic photography and took needed gravimeter
readings from the device on the LRV; in fact, these readings were conducted at
practically every stop.
Moving on to Station 2A about 600 m northeast from Hansen, they collected four
samples. Station 3 was near Lara Crater. Schmitt took a rake sample and Cernan
retrieved a double core tube sample at this stop. Shorty Crater, a steep-walled crater,
was Station 4. The thrill of discovery certainly was experienced by Cernan and
Schmitt at this stop.
“Shorty’s clearly a darker-rimmed crater,” Schmitt reported to their Capcom Bob
Parker. “The inner wall, except the western side, is blocky. The floor is hummocky.
The central mound is very blocky and jagged.” Shorty would prove to be a photo-
graphic and sampling treasure trove. As they performed their photography and took
samples, they soon made a fascinating discovery. After describing a boulder on the
rim, Schmitt eyes caught something and blurted out, “Hey! There’s orange soil!”
“Well don’t move it until I see it,” Cernan ordered Schmitt.
Fig. 5.12 One of the most exciting discoveries made by Schmitt during the mission was this area
of unmistakable orange soil at Station 4 near Shorty Crater. (NASA)
“It’s all over! Orange!” Schmitt exclaimed. One can imagine the reaction of the
geologists in the back room hearing of this discovery. The astronauts took color
photography of their find, and took samples from several locations where the orange
soil was clearly evident. It would later be revealed that this soil was of volcanic
origin. Despite the significance of the find, after collecting their samples and taking
the photos, Parker urged them to take a sample from the boulder on the rim and
move onto Camelot Crater – Station 5.
They stored their samples on the LRV, climbed aboard and headed for Station 5.
Cernan made two stops along the way for Schmitt to collect LRV samples. The
commander stopped the rover on the southern rim of Camelot, which was heavily
strewn with small boulders. Parker cautioned them they had 25 minutes at that sta-
tion before they would have to head back to Challenger. The lunar explorers worked
quickly to collect samples from the boulders and take photos before being ordered
to leave the station and return to the LM. Cernan had driven a total of 20.4 km, he
and Schmitt had collected 60 samples weighing 75 pounds and their EVA had lasted
7 hours and 37 minutes.
The third and last EVA would hold even greater discoveries for the astronauts.
They would travel to the base of the North Massif and find a suitable Station 6 stop.
For the last time, they made sure they had all the tools and supplies. There was a
false temperature reading on one of the battery gauges. Cernan let Houston know
the issue, he and Schmitt climbed aboard and they set off. During the traverse,
Cernan stopped for Schmitt to retrieve an LRV sample, then moved on. Four kilo-
meters from the LM the astronauts spotted large split boulders, and Cernan stopped
the LRV. The rover was at a noticeable angle due to the slope they were on where
the boulder had come to rest.
“Where that boulder was,” Cernan said, “I took the [photo] pan – those pictures
of the boulder and the valley. That hill was on the North Massif and that doesn’t
look very steep, but let me tell you that was a very steep hill. I had to climb up there,
and I left the rover down by the rock, and you can see how the rover is leaning.”
Schmitt had been getting samples and his own photos while Cernan performed
the photographic pan of the impressive valley with surround massifs. They took
samples from the area around the split boulder and from the boulder itself, which
included a core tube sample. Cernan gave the boulder a name – Tracy’s Rock, after
one of his daughters. Having completed their duties at Station 6, they moved onto
Fig. 5.13 At Station 5 strewn with small rocks and this large boulder, Schmitt collect a core tube
sample. (NASA)
Station 7, roughly half a kilometer away along the base of the massif. They selected
another boulder to sample, and Cernan stopped the LRV. This boulder, more than
2 m high, had visibly varied composition, so they both chipped off samples with the
hammer, retrieved them with the tongs and bagged them. After completing their
sample collection and photography here, they stowed the samples on the LRV at the
urging of their Capcom, got on the LRV and set off toward the undulating hills in
the distance they identified as the Sculptured Hills.
Cernan found a suitable location to stop the LRV for Station 8. They climbed off
their seats and began their sampling and photography. The goal in taking samples at
Station 8 was to see if they would reveal the method of the Hill’s formation as dif-
fering from the taller massifs. They spent half an hour there, which went by all too
quickly. Their Station 9 stop would be at Van Serg Crater. At each of these stops,
Cernan aligned the high gain TV antenna and powered up the TV camera, after
which Ed Fendell took control and provided live coverage of Cernan and Schmitt at
each stop. At Van Serg, both astronauts continued with their detailed descriptions of
the rocks, soil and other impressions for the benefit of the scientists in the back
room, who could watch Cernan and Schmitt on a TV monitor. Cernan was asked to
take a core tube sample, which he drove into the regolith with his hammer. He was
able to extract the sample without much effort, disassembled the core tubes, capped
them and placed them on the LRV along with the other samples he collected, as did
Schmitt. They had the luxury of more time at Station 9, spending nearly an hour
there.
The astronauts were informed by the Capcom that the Station 10 stop was can-
celed and they were to complete the remaining tasks on their checklist and head
back to the LM and begin their closeout activities in preparation for leaving Taurus
Littrow. When Cernan parked the LRV about 100 m from the LM, he aligned the TV
antenna for the last time, and turned on the TV camera. Fendell continued to televise
the astronauts’ activities for the rest of the EVA, and he would make sure his timing
was right for the camera to follow the LM ascent stage as it lifted off. On this EVA,
Cernan and Schmitt had collected 63 samples and weighing them later documented
the weight of these samples came to 137 pounds. This third EVA had lasted 7 hours
and 15 minutes by the time the LM hatch was sealed and cabin repressurized. At
188 hours, one minute and 39 seconds, Challenger’s ascent stage fired its engine,
and Cernan and Schmitt lifted off, with the TV camera following its departure from
the lunar surface. This marked the end of America’s great feats of exploration. The
precious film would be developed to reveal the stark beauty of Taurus Littrow, and
the collected lunar samples would reveal startling secrets for years to come.
Within the Apollo 17 Mission Report was the pilot’s report on all aspects of the
mission. Within this was Section 10.8.3: Lunar Surface Hand Tools and Auxiliary
Equipment. It is worth reading this section in its entirety:
The tools provided for lunar surface operations, particularly those required in the sampling
of lunar materials, all performed essentially as expected. The geological hammer was par-
ticularly useful to the Commander and usable when required by the Lunar Module Pilot.
However, for future designs it is recommended that tools which required extensive gripping
be custom fit to the dimensions of the crewman’s hands. The hammer was too large for use
by the Lunar Module Pilot; however, it was the right size for the Commander.
The lunar surface scoop was the primary sampling tool used by the Lunar Module Pilot,
and it worked well. However, by the beginning of the third extravehicular activity, dust in
the scoop-locking mechanism prevented extensive use in any of the multiple detents. Only
the 45-degree position was used during most of the third traverse.
For special sampling tasks, the Commander used the tongs effectively and the Lunar
Module Pilot used the rake, as required. The Lunar Module Pilot auxiliary staff, used for
mounting maps, and the lunar roving vehicle sample bag, both worked as planned and fitted
the desired position exactly. The rover sampler met all requirements for utility in sampling
from the rover, and in auxiliary sampling while walking in the areas of the Apollo lunar
surface experiments package and surface electrical properties transmitter. The dust brush
was probably one of the most often used pieces of equipment. It was employed on the rover
thermal surfaces and reflectors, for cleaning the television camera lens, and by both crew-
men in an attempt to minimize the dust carried into the cabin.
The geopallet was used as planned for the first two extravehicular activities. By the start of
the third extravehicular activity, most of the moving parts of that pallet had begun to bind
because of dust permeating along interface surfaces.”
Apollo 17 concluded the manned U. S. exploration missions to the Moon. Project
Apollo was an extraordinary confluence of geopolitical imperative, presidential
foresight and leadership, congressional support needed to fund the goal for mission
success, superb NASA program management, dedication of thousands of America’s
contractors and its 400,000 employees, and the bravery and skill of its astronauts. It
must also be added here the vital need of mission hardware performance and reli-
ability, without which Project Apollo might have ended in failure instead of
success.
When Apollo began, lunar science was nearly an afterthought. That mindset
changed gradually but dramatically during the program. After Apollo 11 achieved
the goals outlined by President Kennedy and the Soviets had been defeated in their
quest to get cosmonauts to the Moon first, then lunar science became paramount in
the subsequent Apollo missions. The lunar samples returned from Apollo 11, 12, 14,
15, 16 and 17 revealed the history of the Moon, its formation and composition, and
helped to reveal greater knowledge of Earth as well.
For those Americans who lived through the exciting times of the 1960s and early
1970s, the Apollo program made them proud and truly improved the lives of all
Americans, which is still being felt today. Many of the technologies pioneered dur-
ing Apollo helped to jumpstart further development in engineering, astrobiology
and medical knowledge. The Apollo program proved what humankind is truly capa-
ble of with ambition, commitment and the will to explore other worlds.
Chapter 6
Preliminary Sample Findings from the Apollo
Missions and Post-Apollo Findings
Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Samples
The preliminary examination team made up of NASA personnel and visiting scien-
tists were responsible for examining the Apollo 11 lunar samples, preparing them
for detailed study and allocating samples for examination by other scientists around
the world. The PET employed stereo-microscopic examination of the samples in
addition to a polarizing microscope, and X-ray powder defraction, as well as thin-
section study of two of crystalline rocks. The following four basic groups were
determined to make up the samples returned from the Apollo 11 mission.
1 . Type A – fine-grained vesicular crystalline igneous rock
2. Type B – medium-grained vuggy crystalline igneous rock
3. Type C – breccia consisting of small fragments of gray rocks and fine material
4. Type D – fines
The crystalline rocks were determined to be volcanic in origin as a result of sur-
face lavas or near-surface igneous rocks which could not be impact-generated. This
finding undermined Dr. Urey’s strongly held cold Moon theory, but he eventually
accepted the findings. The rocks with vesicles or gas cavities contained pyrogenic
mineral assemblages. The unique chemistry of the lunar samples revealed mineral
ratios dissimilar to terrestrial volcanic samples.
The Type A crystalline rock sample was determined to contain roughly 53 per-
cent clinopyroxene, 27 percent plagioclase, 18 percent opaques consisting of abun-
dant ilmenite, trolite and trace iron, 2 percent transparent phases and olivine grains.
The Type B rock samples had a speckled dark brown gray color and was granular in
its makeup. Model analysis determined it was composed of 46 percent clinopyrox-
ene, 31 percent plagioclase, 11 percent ilmenite opaques, 5 percent low cristobalite
and the remaining trace amounts adding up to 7 percent. The Type C rocks were
breccias and varied from a medium to dark gray. The breccias varied considerably

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2_6
94 6 Preliminary Sample Findings from the Apollo Missions and Post-Apollo Findings
Fig. 6.1 Eugene Shoemaker, pictured with other geologists during an Apollo mission. (NASA)
in their inherent strength, some being easily crushed, while others had coarse layers
and were stronger. The Type C in particular consisted of varied glass-like forma-
tions most probably formed from impact ejecta. May of the samples returned from
Apollo 11 displayed small pits lined with glass, and spherical glass formations
1 mm and smaller. The breccias displayed more pits than the crystalline rocks. The
scientists also discovered thin glass crusts that appeared as splatters.
The fines consisted primarily of various glasses: clinopyroxene, ilmenite, plagio-
clase, and olivine. Very small ferrules made of nickel-iron measured up to 1 mm in
diameter. Other glasses were not spherical but dumbbell and teardrop in shape.
They varied in color from red to brown and green to yellow. The preliminary exami-
nation teams were particularly interested in the impact shock history to be found in
the samples. They discovered each breccia sample contained a variety of mineral
lithic fragments displaying varied indications of shock.
The lunar samples were also analyzed for elements that were absent. This was
done using optical spectrographic methods. Three separate techniques were used to
determine this chemical composition and determination. The lunar samples returned
from Apollo 11 were intriguing for what they did not contain as much as what they
did contain.
Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Samples 95
Fig. 6.2 A few of the

smaller lunar rocks
collected during Apollo 11.
(NASA)
Table 6.1 Elements Absent from Apollo 11 Lunar Samples

Cesium Gold Rhodium Tin
Beryllium Zinc Palladium Lead
Lanthanum Cadmium Iridium Arsenic
Boron Mercury Platinum Antimony
Hafnium Molybdenum Indium Neodymium
Niobium Tungsten Thallium Bismuth
Tantalum Rubidium Germanium Tellurium
Table 6.2 Elements Present in Apollo 11 Lunar Samples

Rubidium Barium Potassium Strontium
Calcium Sodium Ytterbium Yttrium
Zirconium Chromium Vanadium Scandium
Titanium Nickel Cobalt Copper
Iron Manganese Magnesium Lithium
Gallium Aluminum Silicon
The lunar samples were also analyzed for the presence of oxides. It was deter-
mined Silicon Oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, ferric oxide, manganese
oxide, calcium oxide, sodium oxide, potassium oxide, magnesium oxide, chromic
oxide, zirconium oxide and nickel oxide were present.
The samples collected during the Apollo 11 mission would continue to be a
source of vital lunar information for years to come. Even as the samples were being
inspected and preliminary results published, the Saturn V for the crew of Apollo 12
was on the pad undergoing its testing in preparation for launch.
Fig. 6.3 Some of the grab

samples collected by Neil
Armstrong in an
examination tray after
transfer from the sample
return container. (NASA)
Fig. 6.4 A basalt sample,

No. 12012, collected
during Apollo 12. (Lunar
and Planetary Institute)
The two Apollo 12 SRCs were flown separately by helicopter from the recovery
ship, the USS Hornet, to Samoa. The first of the SRCs was flown from Samoa
aboard a C-141 aircraft to Ellington AFB, Texas, and then delivered to the LRL in
Houston on November 25, 1969. The second SRC arrived shortly thereafter.
The four types of samples collected during Apollo 12 included the contingency
sample, selected samples, documented samples and tote bag sample. Like the
Apollo 11 samples, the Apollo 12 samples were divided into four groups:
1 . Type A – fin-grained, crystalline igneous rock
2. Type B – medium-grained, crystalline igneous rock
3. Type C – breccias
4. Type D – fines
The documented sample, contingency sample, tool bag sample and core tubes
were opened and studied in glove boxes having 10-6 torr. About 50 g of the core tube
samples and 450g of the fines and rock chips from the selected and documented
samples underwent biological testing.
There were distinct differences between the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 samples.
The Apollo 12 samples were dated to be roughly one billion years younger than the
Apollo 11 samples. There were far fewer breccias among the Apollo 12 samples
compared to Apollo 11; specifically, two of the 45 rocks collected during Apollo 12
were breccias. The amount of solar wind material in the Apollo 12 fines was signifi-
cantly lower than that examined in the Apollo 11 fines.
Approximately half of the igneous rocks had vesicles present, that the astronauts
commonly referred to as glass. These vesicles ranged in diameter from 0.1 to a very
Fig. 6.5 Apollo 12 sample No. 12010, a breccia, photographed after a thin sectioning was per-
formed. (Lunar and Planetary Institute)

Aluminum Calcium Rubidium Barium
Cobalt Potassium Strontium Sodium
Chromium Cadmium Ytterbium Yttrium
Zirconium Vanadium Scandium Titanium
Nickel Iron Manganese Magnesium
Lithium Silicon
Table 6.4 Oxides Present in Apollo 12 Lunar Samples

Sodium oxide Titanium dioxide Aluminum oxide Iron oxide
Magnesium oxide Calcium oxide Sodium oxide Potassium oxide
Manganese oxide Chromium oxide Zirconium dioxide Nickel monoxide
substantial 40 mm. The grain size of these igneous rocks ranged from 0.05 mm to
35 mm. The rocks displayed high iron oxide content, but lower titanium dioxide
content.
Of the two breccias collected, one was fragmental similar to those collected at
Tranquility Base. Both breccia chips were composed primarily of pyroxene and
plagioclase, interspersed with olivine and glass.
The impact metamorphism of the Apollo 12 samples showed similarities with
that of the Apollo 11 samples. The larger collected rock samples of crystalline rocks
display characteristics of being unshocked, that is, not displaying structure resulting
from meteor or meteorite impact. Some of the smaller rocks, however, did display
strong shocked structures. Some of the microbreccias displayed glass splattering.
Was there any discovery of former biological life found among all the Apollo 12
samples? Quoting from the Apollo 12 Preliminary Science Report: “To date, it has
been impossible to demonstrate any viable organism in the lunar material, and there
is no evidence of previous living or fossil material.”
The samples were also tested with plant and animal life for evidence of toxicity,
microbial replications or pathogenicity. The LRL tested small samples coming in
contact with mice, fish, insects, oysters, flatworms, shrimp and Japanese quail.
These tests were still ongoing and the results not ready at the time the Preliminary
Science Report was published. However, numerous Apollo astronauts came in con-
tact with lunar dust as a result of returning to the lunar module from the lunar sur-
face and removing their gloves and EVA suits, and handling the SRCs inside the
LM. None of the Apollo astronauts displayed any reactions, either short or long
term, from this contact with lunar dust.
Another question in the minds of scientists involved with the lunar samples was
this: where any new elements discovered locked within the lunar samples? Was
there any “Unknownium?” In reviewing key lunar sample documents, this author
could find no evidence that new elements were discovered among the samples col-
lected during the Apollo lunar surface missions.
When studying the map of the Moon denoting the Apollo landing sites, it is surpris-
ing to find the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 sites were relatively close and on the same
latitude. The landing site of Apollo 14 at Fra Mauro was only 180 km east, roughly,
from the landing site of Apollo 12. The Fra Mauro region was north of the Mare
Nubium. Nevertheless, mission planners hoped to make unique discoveries from the
43 kg of samples returned from Apollo 14. The Apollo 12 site was comprised of
young mare basalts, and it was believed Fra Mauro was comprised of older forma-
tions from the massive Mare Imbrium basin further north. The landing site was in
an area of ejecta created from the Imbrium impact event. However, it was hoped
additional clues would be revealed by sampling the ejecta from the 340-m Cone
Crater near the landing site.
With just slight variation, the elements present in the Apollo 14 samples are close
to those of Apollo 12:
In reviewing these six tables covering the elements and oxides present in the
lunar samples from Apollo 11, 12 and 14, there is commonality with only slight
variations. No unique element was discovered among all the samples; the elements
and oxides are all common with those on Earth. This supported one theory that the
Moon was the product of a cataclysmic impact of a body with Earth. Some scientists
theorized the gigantic liquid blob that was ejected from the core of what was the
Fig. 6.6 One of the breccia’s collected during Apollo 14, sample No. 14006. (Lunar and Planetary
Institute)

Aluminum Calcium Rubidium Barium
Cobalt Potassium Niobium Sodium
Chromium Lanthanum Ytterbium Yttrium
Zirconium Vanadium Scandium Titanium
Nickel Iron Manganese Magnesium
Lithium Silicon Copper
Table 6.6 Oxides Present in Apollo 14 Lunar Samples

Sodium oxide Titanium dioxide Aluminum oxide Iron oxide
Magnesium oxide Calcium oxide Sodium oxide Potassium oxide
Manganese oxide Chromium oxide Zirconium dioxide Silicon dioxide
Fig. 6.7 A thin section taken of sample No. 14006. (Lunar and Planetary Institute)
primordial planet became Earth’s Moon, and being in a semi-liquid state it slowly
formed into a nearly perfect sphere. The planet, having a substantial gravity, kept
this Moon within its gravitational field. It would take millions of years for the sur-
face of Earth to cool sufficiently to permit liquid water to collect on its surface over
an indeterminate length of time, forming the continents.
Fig. 6.8 Sectioned core

tubes were carefully stored
in these special cases that
preserved the sample
within the tube that
included the end caps. This
is sample no. 15001.
(Lunar and Planetary
Institute)
The team of geologists and planetary scientists that oversaw the Apollo 15 lunar
samples were most intrigued what those samples would reveal regarding the forma-
tion of the 4,000-m Hadley massif and the large Hadley Rille that snaked across the
floor of the plain adjacent to the massif. A total of 77 kg of samples was returned
from Apollo 15 by David Scott and Jim Irwin. After examining the various samples
at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, the Apollo 15 preliminary science report stated:
The primary objective of the Apollo 15 mission was to sample and return to Earth premare
material exposed in the steep mountain front that borders the Hadley Plain. A second objec-
tive, somewhat lower in priority, was to sample and examine the edge of the Hadley Rille.
Even the present cursory examination of the returned samples and the rille-edge photogra-
phy indicates rather clearly that the mare structure under the Hadley Plain is similar to the
structure of many terrestrial lava fields that have been built up by a series of successive lava
flows. The textures and bulk chemical compositions of the mare lavas examined in this study
confirm previous conclusions that the lunar mare is composed of a series of extrusive vol-
canic rocks that are rich in Fe and poor in Na.
The suite of samples returned from the base of Hadley Delta is remarkably variable. Several
unique rock specimens that were obtained from the sampling site provide significant insights
into lunar processes, such as shock metamorphism, and into the pre-Imbrian igneous his-
tory. At present, these samples do not provide a clear picture of the kinds of rocks and rock
units that make up the mountains that surround the Hadley Plain. The samples clearly do
not exclude the intriguing possibility that unmodified extrusive and intrusive igneous rocks
may be exposed in the mountain front. Two specimens provide further and quite clear evi-
dence for extensive separation of plagioclase from relatively large igneous intrusions in
pre-Imbrian time.
Fig. 6.9 A detail of core

tube sample No. 15001
cross section collected
during Apollo 15. (Lunar
and Planetary Institute)
Fig. 6.10 Apollo 15

sample No. 15015, a glassy
matrix breccia containing
abundant glass balls,
shards, and schlieren.
(Lunar and Planetary
Institute)
The Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report in the preliminary sample analysis stated:
A preliminary characterization of the rocks and soils returned from the Apollo 16 site has
substantiated most of the widely held inferences that the lunar terra is commonly underlain
by plagioclase-rich or anorthositic rocks. The texturally complex rocks exhibit cataclastic
textures with intergrowths of shock-induced glass, of devitrified glass, or of relict preexisting
clasts that indicate a multistage history. In contrast to the complexity of the fabric, the chemi-
cal characteristics of the rocks and soils were comparatively simple. The dominant chemical
feature is the high abundance of aluminum and calcium. In a number of rocks, the absolute
and relative abundances of these elements approach those of pure calcic plagioclase. Each
Apollo 16 rock falls into one of three groups, based on its alumina (Al2O3) content.
Fig. 6.11 During Apollo

16, this anorthositic
sample, No. 60035, has
been dated at 4 billion
years old, having exposure
to cosmic radiation of 6
million years. (Lunar and
Planetary Institute)
Fig. 6.12 Apollo 16 rake

sample, No. 60095, a
fractured spheroid of
yellow-green to light
brown glass. (Lunar and
Rocks in the first group are nearly pure plagioclase and can be called cataclastic anortho-
sites. The second group, characterized by Al2O3 contents between 26 and 29 percent, con-
sists of several breccias, two crystalline rocks and all soil samples. The third group, all
metamorphosed igneous rocks, has Al2O3 below 26 percent. Many samples in this third
group are similar chemically to the basalts that are rich in potassium, rare-Earth elements,
and phosphorus (KREEP) found at Apollo 12, 15 and 15 sites. With a few qualifications, the
chemistry of the Apollo 16 rocks can be accounted for by a rather simple geologic model
consisting of a large igneous complex that is variably enriched in plagioclase and is
intruded by a trace-element-rich liquid after its formation.
Apollo 17 was, perhaps, the most ambitious of all the missions to the Moon. Once
again the lunar roving vehicle greatly expanded the range of exploration and reduced
the workload of Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. Their collection of samples
was extensive and varied.
In reviewing the preliminary science report from Apollo 17, there was a consis-
tency in the description of the samples returned, their chemical makeup, whatever
variation the samples may have displayed from those of previous missions and
related information. However, the section specifically devoted to the samples them-
selves did not explain what the findings of the Apollo 17 samples meant with respect
to the formation of the Taurus Littrow region that was explored. Nor was there
information on what the finds may have revealed regarding the formation of the
Moon. Nevertheless, we will quote here from Petrographic Characteristics regard-
ing the rocks as an example of the findings:
Visual and microscopic examinations of rocks from the Apollo 17 site indicate that they are
the most variable collection returned by any mission. Some rocks show the cataclastic,
highly crushed textures that were common in those returned during the Apollo 16 mission.
Many are crystalline breccias with petrographic characteristics that indicate varying
degrees of recrystallization or partial melting. Other display features typical of the lavas
returned from Apollo 11, 12 and 15 mare sites, whereas few have the coarse-grained igne-
ous textures typically developed during slow crystallization from basaltic melts. Such vari-
ety is a striking contrast to the rather restricted set of complex breccias returned from the
Apollo 16 highland site.
The most startling finding during Apollo 17 was the discovery of what the astro-
nauts described as “orange soil.” There was a section in the report that described
these samples:
The orange soil (sample 74220) sampled at Shorty Crater is composed almost entirely of
glass and devitrified glass spherules. It differs markedly in composition from all other soils,
Fig. 6.13 One of the large

samples collected during
Apollo 17, No. 70035, a
mare basalt. (Lunar and
Post-Apollo Findings Regarding the Moon 105
Fig. 6.14 A collection of small rocks taken from rake sample No. 74245 during the Station 4 stop
of Apollo 17. (Lunar and Planetary Institute)
including adjacent soils from station 4 and is broadly comparable with the basalts, having
high FeO and TiO2. In contrast to these rocks, the orange soil contains 14.4 percent MgO
and could be derived from the basalt composition by the addition of approximately 24 per-
cent olivine. However, both the Sr and Rb abundances are too high in the orange soil with
respect to the basalts, thus precluding a direct relationship between the two.
Post-Apollo Findings Regarding the Moon
Since the end of the Apollo lunar missions in 1972, there have been hundreds of
scientific papers and larger works published that have added significantly to our
knowledge of the Moon, its relation to Earth and to the Solar System itself. The data
derived from the collected lunar samples has been supplemented by new findings
from lunar probes with remote sensing capabilities. Most of the scientific papers are
highly technical and of primary interest only to researchers and academics inter-
ested in studying the Moon. However, from these papers and publications can be
gleaned the essence of more accurate data compiled and studied over the previous
half century that has dispelled some theories, confirmed others and yes, raised even
more questions.
Perhaps the best approach to take in closing this book on the subject of the lunar
samples is to quote from some of these post-Apollo findings. From New Views of
Lunar Geoscience (2006) by Harald Heisinger and James W. Head III:
Today it is widely accepted that the Moon formed early in solar-system history when a
Mars-sized object collided with the proto-Earth, ejecting crust and upper mantle material,
which re-accreted in Earth orbit. In order to create a Moon with the observed geochemical
characteristics, the impactor’s iron and siderophile elements must have been concentrated
into a core before the collision. While this core became incorporated into the Earth’s
mantle, the outer portions of the impactor and the ejected terrestrial material accreted to
the Moon.
The importance of the returned samples, which are the only extraterrestrial samples that
were specifically selected by humans, cannot be overemphasized. The returned samples
have allowed scientists to study in great detail the age, mineralogy, chemistry and petrology
of lunar rocks as well as their physical properties and, maybe most importantly, the samples
have allowed remotely sensed data to be properly calibrated, interpreted, and expanded to
areas where no samples have been returned. Having lunar samples on Earth makes the
Moon a true and unique keystone in our understanding of the entire solar system.
As we stand on the edge of a new era of planetary exploration, including new missions to
the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Saturn and some asteroids and comets we have the opportunity
and obligation not only to understand the Moon’s origin and evolution but also to use the
lessons learned from lunar exploration to define the best way of exploring the rest of our
Solar System. In this sense the Moon is a keystone to our understanding of the terrestrial
planets and a stepping-stone for future exploration of our Solar System. How do we explore
planets? What types of measurements do we need to make? What strategies are most useful?
Orbiting spacecraft or sample return missions, or both? Human exploration? From the
experience with lunar exploration we know that each exploration strategy has its own
benefits, but that it is the integration and simultaneous interpretation of various data sets
that are most powerful to further our knowledge. This is a very important lesson that needs
to be considered in plans for the exploration of other planets. (Hiesinger & Head, 2006)
Appendix
he Top Ten Scientific Discoveries Made During the Apollo

T
Exploration Missions of the Moon
1. The Moon is not a primordial object; it is an evolved terrestrial planet with

internal zoning similar to that of Earth. Before Apollo, the state of the Moon
was a subject of almost unlimited speculation. We now know that the Moon is
made of rocky material that has been variously melted, erupted through volca-
noes and crushed by meteorite impacts. The Moon possesses a thick crust
(60 km), a fairly uniform lithosphere (60 to 1,000 km) and a partly liquid asthe-
nosphere (1,000 to 1,740 km). A small iron core at the bottom of the astheno-
sphere is possible but unconfirmed. Some rocks give hints for ancient magnetic
fields, although no planetary field exists today.
2. The Moon is ancient and still preserves an early history (the first billion
years) that must be common to all terrestrial planets. The extensive record
of meteorite craters on the Moon, when calibrated using absolute ages of rock
samples, provides a key for unraveling time scales for the geologic evolution of
Mercury, Venus and Mars based on their individual crater records. Photogeologic
interpretation of other planets is based largely on lessons learned from the
Moon. Before Apollo, however, the origin of lunar impact craters was not fully
understood, and the origin of similar craters on Earth was highly debated.
3. The youngest Moon rocks are virtually as old as the oldest Earth rocks.
The earliest processes and events that probably affected both planetary bodies
can now only be found on the Moon. Moon rock ages range from about 3.2 bil-
lion years in the maria (dark, low basins) to nearly 4.6 billion years in the terrae
(light, rugged highlands). Active geological forces, including plate tectonics
and erosion, continuously repave the oldest surfaces on Earth, whereas old sur-
faces persist with little disturbance on the Moon.

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2
108 Appendix
4. The Moon and Earth are genetically related and formed from different
proportions of a common reservoir of materials. The distinctively similar
oxygen isotopic compositions of Moon rocks and Earth rocks clearly show
common ancestry. Relative to Earth, however, the Moon was highly depleted in
iron and in volatile elements that are needed to form atmospheric gases and
water.
5. The Moon is lifeless; it contains no living organisms, fossils, or native
organic compounds. Extensive testing revealed no evidence for life, past or
present, among the lunar samples. Even non-biological organic compounds are
amazingly absent; traces can be attributed to contamination by meteorites.
6. All Moon rocks originated through high-temperature processes with little
or no involvement with water. These are roughly divisible into three types:
basalts, anorthosites and breccias. Basalts are dark lava rocks that fill mare
basins; they generally resemble, but are much older than, lavas that comprise
the oceanic crust of Earth. Anorthosites are light rocks that form the ancient
highlands; they generally resemble, but are much older than, the most ancient
rocks on Earth. Breccias are composite rocks formed from all other rock types
through crushing, mixing and sintering during meteorite impacts. The Moon
has no sandstones, shales, or limestones, testifying to the importance of water-
borne processes on Earth.
7. Early in its history, the Moon was melted to great depths to form a “magma
ocean.” The lunar highlands contain the remnants of early, low-density rocks
that floated to the surface of the magma ocean. The lunar highlands were formed
about 4.4 to 4.6 billion years ago by flotation of an early, feldspar-rich crust on
a magma ocean that covered the Moon to a depth of many tens of kilometers or
more. Innumerable meteorite impacts through geologic time reduced much of
the ancient crust to arcuate mountain ranges between basins.
8. The lunar magma ocean was followed by a series of huge asteroid impacts
that created basins later filled by lava flows. The large, dark basins such as
Mare Imbrium are gigantic impact craters, formed early in lunar history, that
were later filled by lava flows about 3.2 to 3.9 billion years ago. Lunar volca-
nism occurred mostly as lava floods that spread horizontally; volcanic fire foun-
tains produced deposits of orange and emerald-green glass beads.
9. The Moon is slightly asymmetrical in bulk form, possibly as a consequence
of its evolution under Earth“s gravitational influence. Its crust is thicker on
the far side, while most volcanic basins – and unusual mass concentrations –
occur on the near side. Mass is not distributed uniformly inside the Moon.
Large mass concentrations (“mascons”) lie beneath the surface of many large
lunar basins and probably represent thick accumulations of dense lava. Relative
to its geometric center, the Moon’s center of mass is displaced toward Earth by
several kilometers.
Appendix 109
10. The surface of the Moon is covered by a rubble pile of rock fragments and
dust, called the lunar regolith, that contains a unique radiation history of
the Sun, which is of importance to understanding climate changes on
Earth. The regolith was produced by innumerable meteorite impacts through
geological time. Surface rocks and mineral grains are distinctively enriched in
chemical elements and isotopes implanted by solar radiation. As such, the
Moon has recorded 4 billion years of the Sun’s history to a degree of complete-
ness that we are unlikely to find elsewhere. Source: NASA
End Note
This author grew up during the Apollo era, and my view of America’s quest to sur-
pass the efforts of the Soviet Union and achieve President John Kennedy’s chal-
lenge were formed during my teen years. Every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo launch
was for me the greatest adventure, and I channeled my interest in space exploration
into reading Tom Swift, Jr. books and building model rockets.
During the 1960s America also underwent a dramatic transformation technologi-
cally that would have unforeseen impact on the quality of life for decades to come.
It is tragic that President John Kennedy did not live to see the dramatic impact his
decision to attempt the nearly impossible of finally sending man to the Moon would
have on his country. The act of sending astronauts to the Moon to explore its sur-
face, photograph it and collect lunar samples to bring back to Earth for examination
had beneficial outcomes out of all measure with original goals.
What remains of those heroic efforts by less than two dozen astronauts and hun-
dreds of thousands of Americans working toward that goal are the lunar samples
themselves, the photography and video taken during those six lunar landing mis-
sions, and some well-preserved and restored launch vehicles and spacecraft. The
scientific knowledge extracted from the lunar samples is but a small fraction of what
project Apollo achieved. It is certainly the crowning technological achievement by
any nation on Earth and forever an example of what the human race can achieve in
the pursuit of a magnificent goal.
Anthony Young
November 2016
Glossary
Agglutinate A common particle type in lunar soils, which consist of comminuted

rock, mineral and glass fragments bonded together with glass. The glass is typi-
cally black or dark brown but can also be pale brown.
Albedo The ratio of the brightness of a reflecting object to that of a theoretical per-
fectly diffusing flat surface at the same position and having the same projected
surface area.
Alkalic high-alumina basalt Lunar rocks with 45to 60 percent modal or norma-
tive plagioclase; mafic minerals predominantly low Ca pyroxene with varying
amounts of olivine; total alkalis and phosphorus are relatively high.
Anorthosite A lunar rock with over 90 percent modal or normative plagioclase.
Anorthositic gabbro Lunar rocks with 65 to 77.5 percent modal plagioclase.
Anorthositic norite Lunar rocks with 60 to 77.5 percent modal or normative pla-
gioclase; low Ca pyroxene dominant over high Ca pyroxene.
Basalt Fine grained, commonly extrusive mafic igneous rock composed mostly
of calcic plagioclase and clinopyroxene in a glassy or fine-grained groundmass.
Breccia Clastic rock composed of angular clasts cemented together in a finer-
grained matrix.
Cataclastic A metamorphic texture produced by mechanical crushing, character-
ized by granular, fragmentary or strained crystals.
Cumulate A plutonic igneous rock composed chiefly of accumulated crystals sink-
ing into or floating in magma.
Dark matrix breccia Polymiet breccia with dark-colored glassy or fine-grained
matrix. Used specifically for breccias containing lithic clasts angular to spherical
glass fragments, and single crystals in a matrix of brown glass.
Diaplectic glass Glass formed in a solid state from a single mineral grain due to the
passage of a shock wave.
Exposure age Period of time during which a sample has been at or near the lunar
surface, assessed on the basis of cosmogenic rare gas contents, particle track
densities, short-lived radioisotopes or agglutinate contents in the case of soil
samples.

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2
112 Glossary
Fra Mauro basalt Defined originally from class compositions in soils at the

Apollo 14 site.
Gabbroic anorthosite Used for lunar rocks with 77.5 to 90 percent modal or
normative plagioclase.
High-alumina basalt Lunar rocks with 45 to 60 percent modal plagioclase.
Highland basalt Compositional term for rocks or glasses with very aluminous
basalt.
Impact melt Melt produced by fusion of target rock due to impact of a meteoroid.
Mare basalt Basaltic igneous rocks from the mare regions of the Moon having
high FeO, commonly high TiO2 and low Al2O3. Major minerals include clinopy-
rozene and calcic plagioclase.
Monomict breccia A breccia formed by fracturing and mixing of material from a
single source.
Regolith Lunar regolith is the fragmental debris, produced principally by impact
processes.
Rille Valleys on the lunar surface.
Soil Breccia Polymict breccia composed of cemented or sintered lunar soil.
Vitrification Formation of a glass from a crystalline precursor generally caused by
impact melting.
Index
A E
Aldrin, B., 28, 30–32, 45–50 Eisele, D., 28
Allen, J., 36
Apollo lunar sample return container
(ALSRC), 14, 15, 20, 21, 31, 49, 51–52 F
Apollo Lunar Surface Drill (ALSD), 18, 19 Fendell, E., 71, 72, 80, 82, 90
Armstrong, N., 27, 28, 30–32, 45–50, 96
G
B Gas analysis sample container (GASC), 20
Bean, A., 20, 28, 31, 32, 52–57 Gilruth, Dr. R., 11, 23–25
Beattie, D.A., 9, 11 Gold, Dr. T., 11
Bell, Dr. P., 25 Gordon, R., 28, 31, 36, 38, 53, 56
Borman, F., 27, 29 Grissom, G., 29
C H
CAPCOM, 36, 38, 40, 41, 53–55, 59, 60, Hadley Plain, 75, 101
62–64, 69–72, 76, 78–80, 82, 87, 90 Hadley Rille, 36, 37, 68, 69, 71, 73,
Cape Kennedy, 7, 36 74, 101
Carpenter, S., 28 Haise, F., 31, 33, 36, 58, 60, 63, 64
Cayley Plains, 76, 80
Cernan, E., 28, 30, 31, 34, 38, 41–43, 83–90,
104 I
Chaffee, R., 28, 30 Irwin, J., 36, 37, 39, 82, 101
Collins, M., 28, 45, 50
Conrad, P., 20, 27, 29, 31, 32, 52–58
Contingency Soil Sampler, 14, 18 J
Cooper, G., 29 Jackson, D., 28, 29, 78
Core sample vacuum container (CSVC), 20 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1, 5, 6
Johnston, R., 25
D
Descartes Mountains, 76 K
Duke, C., 33, 34, 36, 39–42, 76–82 Kuiper, Dr. G., 11

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6185-2
114 Index
L Schirra, W., 29
Lofgren, G., 34, 40 Schmitt, Dr. H., 11, 29, 33, 36–38, 41, 42,
Lovell, J., 27 83–90, 104
Luna probe, 1 Schweikart, R., 28
Lunar Orbiter, 6–8 Scott, D., 17, 28, 37, 68–75, 101
Lunar Receiving Laboratory, 13, 20, 22–26, See, E., 27, 28
45, 47, 51, 52, 58, 65, 74, 82, 101 Shepard, A., 28, 33–36, 59–66
Lunar roving vehicle (LRV), 9, 17, 19, 21, 22, Silver, Dr. L., 33, 34, 36, 38, 40
36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 67–75, 78–82, Slayton, D., 29, 75
85–91, 104 Small tool carrier, 14–16, 32, 56
Lunar sample analysis planning team Sonett Report, 10–13
(LSAPT), 25 Sonnett, C.P., 10
Lunar Science Institute (LSI), 25 Special environmental sample container
(SESC), 20, 57, 60
Stafford, T., 27, 29, 31
M Stone Mountain, 76, 79, 80
Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), 11–14, 21, Surveyor, 2–6, 28, 32, 45, 52–56
23–25, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 46, 51, 67 Swann, G., 28, 30, 78
Mare Tranquillitatis, 2, 5, 31, 45
Mattingly, K., 76, 77, 82
McDivitt, J., 27, 29 T
Mitchell, E., 34–36, 40, 59–66 Trenching tool, 16, 18, 60
Modularized Equipment Transporter (MET),
15, 16, 34, 35, 57, 59–64, 66
Mount Hadley, 68, 69, 71 U
Muehlberger, B., 40, 41, 43, 78, 84 Urey, Dr. H., 11, 47, 93
U. S. Geologic Survey (USGS), 7, 10, 11,
13–16, 23, 27–34, 36, 37, 40–42,
N 83, 86
Newell, H., 11, 13
W
O Webb, J., 25
Office of Manned Spaceflight (OMS), 10 Weigh bags, 20, 60, 62, 66
White, E., 27
Wilhelms, D., 8, 27, 28
R Worden, A., 39, 68, 75
Ranger probe, 1, 2
Y
S Young, J., 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39–42,
Sample collection bags (SCBs), 20, 21 75–82, 85

(SpringerBriefs in Space Development) Anthony Young (Auth.) - The Apollo Lunar Samples - Collection Analysis and Results-Praxis (2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(SpringerBriefs in Space Development) Anthony Young (Auth.) - The Apollo Lunar Samples - Collection Analysis and Results-Praxis (2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN SPACE DEVELOPMENT

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10058

The Apollo Lunar Samples

ISSN 2191-8171 ISSN 2191-818X (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017931368

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Praxis imprint is published by Springer Nature

Orlando, FL, USA Anthony Young

1 Lunar Probes Pave the Way�������������������������������������������������������������������� 1

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 14 Lunar Samples ���������������������������� 99

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 1

Fig. 1.2 Ranger 9

The Brilliant Machines: The Surveyor Soft Landers

Lunar Orbiter Maps the Moon

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 9

In the Beginning, There Was the Sonett Report

p­ henomena; b. Collection of representative samples; and c. Emplacement of moni-

Lunar Sample Collection Tools and Equipment

Fig. 2.2 Close-up of the

Fig. 2.3 Detail of the

Fig. 2.4 Neil Armstrong

Fig. 2.5 The Modular

equipment. USGS geologist Gerald Schaber interviewed O’Connor as part of a his-

The Modularized Equipment Transporter (MET) was employed only on Apollo

Fig. 2.6 The stowed

Fig. 2.8 View of the large

Fig. 2.9 The opposite side

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 27

Early Geologic Field Trips

Fig. 3.3 Indoor training

Training for Apollo 15, 16 and 17

Mentioned almost in passing in published histories of the geological training of

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 45

According to the surface operations plan, Armstrong would collect from 30 to 60

Fig. 4.3 Buzz Aldrin

Transfer of the Apollo 11 ALSRCs and Delivery to Houston

Apollo 12’s Intrepid to the Ocean of Storms

same sort of texture. The individual components – constituents, so to speak – are

A Pause in Apollo and Different Site for Apollo 14

Shepard took a location photograph of their documented sample with the LM in

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 67

The Plains of Hadley for Apollo 15

Fig. 5.5 James Irwin

Apollo 16 Ventures to the Descartes Highlands

America’s Last Manned Mission to the Moon: Apollo 17

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Samples

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 93

Fig. 6.2 A few of the

Table 6.1 Elements Absent from Apollo 11 Lunar Samples

Table 6.2 Elements Present in Apollo 11 Lunar Samples

Fig. 6.3 Some of the grab

Fig. 6.4 A basalt sample,

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 12 Lunar Samples

Table 6.3 Elements Present in Apollo 12 Lunar Samples

Table 6.4 Oxides Present in Apollo 12 Lunar Samples

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 14 Lunar Samples

Table 6.5 Elements Present in Apollo 14 Lunar Samples

Table 6.6 Oxides Present in Apollo 14 Lunar Samples

Fig. 6.8 Sectioned core

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 15 Lunar Samples

Fig. 6.9 A detail of core

Orlando, FL, USA Anthony Young

1 Lunar Probes Pave the Way�� 1

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 14 Lunar Samples �� 99

The Brilliant Machines: The Surveyor Soft Landers

Lunar Orbiter Maps the Moon

In the Beginning, There Was the Sonett Report

p henomena; b. Collection of representative samples; and c. Emplacement of moni-

Lunar Sample Collection Tools and Equipment

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Early Geologic Field Trips

Training for Apollo 15, 16 and 17

Transfer of the Apollo 11 ALSRCs and Delivery to Houston

Apollo 12’s Intrepid to the Ocean of Storms

A Pause in Apollo and Different Site for Apollo 14

The Plains of Hadley for Apollo 15

Apollo 16 Ventures to the Descartes Highlands

America’s Last Manned Mission to the Moon: Apollo 17

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Samples

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 12 Lunar Samples

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 14 Lunar Samples

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 15 Lunar Samples

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 16 Lunar Samples

Preliminary Findings of the Apollo 17 Lunar Samples

Post-Apollo Findings Regarding the Moon

he Top Ten Scientific Discoveries Made During the Apollo