NASA SP-424

The Voyage
of Mariner 10
Missic)n to Venus
and Mercury

James A. Dunne and Eric Burgess

Prepared by
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology

NI/\SI\ Scientific and Techn ica l Information Office

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1978

Washington , DC
Library o f Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Dunne, James A.
·The voyage of Mariner 10.

( ASA SP ; 4 24)
Bibliography : p. 221
Includes index.
1. Venus (Planet)-O bservations. 2. Mercury (Planet)-Observa-
tions. 3. Project Mariner. 1. Burgess, Eric, joint author. II. California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena. Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
III. Title. IV. Series: United States. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. NASA SP ; 424.
QB621.D86 523.4'2 77-1895 6

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D .C. 20402

Stock No. 033-000-00710-8

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................ iv
Introduction ... .................................................................................... ... ..vi
Chapter 1-Earth's Sister and the Twilight Planet.. ......................... 1
Chapter 2-Mariner Venus-Mercury Mission ......... .......................... 11
Chapter 3-Mariner's Payload .......... ..... ............................................ 19
Chapter 4-Spacecraft, Scientists, and Schedules ........................ 29
Chapter 5- Venus Bound-Success and Near Failure ................ .45
Chapter 6-Best Seen in Black Light ........ ... .................................. 61
Chapter 7-Mercury, Moonlike and Earthlike .................................. 71
Chapter 8-Return to the Innermost Planet ................................... 89
Chapter 9-A Clearer Perspective .................................................. 10 1
Appendix A-Mercury Mosaics and Maps ..................................... 107
Appendix B-Processing the TV Images ...................................... 177
Appendix C-Spacecraft and Science Teams .............................. 207
Appendix D-Mariner 10 Award Recipients .................................. 213
Suggestions for Further Reading .......................................... ......... 221
Index ..... ...................................... ....................................................... 225

iii
Foreword

HE MISSION OF MARINER 10 was unique in several ways. It was

T the first American spacecraft to take photographs of Venus. It was the
first to use the gravity and motion of one planet to alter the flight path of a
spacecraft and send it to another planet. It was the first to explore the
planet Mercury, which was previously but a hazy image in the best Earth-
based telescope pictures.
The success of Mariner 10 in attaining- and exceeding- its goals is
attributable to the dedicated effort of the relatively small but exceedingly
competent and highly motivated group of men and women from
universities, industry, and government who made up the Mariner Venus/
Mercury 1973 project team.
Mariner 10 visited Venus once and Mercury three times in a period of a
little over 500 days on a voyage of more than a billion kilometers. Shortly
after the spacecraft left Earth it was oriented to the Earth and the Moon
and returned the first of over 8000 pictures that were taken throughout its
trip. These pictures of the Earth and Moon provided a calibration for later
pictures of Venus and Mercury.
During the cruise from Earth to Venus, Mariner 10 acquired data about
the environment of interplanetary space and obtained information about
the comet Kohoutek, which passed by the Sun shortly after the launch .
On February 5, 1974, after traveling 236 million kilometers, Mariner 10
skimmed past Venus within 12 kilometers of the preplanned aim point.
Over 3500 pictures were obtained as the spacecraft first saw a thin crescent
and then the full face of Venus. These photos revealed a global distribution
of ultraviolet clouds which rotate about the planet some 50 times faster
than the planet rotates on its axis.
On March 29, 1974, following several additional course corrections
which were made after leaving Venus, the spacecraft reached its primary
goal: Mercury. Man obtained for the first time brilliantly clear pictures of
this planet.
Mercury looks a great deal like the Moon. However, it has a dense
interior and unexpectedly possesses a weak magnetic field. Mariner's
cameras also revealed surface features not previously seen on other planets.
The surface of Mercury records the early history of the cataclysmic
events that occurred during the formation of our solar system. The
primordial state of the planet'S surface, when studied in combination with
similar data obtained from the Moon and Mars, should provide a great
step forward in our understanding of the origin and evolution of the solar
system and thus of our planet Earth.

iv
 Even though the spacecraft experienced several serious problems during
its trip to Mercury, and its gas supply nearly ran out, it performed its basic
job flawlessly, and plans were laid for a return visit to Mercury about 6
months later.
Through the efforts of an ingenious and dedicated operations team the
art of " solar sailing" was perfected and the spacecraft's gas usage was
greatly reduced, thus permitting not one but two returns to Mercury. These
bonus revisits provided additional pictures of Mercury's surface, including
a spectacular view of the planet's south pole. The third encounter
unequivocally confirmed the existence of Mercury's magnetic field.
This book records the historical details of the Mariner 10 mission from
its original concept to its ultimate success. It provides a selection of some of
the images obtained by the spacecraft at both Venus and Mercury. A
detailed Atlas of the Mercury images is being published separately by
NASA.
Mariner 10 reaped a bountiful harvest of new information about the
inner planets of the solar system , information which combined with that
from the exploration of other planets may provide us with an increasingly
clear view of the origin of our solar system and possibly a clue to its
destiny.

John E. Naugle
Chief Scientist
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

v
Introd uction

ARELY IN THE LIFETIME of an individual is he privileged to

R witness and be part of an historic first for mankind. Such has been my
privilege. Even more rarely is one privileged to be part of such a dedicated,
competent, and professional group as comprised the Mariner Venus/
Mercury Project Team. It was a moderately small group of diverse talents,
dedicated to accomplishing an historic scientific voyage to Mercury by way
of Venus, and to do it within tight schedule and cost constraints.
These people met and exceeded the challenges and further distinguished
themselves several times during the flight of Mariner 10 when emergencies
were encountered which threatened the success of the mission. Their
professional response to these emergencies proved the competence of this
truly remarkable team of NASA, Boeing, Philco-Ford, Planning Research
Corporation, university, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory people. Without
this team the exciting discoveries made on the Mariner 10 flight to Venus
and Mercury would not have been possible.

W. Eugene Giberson
Mariner Venus/Mercury Project Manager
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

vi
Acknowledg ment

T HE AUTHORS ARE GRATEFUL for comments and suggestions

from many persons connected with this historic voyage to the
innermost planet. Many scientists and project staff members provided
material during interviews which were part of the research for this book. Of
particular importance were valuable initial suggestions or later comments
on all or parts of the several drafts by H. S. Bridge, A. L. Broadfoot, V. C.
Clarke, Jr., N. W. Cunningham, G. E. Danielson, Jr., R. Dod, J. Eraker, W.
E. Giberson, H. T. Howard, B. C. Murray, N . F. Ness, W. Purdie, J. A.
Simpson, R. G. Strom, and J. N. Wilson.
Personnel from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Mariner Venus/Mercury
Project staff, Public Information Office, Technical Information and
Documentation Division, and others were particularly helpful in providing
information, arranging interviews, and producing the book. Members of
the teams associated with TV imaging and processing the pictures,
including Nancy Evans and James M. Soha, must receive special thanks for
providing many illustrations of Venus and Mercury included herein.

vii
Chapter 1
Earth 's Sister and
the Twi light Planet

HE INNER PLANETS Mercury and Venus, Mercury. Similarly, ancient astronomers did not
T orbiting the Sun within Earth's path around
the central luminary of the Solar System, have
recognize Venus as one planet. When east of the
Sun and seen in the western sky after sunset, the
been known from ancient times. Early man planet was called Hesperus. When west of the Sun
thought that there were four of these wandering and rising before it, the planet was called
stars, attendants to the Sun- two in the morning Phosphorous. About the 12th century B.C., Homer
skies and two others in the evening skies. mentions Venus but considers it as two objects.
Ancient Greeks were familiar with the dull- Pythagoras is said to have recognized the single
white star that shone steadily across the clear identity of Phosphorous and Hesperus about 500
skies of the Aegean Sea in the warm glow of B.C.
dawn. They called it Apollo. In Egypt the The confusion between the morning and
horoscopus priests of Thebes looked across the evening stars is reflected even as late as the
Nile toward Karnak and recognized it as the evil writings of Eudoxus about 400 B.C., probably the
star of Set fleeing upward before Amun-Ra at earliest Greek astronomer, who is believed to
dawn to be vanquished and disappear in the have derived his knowledge of the planetary
brilliance of the rising sun god. movements from Egypt. Although he stated the
Both Greeks and Egyptians thought the morn- periodic times of the planets Mars, Jupiter, and
ing star different from another star seen close to Saturn quite accurately, he was much in error
the Sun after sunset. The Greeks named the with times for Mercury and Venus. This con-
evening star that lingered in the sunset glow trasted greatly with his statements about the
across the Ionian Sea Hermes, the winged synodic periods: that is, the times between the
messenger of the gods, while the Thebans reappearances of planets in the same configura-
recognized it as Horus, the vanquisher of Set and tion in Earth's sky. His synodic periods were quite
follower of Amun-Ra. accurate for Venus and Mercury as well as for the
By about 350 B.C., the time of Plato, the outer planets. Thus he showed accurate knowl-
Greeks acknowledged the morning and evening edge of the times when the evening and morning
stars as being one planet. The modern name, stars would appear, but seemed ignorant of their
Mercury, is the Roman name for Hermes, the true motions around the Sun.
messenger of the gods. The Greek Hermes is still Planets of the Solar System (Fig. 1-1) are today
used as the adjective Hermian-of or relating to known to consist of three distinct types: small,

1
dense, inner planets with solid surfaces ( Mercury,
Venus, Earth, Moon, and Mars), large, predomi-
nantly gaseous, outer planets (Jupiter and Sat-
urn ), and large, ice-giant, outer planets ( Uranus
and Neptune). Additionally there is a small,
outermost planet, Pluto, large and small planetary
satellites of various types, a group of minor
planets concentrated between the orbits of Mars
and Jupiter, many comets, meteor streams, and
general debris.
Mercury is the innermost planet of the Solar
System; Venus orbits the Sun between the orbits
of Earth and Mercury. Both planets not only were
confusing to the ancients but continued to confuse
modern astronomers, although in other ways. For
many years the rotation periods of these planets
on their axes were unknown, and neither planet
revealed any definite surface markings, even to
the best of Earth-based telescope ~ ,.
Mercury 's surface could nc ·t be observed
because of the planet's small ! ize, its distance
from the Earth, and closeness to the Sun, while
Venus was shrouded in mystery because of a
dense atmosphere with thick clouds that only
showed markings in photographs taken by ultra-
violet light.
Mercury 's distance from the Sun averages 58
million kilometers ( 36 million miles), which is
about 38 percent of Earth's distance, while Venus,
at 108 million kilometers (67 million miles), is
about 72 percent of Earth 's distance from the
Sun.
Since the pl anet Mercury is so close to the Sun
and moves along its orbit 1.5 to 2 times fa ster
than Earth , it flits from side to side of the Sun so
as to be seen only just before sunrise or just after
sunset. Its mo thlike rapid moti on a nd brief
appearances and disappearances are proba bly
why the ancients associated it with the wing-
footed messe nge r of myth ology . By co ntras t,
Venus comes closer to Earth , moves farther from
the Sun in the eve nin g and morning skies,
appears pl acid and brilliant, and is perhaps the
most beautiful o bj ect in the skies. " Mistress of the
Heavens" said the Babylonians, while the Rom-
ans associated the planet with the goddess of
beauty, Venus.

Fig. 1-1 . The inner, or terrestrial-type planets of the Solar

System are quite small bodies relative to the outer giants.
Yet these inner planets are the ones possessing solid surfaces
which permit exploration.

2
Apparitions of Inner Planets

It is instructive to look at the inner planets

Mercury and Venus from the standpoint of the
earlier astronomers. At the beginning of recorded
history men watched the motions of the planets
against the background of stars, but it was many
centuries before they deduced that the planets,
including the Earth, move around the Sun -in
almost circular orbits. This awareness was slow in
acceptance because early philosophers, later
backed by the Christian Church, accepted an Fig. 1-2. Because Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun within
Earth-centered dogma. It was not until after the Earth's orbit, they stay close to the Sun in the sky as seen
from Earth. At their greatest angular distance from the Sun
invention of the telescope in the early 1600's that they are said to be at elongation. Here the two planets are
the dogma was dispelled and a Sun-centered shown at eastern elongation; they set after the Sun and
Solar System was accepted generally. appear as evening stars.
Galileo first discovered that Venus exhibits
phases like the Moon. Cautiously he laid claim to
his discovery in an anagram, published in 1610,
which translated into English reads: " The mother
of the loves ( Venus) emulates the phases of
Cynthia (the Moon)." Galileo used this observa-
tion of the phases of Venus as a strong argument
for the truth of the Copernican theory that the
Solar System is centered on the Sun, not the
Earth.
Because Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun
within Earth's orbit, they are termed inferior
planets. As seen from the Earth, inferior planets
appear to move close to the ecliptic (the apparent
yearly path of the Sun relative to the star sphere,
which is also the plane of the Earth 's orbit
projected against the stars), and to move back-
ward and forward , oscillating to either side of the
Sun and never far from it in the sky. The
maximum angular distance to east or west of the
Sun is termed elongation. At eastern elongation,
Mercury and Venus are seen in the evening sky as
evening stars because they appear to follow the
Sun in its daily motion across Earth's sky owing
Fig. 1-3. When inner planets are between Earth ana Sun they
to the rotation of the Earth (Fig. 1-2). At western are said to be at inferior conjunction. When on the far side of
elongation, they are ahead of the Sun and are the Sun they are at superior conjunction. Sometimes at inferior
seen as morning stars before sunrise. conjunction the planes of the orbits align, and Mercury and
Venus are seen as dark dots on the face of the Sun as they
Because the orbits of these inferior planets are pass in transit.
completely contained within the Earth's orbit,
both Mercury and Venus periodically pass be-
tween Earth and Sun. This is termed inferior
conjunction (Fig. 1-3). At other times, when the slightly with respect to each other like crossed
planets are on the far side of the Sun from Earth, hoops- Mercury and Venus normally pass
they pass through superior conjunction. Because through conjunction above or below the Sun.
the orbits of the Earth and the two planets are Infrequently, the orbits line up so that the planets
not exactly in the same plane- they are tilted cross the face of the Sun in a transit or behind the

3
Sun in an occultation. Occultations are not
observable because of the brilliance of the Sun,
but transits are.
Transits of Venus take place very rarely: the
most recent occurred in 1882; the next are not
due until the beginning of the next century-June
7, 2004, and June 5, 2012 (they occur in close
pairs). The first recorded transit of Venus across
the face of the Sun was observed by Jeremiah
Horrocks and William Crabtree in Manchester,
England, on December 4, 1639. In 1769, a search
for a place from which to observe ?ne of the n~~t
pair of transits of Venus led Captaill Cook to VISIt
the newly discovered Tahitian Islands and later to
discover New Zealand.
Transits of Mercury occur much more fre-
quently. The first recorded observation was by the
philosopher critic Pierre Gassendi, at Aix, France,
on November 7 1631. The most recent was
visible from the East Coast of the United States
on November II, 1973. The next transit will take
place on November 12, 1986. Fig. 1-4. Galileo discovered that Venus, seen through a
Mercury revolves around the Sun in a period ~f telescope, shows phases like those of the Moon.
88 days; Venus in a period of 225 days. But theu
visibility in Earth's skies depends also upon
Earth's movement around the Sun. So Venus
repeats its apparitions (elongations a~d conjunc- By contrast, Venus moves as much as 47
tions) in a synodic period of approXimately 584 degrees from the Sun, so that it is seen in t~e late
days. This period was known to within 14 days by evening or early morning skies as the bnghtest
the ancient Egyptians. Mercury repeats approXI- starlike object. Because Venus reflects a large
mately every 116 days. The ancient Egyptia~s proportion of the Sun's light falling upon i~-it
were even closer to this period-they recorded It has a high albedo- the planet appears very bnght
as 110 days. Since Mercury's orbit varies much in the skies of Earth. When at its brightest, about
more from a true circle than does that of Venus, one month before and after inferior conjunction,
or Earth, the repetition of Mercury's positions Venus casts distinct shadows. At this time a
relative to the Sun in Earth's skies varies too. The telescope shows it as a fat crescent shape.
angular distance of Mercury from the Sun in the
sky at elongation also varies, from only 18 Venus can be observed for many months at
degrees to as much as 27 degrees. . each elongation; it has even been seen through
Mercury is intrinsically a relatively dark object. binoculars as it passes above or below the Sun at
Like the Moon it does not reflect much of the closest approach. It is also clearly visible in
sunlight falling upon it-it is said to ~ave .a low daylight if an observer knows where to look. For
albedo-so it does not appear very bnght ill the example, when Venus appears close to the ~oon
sky. Moreover, Mercury can rise before or set in the sky, the Moon can be used as a gUIde to
after the Sun by only 2.5 hours at the maximum, finding the planet. Venus passes from greatest
so it is rarely seen in the dark sky, but usually elongation as an evening star to greatest western
only in the twilight glow. Because of its rapid elongation as a morning star in about .140 da~s,
orbital motion the planet cannot be seen for much and from morning star back to an eve rung star ill
longer than two weeks around the time of each about 430 days.
elongation. The average interval between Mer- As the inferior planets move around the Sun,
cury's appearance as an evening and a morning their phases as seen from Earth (Fig. 1-4) are
star is 44 days. comparable to those of the Moon. When Mercury

4
and Venus are on the far side of the Sun from thus, in a telescope, they can be seen as a very
Earth, they appear fully illuminated like a full fine crescent all the way through inferior conjunc-
moon, but because of their great distance then, tion.
they are unfavorably placed for observation and
show relatively small discs. At eastern and
western elongations, the two planets appear about
half illuminated. Then as they move between The Questions
Earth and Sun, Venus and Mercury display a
narrowing crescent phase to Earth-based observ- Planets of the Solar System probably formed
ers until, if they cross the disc of the Sun, they four to five billion years ago when hosts of small
appear as black spots upon it. Most times they rocky particles and clouds of gases collected
pass either above or below the solar disc and together by their own gravity. Gravity is a
universal property of matter, as a result of which
every particle, irrespective of size, attracts every
other. Thus, left to themselves in space, individual
particles tend to collect together into larger
masses.
After the Sun condensed from the primordial
nebula, planets of different sizes and probably
different compositions accreted from concentra-
tions of matter present at various distances from
the Sun. Evidence for this process of accretion is
presented in the cratered surfaces of planetary
bodies ranging from small satellites such as
Deimos and Phobos (Fig. 1-5) to planets such as
Mars. These craters are believed to have been
produced by falling bodies some time after the
main stage of planetary formation .
The major differences among the terrestrial
planets may have arisen because these planets
formed at different distances from the Sun and
thus consisted of different materials from the
beginning. For example, Mercury might have
formed from materials rich in iron, whereas
Venus formed from silicate-rich materials. Earth
may have accreted in a region of the primordial
nebula where there were water-containing materi-
als, while Venus did not.
Scientific information about conditions on other
planets is important to increased understanding of
the evolution of the Solar System and therefore
our own planet Earth. Each spacecraft visiting a
distant planet for flyby or landing adds more to
this basic store of human knowledge. A number
of spacecraft had already visited Venus; two
successful flybys had been made by Mariners, and
five Soviet Venera spacecraft had flown by,
orbited or landed capsules on the surface. From
these missions, com bined with many decades of
Fig. 1-5. Craters on terrestrial planets and satellites, like these Earth-based observations using visible, ultraviolet,
revealed by a Mariner spacecraft on a satellite of Mars, are
thought to be the evidence of the final stages of an accretion microwave, and spectroscopic techniques, Venus
process that took place some 4.5 billion years ago. was known to possess a high surface temperature

5
of around 47YC (887"F) and a pressure at the Observations by a new mISSIOn were not
base of the massive atmosphere about equal to expected to answer this fundamental question, but
that at a depth of 400 fathoms in the Earth's rather to provide some additional pieces of
oceans. Venus was revealed as a hot, dry planet evidence toward solving the great puzzle. Particu-
with only traces of water vapor in its predomi- lar attention was placed on designing a program
nantly (95%) carbon dioxide atmosphere. Spec- of systematic observation of the mysterious
troscopic studies had indicated the presence of ultraviolet markings discovered years before in
sulfuric acid droplets high in Venus's atmosphere, telescopic observations of the planet. Although a
which had been shown to possess distinct layer- telescope reveals virtually no visible details on the
ing, both above and below the light-obscuring brilliant surface of Venus (Fig. 1-6), some
visible clouds. observers recorded faint and elusive markings on
Venus, virtually Earth's twin in diameter- photographs obtain~d with light in the near-
12, 104 km ( 7521 mi) vs 12, 657 km ( 7926 mi)- uJtraviolet region of the spectrum. These ill-
in mass, and in density, is distinctive from its defined, shadowy markings appeared to move
nearest planetary neighbor, Earth, in terms of its around the planet in a period of a few days in the
atmospheric composition and slow, retrograde same direction as Venus's slow retrograde spin,
spin. How these differences arose remains a established in 1961 by radar techniques to have a
central question in planetary science. period of approximately 243 days.
Closeup observations of the ultraviolet mark-
ings were desired to define their fine-scale
morphology and verify their apparent rapid
rotation rate. It was hoped that information of
importance in developing an understanding of the
dynamics of the upper atmosphere could be
obtained. Detailed knowledge of the present state
of Venus's atmosphere and the physical mecha-
nisms operating within it are prerequisite to
unravelling its evolutionary history. Further, such
knowledge will aid significantly in developing a
deeper perception of the fundamental mecha-
nisms acting within the Earth 's complex and
dynamic atmosphere.
In addition to the major differences in atmo-
spheric pressure and composition and spin rate,
Venus's lack of a sensible magnetic field sets it
apart from its sister planet. The nature of Venus's
interaction with the solar wind, wherein the
plasma impinges directly upon a dense atmos-
phere not enclosed in a " magnetic bottle," had
been investigated by earlier spacecraft, but much
remained to be learned by a new mission to
Venus, particularly regarding the nature of the
region far downstream which had not been
probed by the earlier spacecraft.
Mercury, smallest of the planets except possibly
Pluto, has an equatorial radius of 2439 km (1516
mi), making it intermediate in size between the
Moon and Mars and smaller than two of Jupiter's
satellites (Fig. 1-7). Until recently, astronomers
Fig. 1-6. Telescopic photographs of Venus from Earth show thought that the closeness of Mercury to the Sun
very little detail in the dense clouds that shroud the planet.
Indistinct markings, seen in ultraviolet light, appear to rotate caused it to turn one hemisphere eternally
much faster than the planet itself. sunward, just as the Moon turns one hemisphere

6
toward the Earth. However, radio astronomers better understood by a careful analysis of the
discovered in 1965 that Mercury rotates on its cratering densities on the three bodies.
axis in 58 days. Coupled with the planet's 88-day Mercury 's importance to planetary science was
period of revolution around the Sun, this rotation not restricted to the expected record of late stage
gives Mercury a solar day of 176 Earth days. formational events, however. The planet's high
Thus, one day on Mercury occupies two years of density, equivalent to that of the Earth, has long
Mercury time. been of interest to theoreticians concerned with
Through a large telescope the planet presents a the formation of the inner planets. Because of
yellowish color broken by indistinct greyish Mercury's small size, the high density must reflect
patches (Fig. 1-8). On the basis of optical and a metal-rich composition. What clues could
infrared studies of Mercury, astronomers had long Mariner provide as to the internal composition of
inferred that the planet would be cratered and Mercury? In particular, is the planet chemically
without any appreciable atmosphere. Its density differentiated? If so, when did this differentiation
was known to be much more than the Moon, but occur? The answers to these question would be
rather close to that of Earth. significant with regard to theories of chemical
The innermost planet's importance to planetary evolution of the terrestrial planets.
science was known to be disproportionate to its Clues regarding Mercury's internal composition
size. Earth-based observations at radar, visible, were expected to be obtained from the several
and infrared wavelengths had strongly suggested instruments designed to study its interaction with
the absence of any atmosphere, and it was the solar wind, the details of which depend upon
therefore hoped that a primordial surface, upon gross planetary properties like atmospheric com-
which was written a history of the early events in position and pressure, the presence or absence of
the inner Solar System, unerased by the action of a magnetic field , bulk conductivity, and so on.
wind and water, awaited a spacecraft's cameras. Further information was expected from a study of
The opportunity to study this anticipated record the composition and structure of the planet's
was eagerly awaited because, should Mercury's presumably tenuous atmosphere, expected to be
primordial surface remain, a valuable comparison less than a thousandth of the Earth's total
with similar surfaces on the Moon and Mars pressure.
could be made, providing an insight into the Thus, a mission to Venus and Mercury would
distribution of the planetesimals whose impacts have as its goal the acquisition of previously
on these other two bodies had left a record in unavailable fundamental information on both
their cratered terrains. Furthermore, the probable planets- a few more pieces of the puzzle of how
location of the source of these bodies could be the planets, including the Earth, formed and

Fig. 1-7. In comparison, Mercury is between the Moon and

Mars in size. Some satellites of the outer planets are equally
as large.
 evolved to their present states. The questions that tiny planet, so small and difficult to observe
posed for Venus were sharply focussed, based that the best estimate of generations of telescopic
upon a considerable body of knowledge. Those observers regarding its rotation rate had been
applied to Mercury were broad, exploratory, first- proven wrong by radar experimenters only eight
order: a reflection of what little was known of years earlier.

360 270 N 90 o
+60
(b)
I
- r--- - I I
- _ .
--1 -
I I
L
I
+60

,-
+30 : I
I.
":' I
I
I
-
I
+30
I
I

I 1

w i I I
I

I I E

I
I I I '\
.
I

I
- 30
I I I I I 1
30
I !
J I
'.'
I I

(b)
-60
-}
360
-
270
~r
"

-
s
r---
1 - - - 1-

90
T-- -
o
- 60

Fig. 1-8. Mercury, too, reveals few details, not because of clouds but because of the planet's small size, its distance from the
Earth, and its closeness to the Sun. Photographs (a) show only indistinct shadings, and maps (b) made on the basis of
observations from Earth are virtually useless.

8
Page intentionally left blank
 l

Chapter 2
Mariner
Venus-Mercury Mission

HE GRAVITY-ASSIST trajectory technique designers next developed a mathematical tech-

T which was needed to obtain an economically
acceptable mission to Mercury resulted from over
nique for searching out gravity-assist trajectories
so that they were able to program the equations
20 years of speculation, scientific research, and for processing on a digital computer. They soon
engineering development. The technique allows a discovered the existence of Earth - Venus- Mercury
spacecraft to change both its direction and speed trajectory opportunities for 1970 and 1973 , but
without expenditure of propellant, thereby saving found that the gravity-assist trajectory was
time and increasing scientific payload on inter- extremely sensitive to errors in aiming the
planetary missions. By its use an acceptable spacecraft toward the first planet, suggesting that
payload could be launched to Mercury by an a new kind of guidance might be necessary to
Atlas/Centaur. The much larger and more costly make the technique practicable. Further analysis
Titan III CICentaur would be required for a revealed, however, that there were actually no
direct flight to the innermost planet. barriers in contemporary guidance technology to
The concept of gravity-assist interplanetary prevent a multiple-planet mission. As a result,
missions first received serious attention in the detailed plans and a navigation strategy for the
literature of the 1950 's, though multiple-planet 1970 Venus- Mercury opportunity were prepared,
orbits had been considered during the 1920 's and establishing its practical feasibility as a space
30's. mISSIon.
In the following years the concept was utilized Early in 1970, Guiseppe Colombo of the
mainly in studies of round-trip interplanetary Institute of Applied Mechanics in Padua, Italy,
flights in which the spacecraft leaves the Earth, who had been invited to JPL to participate in a
flies by several planets, and returns to Earth. The conference on the Earth - Venus-Mercury mission,
first systematic development of the gravity-assist noted that in the 1973 mission the period of the
technique was performed at the Jet Propulsion spacecraft's orbit, after it flew by Mercury, would
Laboratory, Pasadena, California, in the early be very close to twice the period of Mercury itself.
1960 'so Previously, such multiple-planet trajecto- He suggested that a second encounter with
ries had been sought by inspecting computer- Mercury could be achieved. An analytical study
generated listings of parts of flight paths, such as conducted by JPL confirmed Colombo's sugges-
the Earth - Venus and Venus- Earth components, tion and showed that by careful choice of the
and matching them in regard to velocities and Mercury flyby point, a gravity turn could be made
time. An Earth- Venus- Earth round trip had been that would return the spacecraft to Mercury six
discovered by this method, and JPL trajectory months later.

11
 l
Fig. 2-1 . The Atlas/Centaur provided the
necessary launch capability for the Venus
swingby to Mercury.

In June 1968, the Space Science Board of the scientific community early enough for scientists to
National Academy of Science completed a plane- contribute to decisions concerning design of the
tary exploration study in which the mission to spacecraft and selection of its subsystems. The
Mercury via Venus was endorsed. The Board possibility of later conflict between mission
recommended that a 1973 launch opportunity be constraints and science needs would thereby be
aimed for and suggested some of the scientific reduced.
experiments that might be carried out on the The National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
mission. tration selected a group of scientists to represent
Approved by NASA in 1969, the mission which the several disciplines that would be involved in
resulted from this recommendation involved the the science payload of a mission to Mercury via

12
 - - - - -- - I

Venus, and a Science Steering Group was November 21, 1973. From such a launch window
officially formed in September 1969. Its purpose the spacecraft could encounter Venus between
was to recommend objectives for and plan a good February 4 and 6 and Mercury between March
science mission within tight monetary constraints, 27 and 31, 1974.
coordinating the requirements of teams for the The proposed trajectory relied upon Venus's
individual instruments and participating in pro- gravitational field to alter the spacecraft's flight
ject design and tradeoff studies relevant to path and speed relative to the Sun, such that the
mission, spacecraft, and flight operations. reduction in velocity would cause the spacecraft to
In January 1970, a Mariner Venus/Mercury fall closer to the Sun and therefore to cross
project office was established at JPL, under the Mercury's orbit at the exact time needed to
direction of Project Manager Walker E. Giberson. encounter the planet (Fig. 2-2). Closest-approach
Experiments were selected by July 1970, and by altitudes at Venus and Mercury would be 5000
July 1971 a contract was negotiated with the and 1000 km (3100 and 620 mi), respectively.
Boeing Company, Kent, Wasnington, for design To meet the demands of the gravity-assist
and fabrication of two spacecraft: a flight space- technique, Mariner Venus/ Mercury had to be
craft and a test spacecraft. launched on an orbit around the Sun that would
intercept the planet Venus with high precision.
The spacecraft could not carry sufficient propel-
lant for very large maneuvers after the' encounter
Overview of the Mission with Venus, and the trajectory to Venus de-
manded new levels of accuracy. At least two
The mission plan called for launching the maneuvers to correct the trajectory would be
spacecraft with an Atlas SLV-3D/Centaur D-IA needed between Earth and Venus and two more
launch vehicle (Fig. 2-1) between October 16 and between Venus and Mercury. Flyby of Venus had

Fig. 2-2. The gravity-assist trajectory to Mercury uses the gravity and orbital motion of Venus to provide a slingshot that hurls a
spacecraft into the inner Solar System without further use of propellants except for minor corrections to the trajectory. A direct flight
to Mercury would require a much larger launch vehicle to deliver the same payload of scientific instruments without this Venus
a~sist.

13
------- ---------------------------- --- --

Fig. 2-3. Times of launch and arrival at the planets were clearly defined .

to be controlled within 400 km (250 mi) , side, passing over the sunlit side and, slowed by
otherwise no Mercury encounter could take place. Venus, falling closer to the Sun to rendezvous
In overview (Fig. 2-3), the mission would start with Mercury.
with liftoff from Kennedy Space Center, the
Centaur engine cutting off shortly thereafter,
placing the spacecraft in a parking orbit which
would carry it partway around the Earth for 25 The Mariner 10 Spacecraft
mm.
More than a decade of evolution of Mariner
The Centaur then would burn a second time, technology was continued by the Mariner Venus/
thrusting Mariner in a direction opposite to the Mercury 1973 spacecraft, which was the sixth of a
Earth's orbital motion. This direction was re- series that began with Mariner Venus in 1962 and
quired to provide the spacecraft with a lo:,er included Mariner Mars 1964, Mariner Venus
velocity relative . to the Sun than Earth's orbItal 1967 Mariner Mars 1969 and Mariner Mars
velocity, allowing the spacecraft to be dr~wn Orbi~er 1971 (Figure 2-4 ). In common with
inwards in the Sun's gravitational field to achIeve
its encounter with Venus.
Fig. 2-4. Mariner Venus/ Mercury continued a line of successful
A few months later the Mariner spacecraft Mariner spacecraft that had previously explored Venus and
would approach Venus from the planet'S dark Mars.

14
 - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- - - -- - -----------------------------------------------------------

MARINER 2 MARINERS 6 AND 7

VENUS 1962 MARS 1969

MARINER 4 MARINER 9
MARS 1964 MARS 1971

MARINER 5 MARINER 10
VENUS 1967 VENUS AND MERCURY 1973
earlier spacecraft, it used an octagonal main adapter to the launch vehicle. The payload of
structure, solar cells and a battery for electrical scientific instruments weighed 78 kg (172 lb).
power, three-axis attitude stabilization and con- Subsystems included equipment to modulate
trol by nitrogen gas jets, celestial references by and demodulate electrical signals, generate, store,
star and Sun sensors, S-band radio for command, and distribute power, handle flight data, control
telemetry, and ranging, a high-gain antenna, a spacecraft attitude, release mechanical devices,
low-gain antenna, a scan platform to point science propel the spacecraft, control temperature, articu-
instruments, and a hydrazine rocket propulsion late and point spacecraft devices, store data
system for trajectory corrections. The spacecraft onboard the spacecraft, and communicate with
was designed to fit fo lded into the launch Earth. There was also a central computer and
configuration of the Atlas SLY -3D/Centaur D-IA sequencer. All these subsystems together with
launch vehicle ready to unfold its appendages and mechanical devices used for deployment sup-
sensors when it reached space. ported the science experiments.
Figure 2-5 shows the relative arrangements of Some changes to the Mariner concept were
major parts of the Mariner spacecraft: basic needed for the mission to Mercury, principally
structure, power and thermal control, telecommu-
nications and data, navigation and orientation,
and scientific payload.
Launch weight of the spacecraft was 533 .6 kg Fig. 2-5. The Mari ner Venu s/ Mercury spacecraft consists of
several basic parts, each one essential to the success of the
(1175 Ib), including 29 kg (64 lb) of hydrazine mission. These include its basic structure, power and th ermal
propellant and 30 kg (66 1b) associated with the control, telecommunications, navigati on, propulsion, orientation,
and science payload. Solar cells provide electrical energy for
the spacecraft power system.

16

- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----1
 because the spacecraft had to approach the Sun order to accommodate the number of in-flight
much closer than any previous planetary space- trajectory correction maneuvers required for
craft. This required improved ways to insulate the precise navigation.
spacecraft from solar radiation. Thermal control
of the new Mariner had to protect it from solar AJI the subsystems were designed on the basis
intensities up to 4 112 times that incident upon of using both Mariner residual hardware as well
the Earth. Thermal control required, in addition as Mariner technology. The tight budget con-
to a large sunshade, louvers and protective straint on the program made it necessary to use
thermal blankets, the ability to rotate the solar proven techniques to keep development costs low.
panels about an axis that ran along their length. This was achieved by applying existing hardware
By changing the angle at which the sunlight or existing designs with such modifications as
shone on the panels, the solar cells were kept at a were needed, making best use of earlier Mariner
suitable temperature- about 115°C (239°F)- as hardware units by upgrading existing prototypes,
the spacecraft approached closer to the Sun. Both and eliminating many of the traditional spares by
panels could turn up to a total of 76 deg from using the qualification test unit as either a spare
directly facing the Sun and could be rotated or a flight unit.
individually in fine steps. Other major design As planning for the mission became more
changes from past Mariners included the addition detailed and revisits to Mercury in an extended
of a capability to handle up to 118 thousand bits mission more attractive, spacecraft design deci-
per second of TV data and 2450 bits/sec for sions were made accordingly. While the basic
nonimaging science and engineering data as well spacecraft design concept was not initially in-
as the capability for both S- and X-band ranging tended for such an extended mission, once that
and X-band carrier transmission. Also, a central mission had been accepted as a possibility, design
flight data subsystem for science and engineering alternatives were chosen that would not rule it
data processing and science control allowed out. Thus, when alternatives presented them-
engineering format to be reprogrammed in flight selves, and costs were the same, that alternative
and provided 21 data modes for television, was picked which favored the extended mission.
nonimaging science, engineering, and data stor- Major decisions that had great significance
age playback. ultimately to the capability for multiple Mercury
In addition, the new Mariner had a central encounters were to increase the amount of
articulation and pointing subsystem for its scan attitude control nitrogen gas carried by the
platform, its two-degree-of-freedom high-gain spacecraft and to incorporate the capability to
antenna, and its tiltable solar panels, with either rotate the panels in both directions so that the
closed-loop positioning or discrete incremental solar panel angles could be decreased as well as
command capability. Finally, the propulsion increased, allowing operation beyond the first
system had to be capable of multiple firings, in Mercury encounter.

17
Chapter 3
Mariner's Payload

O LITTLE W AS KN OWN of Mercury experiment. By observing the decrease in intensity

S before the epic voyage of Mariner that the
mission was virtually man's first look at this
of solar ultraviolet radiation as Mercury and its
atmosphere blocked it out, a measure of this
innermost planet of the Solar System. The science atmosphere could be obtained. Earth occultation
objectives for the mission were to explore Mercury was needed to observe the passage of radio
as thoroughly as possible with seven experiments: signals from the spacecraft to Earth until cut off
television imaging, infrared radiometry, extreme by the planet, and again on emergence from
ultraviolet spectroscopy, magnetometer, plasma, behind the planet. This would provide informa-
charged particles, and radio wave propagation. tion concerning the radius of the planet, its
The same experiments were used to explore atmosphere and ionosphere.
Venus, adding to knowledge gained from earlier To provide the greatest amount of information
U.S. and U.S.S.R. flights. Exploration of Venus obtainable with remote sensing devices, Mariner
was restricted somewhat by the trajectory require- Venus/Mercury carried more science instruments
ments for reaching the prime target, Mercury. (Fig. 3-1) than most previous Mariner spacecraft.
These requirements made it necessary, for exam- A magnetometer measured magnetic fields, a
ple, for Mariner to follow a trajectory that did not plasma analyzer measured the ions and electrons
produce a Sun occultation at Venus, so the of the solar wind, and cosmic ray telescopes
ultraviolet occultation experiment (see page 24) provided information on solar and galactic cosmic
could not be conducted at that planet. rays. The main objective of these instruments was
To obtain best science results, the objectives of to learn about a planet by studying its effects on
each experiment were established and the space the interplanetary medium.
near Mercury was evaluated for aiming points An infrared radiometer measured temperatures
and trajectories that would satisfy them. Of major of the clouds of Venus and the surface of
importance was a flight path that would place the Mercury. Two independent ultraviolet instruments
planet between the spacecraft and the Sun, and (measuring light beyond the violet end of the
also between the spacecraft and the Earth, i.e., spectrum) analyzed the planetary atmospheres.
solar and Earth occultation, respectively. One instrument was fixed to the body of the
Study of the planet's effect on the Sun's plasma spacecraft and was used at Mercury to search for
gas and magnetic fields ("solar wind") required a traces of atmosphere along the edges of the
solar occultation, as did the sounding of Mer- visible disc of the planet. A second instrument,
cury's atmosphere by the ultraviolet occultation mounted along with the television cameras on a

19
 - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - -- ----

tNFRARED RADIOMETER

TV ~RA (STOWED POSITION)

fllllitfoooW"" ANTENNA DEPLOYED)

Fig. 3-1. Mariner Venus/ Mercury carried a battery of science instruments.

scan platform, could be pointed on command. directed by command from Earth. As well as
This "airglow"" spectrometer was used to scan both taking pictures in different colors of light, these
of the planets, searching for evidence of hydrogen, cameras also measured how the light was polar-
helium, argon, neon, oxygen, and carbon. At ized, observations intended to provide informa-
Venus, it searched for specific gases, and during tion on the composition of the clouds of Venus
the cruise phase it looked for sources of ultraviolet and the surface of Mercury.
radiation coming from hot stars and gas clouds in A radio experiment used the signals transmitted
the galaxy. Measurements were also made of the from the spacecraft to Earth. By tracking the
gaseous envelope surrounding the comet Ko- spacecraft signals, experimenters determined how
houtek. the spacecraft was affected by the gravitational
A complex of two televison cam~ras with eight fields of the planets. From this information they
filters was the basis of the imagiilg experiment. determined the shape of each planet and whether
These cameras were capable of taking both there were anomalies in its gravitational field.
narrow- and wide-angle views of Venus and By analysis of what happened to the radio
Mercury. Sharing the scan platform with the signals as they passed close to the limb or edge of
airglow spectrometer, the imaging complex was the planet, experimenters were able to probe the

20
 atmosphere of Venus and check for an atmos- separation being obtained by a three-position
phere of Mercury. To take full advantage of the scan mirror (see Fig. 3-3). The forward and aft
Venus occultation, which bent the radio signals
appreciably, the high-gain antenna on the space-
craft was steered so as to compensate partially for
'the bending of the radio signal. In this way,
information was obtained at deeper levels of the
atmosphere than was possible with earlier flyby
spacecraft.
The science experiments were selected from
proposals submitted to NASA in response to the
announcement of the Mariner Venus/Mercury
flight opportunity.

Infrared Radiometer

This instrument measured temperatures on the

surface of Mercury and the clouds of Venus by
sampling thermal (infrared) radiation. Observa-
tions of thermal emission from Mercury were
expected to provide information on the average
thermal properties, large-scale and small-scale
surface anomalies, and surface roughness. It was
known that temperature variations on Mercury
would be large, owing to intensive heating of the Fig. 3-2. An infrared radiometer measured temperatures of the
day side and the slow rotation period of 58.6 clouds of Venus and of the surface of Mercury.
days, which allows the night side to radiate away
most of its heat. Measurement of heat absorption
and loss across the terminator (shadow line)
regions could provide indirect evidence of the
nature of the surface material: such as whether it
is sand, gravel, or rock. At Venus the instrument
was expected to provide cloud top brightness
temperatures at higher resolution than can be
achieved from Earth or had been achieved by
earlier spacecraft.
The infrared radiometer was fixed to the body
of the spacecraft on the sunlit side, with apertures
shielded from the direct sunlight under a thermal
blanket. The instrument (Fig. 3-2) was based
upon earlier radiometers flown on Mariner Mars
1969 and 1971, but instead of the reflecting optics
of the earlier radiometers, the new instrument
made use of two Cassegrain telescopes with
special long-wavelength filters. This allowed
observations at longer wavelengths and also
increased sensitivity.
Fig. 3-3. The radiometer used a three-position scan mirror so
Two ll2-deg fields of view separated by 120 that it could compare radiation from the planet with that from
deg were used to scan Mercury, the angular the dark sky.

21
viewing beams thus ensured that there could be Plasma Science
both a planet viewing beam and a black space
reference beam for all the observations. Observations of the velocity and the directional
The instrument measured surface brightness distributions of the normal solar wind constituents
temperature in the two spectral bands 34 to 55 in the vicinity of Mercury were required to
and 7.5 to 14 micrometers, which correspond to understand the interaction of the solar wind with
temperature ranges of 80 to 340 and 200 to 700 the planet. Observations of the solar wind inside
K, respectively. the orbit of Venus were also important, since no
previous spacecraft had penetrated this region.
Therefore, continuous measurements were
planned from the orbit of the Earth to the orbit of
Mercury. Additionally, an objective of the experi-
ment was to verity and extend previous observa-
tions of the solar wind's interactions with Venus
and to clarity the role of electrons in these
interactions.
Instrumentation for the experiment consisted of
two detectors on a motor-driven platform (Fig.
3-4). The principal detector, facing sunward,

Fig. 3-4. A plasma science experiment relied upon two

detectors mounted on a scan platform. The scanning
electrostatic analyzer consisted of three hemispherical plates
directed toward the Sun to measure incoming electrons and
positive ions.

22
consisted of a pair of electrostatic analyzers. The
auxiliary detector, facing away from the Sun, was
a single electrostatic analyzer. The forward
looking device was called the scanning electro-
static analyzer while the backward looking device
was called the scanning electron spectrometer.
The former measured positive ions and electrons,
the latter only electrons.
The importance of investigating the interaction
of ..the solar wind with the planets and the
variation of the wind with distance inside the
orbit of Venus was evidenced by the large team of
investigators selected from seven research organi-
zations for this experiment.
The solar wind is an extension of the Sun's
corona into interplanetary space. It is a fully
ionized gas which consists of equal numbers of
positively charged par~icles (mostly protons) and
negative electrons. This ionized gas or plasma
moves radially outward from the Sun at a very
high velocity, hundreds of kilometers per second.
The magnetic field of the Sun is carried outward
by the plasma and is bent into a spiral configura-
tion by a combination of the radial motion of the
plasma and the rotation of the Sun. If one thinks
of the plasma as a hot, ionized gas, the ions and
electrons have two sorts of motions: a bulk
velocity because they are both streaming outward
from the Sun, and a thermal velocity because the
gas is hot. For the protons, the bulk velocity is
much higher, about a factor of 10, than the
(b)
average thermal velocity; for electrons, the Fig. 3-5. A magnetometer experiment used two three-axis
situation is exactly reversed. To an · observer on sensors mounted on a long boom extending from the
the spacecraft, the positive ions appear to come spacecraft. Two sensors were used to isolate the magnetic
almost directly from the Sun, whereas the field of the spacecraft itself: (a) shows one of the sensors
mounted on the boom; (b) is a diagram of a sensor.
electrons come almost uniformly from all direc-
tions. To study the properties of the plasma, the
combined experiments were mounted at the end carried on the boom were triaxial fl.uxgate
of a short boom, on a platform which allowed the magnetometers. Each sensor was protected from
plasma experiment to scan right or left through direct solar radiation by a sunshade and a
an angle of 60 deg above and below the thermal blanket. The purpose of the two sensors
spacecraft- Sun line. was to permit the simultaneous measurement (at
different distances from the spacecraft) of the
magnetic field , which is the sum of the weak
magnetic field in space (and near the planets)
MagnetiC Field Experiment and the magnetic field of the spacecraft itself. The
inboard magnetometer, being approximately
The magnetic field experiment consisted of two twice as close to the spacecraft as the outboard
3-axis sensors located at different positions along sensor, was more sensitive to changes in the
a 6.I-m (20-ft ) boom. Figure 3-5 shows a magnetic field of the spacecraft, with the result
magnetometer mounted on the boom, together that these perturbations could be isolated and
with a cutaway view of a sensor. The two sensors removed from the outboard sensor measurements.

23
 In interplanetary space, the magnetic field is
typically about 6 gamma (compared with the
strength at Earth 's equator on the surface of
30,000 gamma). By contrast, the field of the
spacecraft, as measured at the outboard sensor,
was observed to vary in direction and intensity
quite considerably during the mission, swinging
from 1 to 4 gamma. This variation in the
spacecraft field demonstrated the importance of
having two sensors to remove the spacecraft field
from the measured field. In addition to the
planetary observations, magnetic field observa-
tions were important in studying how the inter-
planetary plasma varies with distance from the
Sun and how this plasma moves outward from
the Sun. The measurements of plasma and
magnetic fields were mutually supporting, and
their correlation was an important and sensitive
test of consistency between the two scientific
instruments.
Fig. 3-6. Charged particles accelerated to high energies were
detected by two high-energy particle telescopes. This
experiment was designed to determine how the solar wind
interacts with the planets.
Charged Particles

This experiment was designed to observe high- The high-energy telescope detected electrons in
energy charged particles-atomic nuclei-over a the range 200 KeV (thousand electron volts) to
wide range in energy and atomic number. The 30 MeV, protons of energy greater than 0.55
instrument had two parts, a main telescope and a MeV, and uniquely detected alpha particles with
low-energy telescope, both mounted on the body energy greater than 40 MeV. Both telescopes were
of the spacecraft. During cruise the charged able to detect energetic nuclei of atomic numbers
particle experiment measured solar and galactic up to oxygen.
cosmic rays with the objective of determining the The telescopes were very similar to those flown
effect of the Sun's extended atmosphere (helio- in Pioneer 10 and 11 to the outer Solar System. In
sphere) on cosmic rays coming into the Solar fact, when Mariner reached Mercury for a first
System from elsewhere in the galaxy. During encounter, Pioneer 10 was more than five times
encounter with Mercury, the experiment was to the distance of the Earth from the Sun and
search for charged particles in the vicinity of Pioneer 11 3.5 times the distance from the Sun.
Mercury. The effect of solar flares on the flux of Thus the three spacecraft provided an unprece-
charged particles was correlated with measure- dented range of radial measurements of the
ments made from Pioneer spacecraft in the inner modulation of the cosmic ray flux by the
and outer Solar System as well as IMP (Interplan- heliosphere.
etary Monitoring Platform) spacecraft circling the
Earth to determine how solar particles propagate
in interplanetary space. The instrument is shown
in Fig. 3-6. The two telescopes looked 45 to 50 Extreme Ultraviolet
deg west of the line from spacecraft to the Sun,
with a 70-deg field of view. The low-energy This experiment consisted of two independent
telescope allowed the separate detection of instruments: a fixed solar-looking occultation
relatively low-energy protons in the range 0.4 to 9 spectrometer, mounted on the body of the
Me V (million electron volts) and alpha particles spacecraft, and an airglow instrument, mounted
(helium nuclei) in the range 1.6 to 25 MeV. on the scan platform. The aim of the experiment

24
 was to analyze planetary atmospheres, and, These elements were selected for study on the
during cruise, to measure distribution of hydrogen basis of theoretical prediction of the most likely
and helium Lyman-alpha radiation emanating constituents of the presumably tenuous atmos-
from outside the Solar System. phere of Mercury.
The search for an atmosphere on Mercury The occultation spectrometer (Fig. 3-7) was set
represented a primary scientific objective of this to be responsive at four spectral bands, centered
experiment. The extreme ultraviolet spectrometers. at 475, 740, 810, and 890 angstroms, where the
provided two approaches to this search. The first relatively high solar ultraviolet intensity and the
observed the occultation of the Sun by the disc of large absorption cross section of all gases in this
Mercury; the other scanned through the atmos- spectral region would combine to provide highly
phere on both bright and dark limbs in search of sensitive measurements of the atmosphere of
emission from the neutral constituents hydrogen, Mercury, independent of its composition.
helium, carbon, oxygen, argon and neon, at The airglow experiment (Fig. 3-8), in addition
wavelengths ranging from 304 to 1659 angstroms. to providing a measurement of the relative

Fig. 3-7. Radiation from the planets in extreme ultraviolet (b)

provides information about certain gases such as hydrogen Fig. 3-8. The second ultraviolet instrument, an airglow
and helium in each planet's atmosphere. An ultraviolet experiment, looked for radiation from the planet directly,
experiment made use of two independent instruments. An scanning through the atmosphere on both bright and dark
occultation spectrometer, shown here, observed the occultation limbs to search for atmospheric gases. Shown here are (a) a
of the Sun by Mercury to probe for a Hermian atmosphere. photograph of the instrument and (b) a cutaway view.

25

L...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
abundances of the constituents sought in the
atmosphere of Mercury, also made important FIRST TV
observations at Venus and during the cruise phase PICTURES
OF VENUS
between the planets. The angular dimension of RADIO BEAMS
the field of view of the air glow instrument was TOANO FROM
EARTH THROUGH
selected to allow resolution to about one scale ATMOSPHERE
height of the heaviest expected atmospheric
constituent at the limb of the planet (argon),
thereby providing data on the structure as well as
the composition of the planetary atmosphere.

Celestial Mechanics and Radio Science

.These experiments relied upon mathematical

analysis of the radio signals coming from the
spacecraft, based upon radio tracking of the
spacecraft and analysis of the effects of the
planetary atmospheres on the radio signal.
TO SUN
In the celestial mechanics experiment the mass
and gravitational characteristics of both Mercury
MARINER 10
and Venus were to be determined from the effect MOTION
of each planet on the predicted trajectory of the RELATIVE
TO VENUS
spacecraft. These data would also provide esti-
mates of the internal composition and density of
the planets. Fi g. 3-9. As Mariner passed behind the planet as seen from
Earth, its radio waves were interrupted by the bulk of the
The occultation experiment (Fig. 3-9) observed planet and also by its atmosphere. Changes to the radio
changes to the radio waves from the spacecraft waves provided details of the atmosphere and ionosphere of
transmitter as they passed through the atmos- Venus and searched for atmospheric effects on Mercury.
phere of Venus and Mercury en route to the
Earth-based receivers as Mariner passed behind
the planets as viewed from Earth. planetary medium than IS obtainable with a
Gases in an atmosphere refract and scatter a single frequency.
radio signal, and by measuring these effects
scientists can calculate the pressure and tempera-
ture of the atmosphere. The presence of an
ionosphere is revealed by its special effects upon Television Experiment
the characteristics of the radio signal. The cutoff
of the radio signal as it grazes the surface of the The television system centered around two
planet provides a measurement for accurately vidicon cameras, each equipped with an eight-
determining the radius of the planet. Because the position filter wheel. The vidicons were attached
thick atmosphere of Venus bends the radio signaJ to telescopes mounted on a scan platform that
and traps it in a path around the planet, the high- allowed movement in vertical and horizontal
gain antenna of Mariner was steered along the directions for precise targeting on the planetary
limb to compensate for the expected bending so surfaces. These folded optics (Cassegrain) tele-
as to allow deeper penetration of the radio waves scopes were required to provide narrow-angle,
through the atmosphere. The experiment used high-resolution photography (Fig. 3-10). They
two frequencies to provide more accurate infor- were powerful enough for newspaper classified
mation about Venus's atmosphere and the inter- ads to be read from a distance of 400 meters (a

26
I -
I

I
quarter of a mile). An auxiliary optical system These analog signals produced from the vidicon
mounted on each camera allowed the acquisition readout process were electronically digitized as
of a wide-angle, lower-quality image. Changing to 832 discrete dots or picture elements (pixels) per
the wide-angle photography was done by moving scan line, and presented to the flight data system
a mirror on the filter wheel to a position in the in the form of 8-bit elements for transmission.
optical path of the auxiliary system. Each TV frame - one picture- consisted of 700 of
these vidicon scan lines. All timing and control
In addition to wide-angle capability, the filter signals, such as frame start, line start/stop, frame
wheels included blue bandpass filters, ultraviolet erase, shutter open/close, and filter wheel step,
polarizing filters, minus ultraviolet high-pass were provided by the systems on board the
filters, clear apertures, ultraviolet bandpass filters, spacecraft.
defocussing lenses for calibration, and yellow The television experiment had the objectives of
bandpass filters. providing data to permit the following scientific
A shutter blade controlled the exposure of the studies of Mercury: gross physiography, radius
9.8- by 12.3-mm image face of the vidicon for an and shape of the planet, morphology of local
interval that could be varied from 3 msec to 12 features, rotation and cartography, photometric
sec. The light image formed on the photosensitiv~ properties, and regional color differences. For
surface of the vidicon produced an electrostatic Venus the experiment aimed at obtaining data on
charge proportional to the relative brightness of the visual cloud structure, scale and stratification,
points within the image. During vidicon readout, and the ultraviolet markings and their structure
an electron beam scanned the back side of the and motions. The television experiment also
vidicon and neutralized part of the charge so as to searched for satellites of Mercury and Venus and
produce electric current variations proportional to was used for targets of opportunity such as Comet
the point charge being scanned at the time. Kohoutek.

Fig. 3-10. The imaging experiment relied upon twin Cassegrain

telescopes to focus magnified images of the planets on
vidicons. This provided high-resolution imaging of the planetary
clouds and surfaces.

27
Chapter 4
Spacecraft,
Scientists,
and Schedules

l.S-HOUR LAUNCH WINDOW on Novem- imaging science. To meet these constraints the TV
A ber 2, 1973 (November 3, on the East
Coast), provided the best science data return
imaging system had to be redesigned, and there
were demands for real-time return of data at
possibility for the mission. Although there were satisfactory error rates. For example, while
opportunities in other years, the 1973 opportunity detailed analysis had shown that TV imaging
offered one of the lowest launch energies to swing could accept relatively high rates of bit errors
by Venus and subsequently encounter Mercury. (about 1 in 50) and still produce high-resolution
When the project was formally initiated in pictures of suitable quality, the other science
December 1969, four years were available to plan experiments had to be assured of very low bit
and implement this complex new interplanetary error rates (about I in 10,000). To constrain the
mission: the first use of gravity-assist and the first TV system to such low bit error rates would have
two-planet mission to be undertaken by the considerably reduced the number of TV images
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. and made it impossible to produce a full-disc,
Not only was the mission under tight cost high-resolution mosaic of Mercury during the
constraints that demanded use of new manage- short period available for TV imaging during the
ment philosophies, but also some significant night-side pass. The solution to this conflict was
changes had to be made to the earlier Mariner the implementation of a two-channel, indepen-
spacecraft to meet the special requirements of the dently commandable data stream, using a new
Venus-Mercury mission. form of carrier modulation devised for this
Scientists, too, were constrained in their experi- purpose by lPL 's telecommunications engineers.
ments- the rule was to achieve maximum science Several activities connected with the design of
for minimum new development. Since there were the spacecraft produced conflicts of requirements
options on the flyby path at Mercury encounter, to meet the objectives of the mission. Quick and
conflicts in the demands of scientists arose from satisfactory resolution of these conflicts was a
science opportunities offered by these different continuing challenge to the management of the
modes. The mode finally selected, passage on the program, which had to meet the tight schedule
night side, provided good conditions for nonimag- and yet still keep costs within the budget
ing science return but was the worst situation for limitations.

29
Upgraded Spacecraft Capability Sai l vs V-Ti lt Solar Panels

A decision to increase the size of the nitrogen On Mariner spacecraft the thousands of solar
gas tank, thereby increasing the amount of cells that convert sunlight into electrical energy
reaction control gas from the 2.45 kg (5.4 lb) were mounted on the face of flat rectangular
used by Mariner Mars 1971 to 3.62 kg (8.0 lb) panels extending like wings from the spacecraft.
for Mariner Venus/Mercury was made early, Since the new spacecraft had to travel from the
principally to accommodate predicted worst-case orbit of the Earth to that of Mercury, its solar cell
effects of solar pressure on the appendages and to energy-gathering system had to accommodate to
allow for total depletion of one of the redundant the change of nearly 5 times in the amount of
halves of the gas system by a valve failure early in solar radiation that would be received . Early
the mission. Without this change, there would not studies by JPL and Boeing concluded that the
have been sufficient reaction control gas- a best way to keep the solar panels at the right
margin of 0.91 kg (2 lb) was provided- to allow temperature of about 100°C (2 12°F), while still
the extended mission, which added so much to providing a fa irly constant power output from
the science coverage at Mercury by three encoun- them into the spacecraft electrical system and also
ters with the planet. meeting the weight constraints, would be to
Originally the spacecraft was to be capable of a
maneuvering velocity change of 56 m/sec (184 ftl
sec). By using an improved propulsion unit,
incorporating a larger tank used on the Pioneer
10 and 11 spacecraft, the final capability of the
spacecraft was more than doubled, to 122 m/ sec
(401 ftlsec). Again, this made possible the
multiple encounters with Mercury.
The solar panels, originally specified as being of
a fixed tilt of 60 deg, were, in the final spacecraft
design, capable of an independent variable tilt,
from 0 to 76 deg, on command from the ground.
This capability was eventually used for "solar
sailing" which , as it turned out, made the
extended rrllssion possible when trouble devel-
oped in the gyro system. The original two-
position , low-gain antenna was upgraded to
provide three positions on command, allowing
communication with Earth following first encoun-
ter. Moreover, the final articulation pointing
system of Mariner Venus/Mercury was much
improved over the original scan system based on
the Mariner Mars 1971 design. High-gain an-
tenna articulation was increased from one to two
degrees of freedom to permit transmitting to
Earth at all times instead of just at Venus and the
first Mercury encounter. All elements controlled
by the subsystem-the scan platform, high-gain
antenna, and solar panels- could be pointed to
within 0.35 deg and their positions reported back
to the flight data system for telemetry to Earth
within 0.1 deg in the position mode. In the
Fig. 4-1 . One method of safeguarding the solar panels from
incremental mode the subsystem po itioned the overheating as Mariner approached closer to the Sun was to
scan platform within 0.075 deg. tilt them into a V-configuration.

30
 would be simpler, and the solar panel tempera-
tures would also be lower at high angles of tilt. In
addition, this design permitted the mounting of
the roll/yaw cold gas jets at the ends of the sails,
providing added leverage for their thrust. Accord-
ingly, the sail configuration was recommended by
Boeing in August 1971 , and was accepted by
Project management at JPL.

Protecting the Rocket Engine From

the Sun

Another problem arising from the close ap-

proach to the Sun was protecting the maneuver-
ing rocket engine from direct solar radiation and
preventing the conduction of solar heat from the
engine into the octagonal equipment compart-
ment. Earlier studies had concluded that the
preferred direction of the rocket nozzle should be
toward the Sun during the cruise phase of
Mariner operations.
The basic configuration proposed by Boeing at
the time of contract award made use of a thermal
door over the rocket nozzle to minimize the effects
of solar radiation. But this door imposed a
reliability problem if it should fail in either an
open or a closed position. If the door remained
open it would allow the propulsion subsystem to
overheat. If, on the other hand, the door failed to
Fig. 4-2. Alternatively, they could be rotated away from the
open and remained closed it would be blown off
Sun along the long axis. This was the method chosen the first time the engine fired . Again the space-
because it allowed nitrogen gas thrusters to be mounted at craft would be unprotected and would have to
the tips of the panels, thus attaining more efficiency in
orienting the spacecraft.
survive the resultant solar heating. Since in both
failure modes spacecraft survival without the door
would be necessary, engineers took a new look at
the true effectiveness of the rocket engine door to
articulate or tilt the olar panels as the spacecraft ascertain whether or not it could be eliminated
approached the Sun. Furthermore, after consider- from the spacecraft design.
ing two ways of tilting the panels, a V-tilt was The main parts of the propulsion system that
chosen (Fig . 4-\). However, as the project had to be safeguarded from solar overheating
developed, it was discovered that V-tilt might were the propellant tank, the valve that controlled
lead to unacceptable thermal input to the bus and the flow of propellant to the rocket thrust
the instruments mounted on the platform, so a chamber, and the thrust vector control actuator.
study was started to compare V-tilt and rotatable Engineers at Boeing used a computer thermal
(" sail") configuration. model of the propulsion unit and found that with
The study concluded that even though the suitable modifications the engine could survive
structures and mechanisms needed for a sail solar heating without a door.
configuration (Fig. 4-2) were more complicated, The modified design ensured that radiation
weighed more, and would cost more than those entering the sunward-facing nozzle would be
for a V-tilt, scan platform temperature control radiated into space from the thrust plate and from

31
 the inner surface of the nozzle. The plan was that
surfaces of the thrust plate and the thrust vector
control actuator would be coated with a paint
that emitted heat readily, while the outer nozzle
surface and the inner surface of the thrust vector
control actuator support were polished to reflect
radiant heat from the inner nozzle. Finally, the
propellant tanks and lines were protected by
multiple layers of insulation.
Although the engineering analysis indicated
that it was theoretically safe to eliminate the door,
engineers decided that the consequences of such a
decision were so far-reaching that a practical test
had to be made. Accordingly, high priority was
given to a verification test in which actual
materials were tried out under simulated condi-
tions. The theoretical analysis was vindicated, and
the tests confirmed that the engine thermal door
with its attendant problems of reliability could be
eliminated from the flight spacecraft.

Further Protection From the Sun

In addition to solar panels and propulsion

system, many other components of the spacecraft
Fig. 4-3. The flight sunshade proved effective in protecting the
needed protection from solar radiation. At the spacecraft from solar heating generally.
beginning of the program, considerable doubt
existed that Kapton, a commonly employed heat-
protection material, would survive in the antici-
pated environment. Kapton had been suggested was able to recommend that several alternatives
as a replacement to the Teflon used on earlier were indeed available: stainless steel cloth backed
Mariner spacecraft when engineering tests showed by aluminized Kapton; metallic foil of titanium,
that Teflon failed at the intensities of solar stainless steel, or aluminum ; Teflon-coated glass
radiation expected at Mercury. However, Kapton fiber cloth, known as beta cloth, aluminized on
was found to become brittle with long exposure to one side and backed by aluminized Kapton;
temperatures above 354°C (670°F) and also in clear-anodized polished aluminum, known as
the environment of ultraviolet light and protons Alzak; and optical solar reflectors. Project man-
expected sunward of Earth's orbit. agement selected the beta cloth and the clear-
The scientists at Boeing quickly subjected anodized aluminum for more detailed study.
several alternative materials to exhaustive tests at Checks were made to see if the outgasing from
the Boeing Radiation Effects Laboratory. But it the beta cloth and its subsequent loss of weight
was discovered that the tests were inconclusive resulted in deposits on neighboring surfaces and
because of contamination of the material by an what, if any, changes took place to the cloth, such
unidentified substance and because the flux of as discoloration and reaction with other spacecraft
protons was not large enough to simulate the flux materials. The results were that Teflon-coated
at the distance of Mercury. There was no time to glass cloth could be expected to survive the
conduct a further test series, so a working group environment at Mercury encounter. Analysis of
of materials experts from JPL and Boeing sought the beta cloth suitability for the sunshade showed
acceptable alternatives to Kapton. After much that even if the cloth discolored and turned black,
investigation and long working hours the group the sunshade would still function adequately.

32
 The working group therefore selected a foldable stepping with sufficient picture-to-picture and slit-
beta cloth sunshade and suggested that all sunlit to-slit precision for mosaicking and proper UV
thermal blankets used on the spacecraft should scanning.
have an outer layer of beta cloth also.
Two flight sunshades and a backup unit (Fig.
4-3) were therefore designed and fabricated. The
use of foldable designs resulted in the project 's Fine Tuning for Encounter
being able to make good use of existing hardware
that had demonstrated reliability for deploying Once the spacecraft was placed on a trajectory
sunshades in space, but because of the increased to Venus, and when this trajectory had been
weight of the beta cloth, some modifications were accurately determined by traCking, controllers had
needed to strengthen deployment springs and the to fine-tune the trajectory to get a more precise
deployment assem bly generally. Venus encounter that would lead to the minimum
use of propellant to fly by Mercury at the correct
time , distance, and orbital inclination. Such
trajectory correction maneuvers (four were
planned but only three were actually needed
Making Sure the Spacecraft Obeyed during the flight to the two planets, five more for
Commands the subsequent returns to Merc~ry) relied upon
the spacecraft's being oriented accurately in space
Whereas future interplanetary spacecraft will by command and then provided with a given
have a redundant central computer and sequencer thrust for a known period of time in a definite
that provides alternative paths, Mariner Venus/ direction. The spacecraft carried a main propul-
Mercury had only one computer and sequencer. A sion system for this purpose.
backup command capability had to be provided
through the flight command unjt that would not The Mariner Venus/Mercury main propulsion
leave the articulation and pointing system suscep- system was a modified Mariner Mars 1969 design,
tible to command errors. This system pointed the but by the spring of 1971 additional velocity
high-gain antenna and controlled the scan control change requirements were imposed on this pro-
subsystem for directing both the TV and ultravio- pulsion system by mission planners. More propel-
let instruments at the target planet. The impact of lant had to be carried aboard the spacecraft, and
an incorrect command on the scan platform was a larger storage tank was needed. The one used
unacceptable since it would take too long to on Pioneer 10 and 11 was chosen. By 1973,
detect back on Earth and issue a correcting Boeing, which contracted with JPL to produce the
command. new propellant subsystem, had delivered a
subsystem mockup and, just over a month later, a
After considerable debate and test activity on development test model of the new subsystem.
different designs, it was decided to use both a The choice of a "blowdown" design, wherein the
position mode and an incremental mode design. driving gas pressure on the propellant is allowed
Thus an injtial position in a typical scan sequence to diminish from firing to firing, was a major
would be commanded by position commands, departure from earlier Mariners and represented
and then the following frames of a photomosaic a first for this class of spacecraft. Another change
would be acquired by incremental updates. These was made later when the Skylab program
joint modes obviated problems of storage of experienced difficulties with thrusters, which had
sufficient position commands for a complete oxidizer valves and valve inlet fittings identical to
mosaic sequence, while at the same time they those on Mariner Venus/Mercury. The time was
ensured that should a command be in error the August 1973, only three months before scheduled
scan platform would be returned to a correct launch of Mariner. Propulsion engineers reworked
position for a subsequent sequence with loss of the subsystem and replaced valve inlet fittings.
only part of the encounter sequence, and not all Propellant loading was completed with only six
of it. Also, most important, the incremental days left before the scheduled time for installation
command mode was required to allow fine in the spacecraft.

33
Test, Test, and Test Again Viscous boost dampers had to be developed for
the solar panels as well as for the magnetometer
Interplanetary spacecraft must be reliable. Once boom to prevent the two systems from banging
the spacecraft has been launched into space, a together during the launch. The objectives of this
failure cannot be repaired. The spacecraft must development program were to verify that the
either carry a redundant part to replace a failed damping force would meet the requirements for
part, or controllers must devise ways to complete the spacecraft over the operational range of
the mission by working around the failed part. vibration frequencies, and to develop assembly
Because many parts of a spacecraft are critical- techniques for the magnetometer boom damper.
their failure could be catastrophic- the whole During the development program, both dampers
process of designing and building and launching a were subjected to small- and large-amplitude
spacecraft is accompanied by test upon test upon vibration testing at many frequencies. These tests
test. were successful and showed that the dampers
For example, the high-gain antenna required would safeguard the solar panels and the magne-
considerable development to meet the perform- tometer boom.
ance requirements of Mariner Venus/Mercury, A development test fixture was used to verify
especially for the distant Mercury encounter. that the release mechanism exerted sufficient force
Every microwatt of transmitted power was re- to unlatch the solar panels and the other
quired at Mercury to get the many pictures back deployable structures and that there were ade-
to Earth during the short period of the encounter. quate forces to move all these systems into flight
When a new combined S- and X-band feed was position at the required rate. The test fixture was
installed on the antenna dish it was found that also used to test the structural strength of the
the expected gain from the antenna was below solar panels and other assemblies to make sure
that required for the 1220-mm (48-in.) diameter that they would be capable of withstanding the
antenna. After considerable effort to increase the
gain, the decision had to be made to increase the
diameter of the reflector to 1370 mm (54 in.) to
obtain the required effective radiated power.
Similarly, development testing of the articula-
tion and pointing system took place during July
and August of 1972 to confirm that the backlash
and stiffness of each movable unit were accepta-
ble, to make sure that sufficient reserve of power
was available to move the various actuators, and
to check on the positional accuracy with which
the scan platforms could be moved. Checks were
also made to ascertain that these various movable
elements could be unlatched from their stowed
position and would reliably lock up in their
operating positions.
During these tests some problems were encoun-
tered in locking up the dish of the high-gain
antenna, resulting in the requirement that the
lockup pin be changed. Later, these same devel-
opment tests (Fig. 4-4) were repeated on the two
flight spacecraft, and all functions were found to
be satisfactory.
A most critical item to the success of the
mission was the solar panel system, since if these
panels did not move from the stowed to the
Fig. 4-4. Many development tests were performed on the
operating position, the spacecraft would be spacecraft to ensure that it would meet all performance
starved of electrical energy and could not operate. specifications.

34
forces exerted during launch. Reliable operation As the program progressed, extensive testing
was demonstrated after several modifications had took place with the developmental test model of
been completed. Since the appendages mounted the spacecraft, which was subjected to high- and
on booms had to deploy in the weightless or zero- low-frequency vibrations and to acoustical inputs
g condition of flight through space, other tests (" noise") of various frequencies (Fig. 4- 5). All
were performed to simulate the zero-g condition. the structures and mechanisms tested were either
As a result of these tests it was necessary to flight hardware or flightlike hardware, except for
reduce the rate at which the low-gain antenna the high-gain antenna reflector and some other
deployed, to modify the high-gain antenna's minor components which were simulated. Thus it
latching mechanism by adding a kickoff spring to was shown that the spacecraft and all its
the boom release, and to develop a special tool subsystems could withstand the vibrational
for the assembly of the restraint mechanism for stresses of the large rocket engines of the launch
the plasma science experiment. vehicle. Test results agreed closely with the
calculated effects of vibration. No failures or
excessive deformations were observed during any
development test model vibration testing, nor
Fig. 4-5. The spacecraft was also vibration-tested to make during the test firing of pyrotechnic charges on
sure that it could survive the stress of launching by the big
rocket booster.

35
the spacecraft to release structures from launch The final series of tests began when the flight
stowage to the cruise positions. The subsystems of spacecraft was subjected to rigorous solar thermal
the Mariner Venus/Mercury spacecraft had been vacuum conditions in the space simulator at JPL
certified with a clean bill of health to ride in the (Fig. 4-9), where testing simulated the harsh sol~r
launch vehicle to interplanetary speeds. environment that the spacecraft must expect as It
The spacecraft was also tested rigorously to speeds into the inner Solar System. Th.e spacecraft
determine its ability to survive the thermal stress was again tested to make sure that Its perform-
of the inner Solar System (Fig. 4-6), the degrada- ance met all specifications, followed by further
tion of external surfaces by the environment of tests to ensure that it was compatible with the
space, and hot-firing of the rocket engine. The Deep Space Network and the Mission Operations
high-gain antenna was also tested for its ability to System. These tests at JPL occupied most of July
perform when exposed to the intensity of nearly 1973, and the spacecraft came through them ~ith
five suns' radiation (Fig. 4-7). flying colors. There were, as expected, some mmor
Successful deployment of the sunshade was glitches and some differences in the actual
critical to the success of the mission to Mercury. If temperature experienced at equivalents of 1, 2,
it failed to open and shield the spacecraft, the and 4.8 suns, but these were within tolerances,
intense solar heat would damage the electronic and the spacecraft was considered ready for
and scientific equipment. To establish confidence launch.
in the concept used for deployment of the
sunshade, a development test (Fig. 4-8) faced the Meanwhile, at the Eastern Test Range, the
sunshade upward and downward to deploy both backup spacecraft had arrived from Boeing on
against and with the force of gravity. The August 4 and went through a series of tests to
sunshade's deployment was also tested with verify the adequacy of the test procedures and all
broken lanyards, nonsymmetrical solar panel the spacecraft-related equipment that would later
deployment, and broken deployment springs. The be needed for the flight spacecraft on its arrival at
sunshade passed all these tests, showing that it the range.
would deploy under the most severe conditions of
a combination of possible failure s.

Fig. 4-7. The high-gain antenna was tested in a simUlator to

Fig. 4-6. It was also put through rigorous thermal stress tests check whether or not it could withstand the heat of 4.8 suns:
in a simulator at the Boeing plant. the intensity it might have to withstand at Mercury.

36
 Fig. 4-8. Tests are made to find out if the sunshade will deploy when the spacecraft emerges into space. The sunshade had to be
folded up for the launching.

Problems Overcome

As with most complex technical programs,

many problems beset the engineers and scientists
as they developed the new spacecraft. And, as
always, the challenge was to identify and resolve
the problem as quickly and as inexpensively as
possible.
Once, for example, during testing at the Boeing
facility, the radio frequency subsystem lost uplink
lock while operating near threshold. Another
similar unit lost lock while operating during solar
vacuum testing in the test chamber at JPL. Both
units had to be returned to the subcontractor,
where the trouble was corrected by the installa-
tion of a filter in the wiring.
Another problem was identified early during
evaluation tests of the data storage subsystem.
The tape transport failed to start consistently from
the left-hand end of the tape-parking window,
and engineers thought that this might be due to
wear that was caused by low humidity of the
magnetic tape itself. To overcome the difficulty,
the unit was preconditioned prior to shipment to
the launch site. A humidified mixture of argon
and helium was used within the tape transport
while the tape was being run continuously. The
final relative humidity of both the magnetic tape
Fig. 4-9. Final space simulation tests took place at JPL, where and the internal atmosphere of the tape transport
the spacecraft went through a series of exercises under
conditions of vacuum and solar radiation it was expected to was established at the required level. Actual usage
experience in Mercury orbit. of the system in flight exceeded that proposed

37

L...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _
before the flight. Mission playback of both high- shifted the characteristic frequency away from the
and low-rate recorded data was very good, with dangerous region. Subsequent testing during the
low bit error rates. summer of 1974 at the Boeing Company's facility
In December of 1972, the spacecraft battery called for the zero-gravity env.ironment to be
was accidently connected to the attitude control simulated. A special compensation string and
electronics and several electronic modules and support was developed for this. Unfortunately,
harnesses were damaged. Not only had the during one of the deployment tests, the string
damaged modules to be replaced but nearby broke and the boom was dropped. A critical
components had to be checked thoroughly to interface bracket and inboard hinge of the two-
make sure that they, too, had not suffered stress section boom was damaged. A rather frantic
from the accident. Further tests called for rebuilding effort had to take place at Goddard
replacement of more modules, and the rebuilding Space Flight Center to provide another qualified
caused a delay in the spacecraft systems test and tested boom for flight. Much weekend and
which could only be regained by a specially overtime work was demanded and trips to
devised "catchup" test in which the attitude international scientific meetings in August and
control electronics were powered-up continuously September had to be cancelled for the principal
for several days and aU the functions of the investigator but the deadline was met.
subsystem were exercised faster than normally. In
this way the tight schedule for delivery of the
spacecraft to meet the launch window was not
affected. Meeting the Milestones
During design and development of the magne-
tometer boom, it was discovered that intrinsic It is a long hard road (Fig. 4-10) from contract
frequency characteristics would likely interact award in response to a written proposal to the
adversely with the spacecraft during maneuvers, shipment of a finished spacecraft to mate with its
causing dangerous vibrations. As a result, the launch vehicle at the Kennedy Space Center,
engineering group at Goddard Space Flight
Center had to redesign the sensor canisters,
brackets and cable supports. The weight reduction Fig. 4-10. Manufacturing of an interplanetary spacecraft calls
for minute attention to detail, scrupulous cleanliness, and a
seemingly endless test program-all in a tight schedule aimed
at meeting the launch window on time.
Florida. It is a road punctuated by milestone Science Steering Group, conslstlllg of principal
events which must be reached at certain times in investigators and science team leaders, was
order to meet the launch window, predetermined constituted. The emphasis of the Science Steering
by the inexorable movements of planets in their Group was upon interaction of the scientists with
orbits. the project. One example was the design of the
The planets will not wait on human failure. telemetry system with regard to the allocation of
Men have to work and produce and be ready the rate at which information would be transmit-
with their space machines on time, or the whole ted from spacecraft to Earth. In negotiating with
effort is in vain and the opportunity for an the experimenters early during the project, the
interplanetary mission is lost. Often the opportu- scientific experiments and their interfaces with the
nity is not repeated for decades, sometimes spacecraft flight data subsystem were discussed.
centuries. A special breed of men and a special
In one meeting of the Science Steering Group
type of human endeavor are required to meet the
at JPL, the principal investigators got together
requirements of space missions. with the project staff and allocated the two
Management of a planetary mission requires planned bit rates of 2450 and 490 among the
the discipline of control of each major effort in the various experiments. This was the time at which
program. It must define accurately the events, the need for a lower bit rate was identified
activities, and resources necessary to reach objec- because the higher rate could not be accommo-
tives on time and within budgets. Responsibility dated during the extended mission on the 26-m
for all tasks has to be clearly defined. (85-ft) antenna net. The range of rates needed
Major milestones in a program master schedule was from 1050 bits/sec for magnetometer experi-
provide key dates from which detailed schedules ments to only 33 bits/sec for the infrared
for work units are derived. With Mariner Venus/ radiometer. There were some conflicting require-
Mercury, many formal progress reviews took ments aired at the meeting, but these were all
place, keyed to program events that earlier had resolved through mutual understandings and
been identified as major indicators of progress discussions.
significant in previous planetary efforts. Free
communications on program matters speeded Another example was the quick recognition that
management decisions when corrective actions not only did bit rates differ for the different
were needed to keep the program on schedule. experiments but also the quality of data needed
Considerable emphasis was placed on early for the TV experiment was quite different from
identification and reporting of problems. Special the nonimaging science. Whereas the latter could
technical sessions followed each regular monthly accept only very low bit rate errors, the photo
program review and identified problems needing scientists could obtain images of usable quality at
solutions. In June 1972, Boeing instituted a high bit error rates, thereby obtaining more
weekly log prepared by the work unit personnel pictures at higher transmission rates.
in each area of activity and summarized in a The imaging experimenters also needed the
weekly problem report. When the test phase of flight data system to have the capability to
the program was reached, daily meetings were command a quick change from high to low
held with test and operations people. But in all transmission rates or vice versa depending on
this activity the basic premise was that the success inspection of the quality of the incoming pictures
of the project depended upon men and women, in real-time. The result was that it was decided to
not upon management systems. Dedicated people decouple the imaging science data from the
were supported by good communications to top nonimaging science data by the use of separate
management. high and low data rate channels. Dr. Stan
Butman at JPL designed a special modulation
scheme, termed interplex modulation, which
permitted decoupling of two data transmission
Science Coordination rates. The allocation of power in two subcarriers
was changed so that a cross modulation channel
Following selection of the experiments to be could be used to carry the lower data rate
flown on Mariner Venus/Mercury, the Project subcarrier.

40
 Another major interaction between scientists ters, these error-free data were available to the
and engineers was in regard to the placement of investigators within a few hours. During the cruise
instruments on the spacecraft to provide suitable mode, where time was not so important, the data
fields of view necessary for the science experi- were made available within I to 2 weeks.
ments. Several months after the start of spacecraft All principal investigators met the schedules for
design at Boeing, the locations of all instruments delivery of their science instruments, although
were changed in order to better satisfy require- there were some anxious times. A low-energy
ments of scientists for the fields of view of their telescope was added to the particle experiment to
instruments. The Canopus tracker's 30-deg offset extend the lower bound of charged particle
resulted from this rearrangement. measurements and to permit low-energy protons
Thus, in the early phases of spacecraft design, to be detected in the presence of low-energy
there was much interaction among JPL divisions electrons. Changes were made to the plasma
and project staff, the Boeing Company, and the science experiment, which originally proposed a
principal investigators, separately and as a science body-fixed triaxial detector to look in an antisolar
group- this interaction being aimed toward de- direction. This instrument was deleted at the 'time
signing a spacecraft that would really do the of selection to reduce cost. Later, at the suggestion
exploratory job assigned to it and do the job well. of the plasma experimenter, a single-axis instru-
Costs of the science experiments were also ment was added to the scan package at no
rigorously controlled. additional cost. This was fortunate because the
There was a very strong interaction between main instrument on the scanning platform failed
the project and the principal investigators in because of a stuck protective door, and the only
defining the data records and detailed planning plasma data were obtained with the add-on unit.
on how these records would be obtained during A third addition following initial selection of
the mission. Originally, it was planned to use the science instruments was the wide-angle filter that
real-time data from the stations and to generate was added to the television optics in order to
the master data record from this real-time data . allow the search for structure in Venus's visible
and a log tape called the system data record. clouds. The path by Venus was from the planet's
When this pl,an was examined more closely with dark side, so the only good phase angle views
the principal investigators, it was ascertained that between spacecraft, planet, and Sun suitable for
the amount of data recovery would, from a cloud analysis would be around closest approach.
percentage point of view, be very high: on the But at closest approach the high-resolution
order of 95%. But with the help of people who cameras of Mariner would show only a very small
had done systems analysis of data returned from area of clouds, much smaller 'than the scale of the
the Pioneer 10 spacecraft to Jupiter, it was found searched-for features, and thus a wide-angle
that the way in which the errors were distributed capability was required.
in the real-time link was such that there would be
uninterrupted error-free data for brief periods of
only a few minutes. At other times, the data Preparing for Launch
would contain errors. So the design of the data
system was completely changed- the original data Before launch, during the summer of 1973, an
record as recorded at the DSN station was to be almost true-to-life launch was simulated and
flown to JPL and merged with the system data carried off at the Mission Control and Computing
record obtained in real-time over the ground data Center at JPL (Fig. 4-11). Members of the
links to produce a relatively error-free master data
record from which the scientific data would be
Fig. 4-11. During the summer of 1973 an almost true-to-life
supplied to the experimenters. During the encoun- launch was simulated by computers, P.ersonnel to be involved
in the mission were trained in this way for the actual mission
operations,
 l

mISSIOn operations system team spent 'hours of Fig. 4-12. On arrival at Kennedy Space Center the spacecraft
faced another series of prelaunch tests: (a) system test in the
intense concentration as the various teams went AO hanger; (b) a computer operator supports the system
through the exercise of a mock launch and initial testing; and (c) the complex of computers and recording
collection of data from the simulated flight. This instruments keeps watch over the spacecraft and records the
results of all the tests.
exercise tried out all the ground systems needed
to support the spacecraft on its long mission.
Meanwhile, the Mariner Venus/Mercury space-
craft was shipped from the Boeing plant on
Friday, June 30, 1973, to JPL, where it went
through exhaustive tests in the solar simulator, as
discussed above. The spacecraft left the Labora-
tory in early August in carefully packed sections
aboard a convoy of specially equipped vans en
route to Florida by road. It arrived at the Air
Force Eastern Test Range at Cape Kennedy on
August 11 , 1973, and was placed in Building
AO's spacecraft checkout area for final verifica-
tion tests. In providing launch operations, the
John F. Kennedy Space Center handles schedul-
ing of test milestones and review of data to assure
that the launch vehicle has met all of its test
requirements and is ready for launch.
Atlas / Centaur 34 was erected on Complex 36's
Pad B in July 1973. The flight spacecraft was
moved into the Explosive Safe Facility on
September 25 for installation of ordnance and
loading of its hypergolic propellant. It was
encapsulated for mating with its launch vehicle in
mid-October.
A flight events demonstration test took place
successfully during the third week of October to
assure ~hat the space vehicle was electrically ready
for final launch preparations. The test included
running the computer and programmer through
post-launch events and monitoring the data to
assure correct response to all signals when the
umbilical was ejected.
About 10 days before the planned launch, the
spacecraft was mated with Atlas/Centaur and
further electrical tests were conducted (Fig. 4-12).
The Composite Electrical Readiness Test for the
overall space vehicle took place a few days prior
to launch to verify the ability of the launch
vehicle-spacecraft combination to go through
post-liftoff events. Range support elements partici-
pated along with the spacecraft and launch
vehicle just as during a launch.
The launch (T)- 1 day functional test involved
final preparation in getting vehicle and support
ready for launch, preparing ground support
equipment, completing readiness procedures, and

42
 (c)

installing ordnance on the launch vehicle (Fig.

4-13 ). The countdown was picked up at T -600
min. All systems were checked against readiness
procedures, establishing the integrity of the
vehicle and ground support equipment interface
prior to removing the tower at T - 120 min.
Cryogenic propellants of liquid oxygen and liquid
hydrogen began to flow into the launch vehicle's
tanks at T - 100 min, culminating in complete
vehicle readiness at T - 1 min. The terminal count
began with monitoring all systems and topping off
the venting propellant and purge systems. At
T - 10 sec, the automatic release sequence was
Fig. 4-13. At last Mariner Venus/ Mercury, within its protective
initiated and the space vehicle was cleared for shroud, is hoisted up the gantry lor mating with the Atlas/
liftoff. Centaur launch vehicle.

43
 Chapter 5
Venus Bound
Success and Near Failure

F OR BEST SCIENCE RETURN , the space-

craft had to be launched during a short, 1.5-
hour "window" on November 2, 1973. All had to
be ready: people, electronics, a worldwide opera-
tion- men and women at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, at tracking stations
around the world, at the launch center at Cape
Kennedy where the gleaming spacecraft protected
by polished thermal blankets rested securely
within the shroud atop the Atlas/Centaur on
Launch Complex 36B.
All was ready for the epic mission to explore
Mercury, closest planet to the Sun, mothlike
orbiter in the solar glare; the final countdown had
proceeded without a hitch . Then, at 12:45 a.m.
Eastern Time, within a few thousandths of a
second of the scheduled launch time, Atlas/
Centaur No. 34 blossomed into life as its triple
engines turned night into day at the launch
complex and pounded the eardrums of observers
outside the blockhouse. Mankind's first explorer
of the planet Mercury was on its way (Fig. 5-1).
For about 15 seconds Atlas/Centaur 34 rose
vertically, then began its programmed pitch along
its path toward space. Exactly as scheduled, the
outer engines of the Atlas lost their fiery exhaust
trails at just over two minutes after liftoff and

Fig. 5-1 . Within a few thousandths of a second of the opening

of the launch window, Mariner was sent on its way to
Mercury: November 2, 1973, 9:45 p.m. PST.

45
were jettisoned. Almost two minutes later the fire There were some problems. The two thermal
also died in the main engine. The Centaur upper strap-heaters surrounding the aluminum lens
stage flew free of the Atlas bulk, as an explosive barrels of the cameras were designed to hold the
charge sliced through the interstage adapter and camera system at a temperature of 4 to 15°C (40
retro rockets slowed the spent booster preparatory to 60°F). But they failed to operate as program-
to its tumbling back into the Atlantic Ocean. med following launch. Mission controllers, watch-
Within 12 seconds of Atlas engine cutoff, the ing the engineering data coming back to the
bright nucleus of the Centaur's twin engines Mission Operations Center, saw that the heaters
blossomed in the night sky, to burn fiercely for 5.1 were not activated. Quickly a command was sent
min to push the spacecraft into Earth parking to the spacecraft to deactivate the heaters and
orbit at an altitude of 188 km (117 mi) and a then to activate them by triggering the relay
speed of 28,046 km/hr ( 17,428 mi/hr). switch, which seemed to have stuck. Nothing
Silently the Centaur and the spacecraft moved happened . The telescopes continued to cool down.
weightless nearly a third of the way around the There was concern that without the heaters
Earth. Again the Centaur's engines erupted into operating the television cameras would cool down
flame, expanding exhaust jets into the vacuum of too much and affect sensitive optics so as to
space. The Centaur and its payload bounded distort pictures of the planets and cause a
forward in orbit, breaking free of Earth's gravity degradation of camera focus. Part of the problem
within 2.25 min at a speed of 40,969 km/hr was caused by the screening of the spacecraft
(25,458 mi/hr) headed backwards along Earth's against solar heating. It was so protected by a
orbit around the Sun. sunshade and by surface coatings and thermal
Robbed of some of Earth's orbital motion, the blankets that when the camera heaters failed to
spacecraft and the Centaur could no longer come on, the cameras began to cool. Engineers
balance orbital action against the pull of the from JPL and Boeing studied the problem to
Sun's gravity. They began to fall toward the determine how heat might pass from the rest of
center of the Solar System, following a long orbit the spacecraft in place of that missing from the
around the Sun that would take them ultimately heaters. They found that the thermal insulation of
to the orbit of Venus. the spacecraft was so good that there was no way
About a minute and a half after the Centaur to heat the cameras from the spacecraft itself. The
engines shut down, the spacecraft separated from fall in temperature had to be lived with. They
the Centaur. Then, 8 112 min later, the spent also checked the backup spacecraft poised at
rocket turned and blew out its remaining propel- Cape Kennedy in an attempt to determine what
lant through the rocket nozzles to thrust it away might have caused the relay to stick. Had this
from a trajectory that · might cause it to tangle problem degraded the spacecraft capability to an
later with the spacecraft or crash onto the surface unaccepted degree, it would have been necessary
of Venus. Now Mariner Venus/Mercury was on to launch the backup.
its own: a true spacecraft in its natural environ- Fortunately, the cooling stabilized at an accept-
ment. Now its name was Mariner 10. Pyrotechnic able level, and the cameras did maintain their
squibs were fired aboard the spacecraft; its sharp focus. The lens elements and the optical
various movable elements unfurled and extended. tube elements were self-compensating to changes
Mariner 10 had reached maturity as a spacecraft in temperat ure. But an ever-present danger was
in its cruise configuration. that the Invar rods might contract, fracturing the
Very soon after launch, the planet-viewing vidicon potting compound if the temperature fell
experiments were turned on, a first time for below - 40°C ( - 40°F). Project scientists halted
planetary missions. The aim was to calibrate the this temperature drop by keeping the vidicons
instruments in the well-known environment of the switched on to maintain some heat within the
Earth-Moon system. The charged particle tele- cameras. Normally the vidicons would have been
scope was turned on within 3 hours of liftoff, the rested in the cruise between the planets, but it
ultraviolet experiment within 7 hours, and the TV was considered prudent to change this mode of
cameras shortly thereafter. First TV pictures of operation and take the chance that the lifetime of
Earth were obtained 16 hours and IS minutes the vidicons might be shortened somewhat rather
after liftoff. than risk the cameras' becoming too cold. This

46
being done, the temperature of the cameras few days of flight. These mosaics revealed
stabilized, at low but livable values- the vidicons intricate cloud patterns at about the same
were about - 10°C (+ 14°F), the backs of the resolution expected during the Venus flyby. The
optics were - 20°C ( - 4°F), and the telescope Earth pictures could provide valuable compari-
fronts were about - 30°C ( - 22°F). sons with the Venus clouds. Earth observations
Mariner's cameras transmitted good pictures of also provided in-flight verification of the cameras'
the Earth and the Moon despite the temperature "veiling glare" performance, thus confirming that
problem. The pictures of Earth (Fig. 5-2) pro- the preflight calculations of settings of camera
vided stereo photographs of clouds with revealing exposures for Venus were correct. This was
depth and structure. They appeared to be the important, since Venus encounter geometry did
clearest pictures yet received from a television not allow an incoming far-encounter sequence to
camera in space. If the spacecraft returned check the exposures.
similar-quality pictures from Venus, the project Another problem arose almost at the beginning
could obtain a completely unprecedented look at of the flight when, on November 5, the plasma
the brilliant clouds of that mysterious planet. science experiment was turned on. Scientists were
In all, Mariner 10 's cameras provided a series surprised to find that no solar wind particles were
of five Earth mosaics (Fig. 5-3) within the first being observed. There appeared to be a good
vacuum in the detectors, and the device was
scanning back and forth as it should. Engineers
performed a series of tests and sequences of
switching commands without positive results. One
possibility was that the instrument door had
failed to open so that plasma could not enter the
detector. Another was that the high-voltage sweep
was stuck at the high end, thus permitting only a
few high-energy particles to register. The opera-
tion of this experiment was, unfortunately,
restricted throughout the mission, and it was
concluded that the protective door had failed to
open fully. However, plasma data were obtained
by the scanning electron spectrometer part of the
instrument, which was unaffected by the failure of
the door.
As the spacecraft left Earth, the ultraviolet air
glow instrument looked back at the home planet,
observing the same emission regions that it
expected to check later at Venus and Mercury.
Lyman-alpha hydrogen emission was recorded,
together with helium emission at 584 angstroms.
All subsystems of the spacecraft were perform-
ing exactly as expected. The trajectory was also
very good; less than 8 m/sec (27 ftlsec) of the
spacecraft's total maneuvering capacity of 120
m/sec (396 ftlsec) was expected to be needed to
move the Venus aiming point of the spacecraft
and change the arrival time about 3 hours to
bring Mariner 10 to its later pass within 1000 km
(600 mi) of Mercury's surface.
Mariner 10 's series of five Earth mosaics was
intermixed with six mosaics of the Moon (Fig.
Fig. 5-2. A few hours later it was testing its cameras and 5-4) within the first week of flight as calibration
sending photographs back of its home planet. tests for the Mercury encounter. The path of

47
 Fig. 5-5. As it passed the Moon, Mariner provided views of the
north polar regions needed to update lunar maps. One of
these pictures is shown in (a); (b) shows how the new
photographs can be applied to fill in the poor details so far
(a) obtained of the lunar north pole.

O.---.---.---.---.---.---,---, ---ro

8.70 8.90
AO
+ F5 / M: GNITUDE
3824 8.20 1232

w
89 +
208
4.00
o B5
*
Z 3280 TEM P/CO LOR
::::;
DESIGNAT ION

STAR NUM BE R
8.60
4.40 + A2
o B5 7136 6.50
7920 6.90 X 89
BB 2496
700 L-__L -__L -__ ~
7376 <>
__~__-L__- L_ _~_ _~~
o ~2

PIXEL

(b)
Fig. 5-6. Mariner's cameras also checked their
sharp focus on stars to show that they had not
degraded from the heater failure. A stellar field is
reproduced in (a); (b) identifies the stars
photographed.
Mariner allowed images to be obtained of the features. The exercise in lunar cartography
north polar region of the Moon (Fig. 5-5), which, provided a useful prelude to applying the same
because of constraints on paths of other space techniques to map Mercury using the images to
vehicles, had previously been covered only be obtained during the flyby.
obliquely. The Mariner 10 photographs provided Diagnostic tests were conducted on November
a basis for cartographers to improve the lunar 6, including photography of stars (Fig. 5-6) and
control net, the relationship of points on the lunar additional tests on the Moon (Fig. 5-7). The
surface one to another in precise definitions of Moon tests, as well as providing better informa-
lunar latitude and longitu~e of craters and other tion about how the TV system was performing,

Fig. 5-7. Gradually the Moon was left behind and Mariner 10
was heading for Venus.

51
allowed scientists to evaluate the practicality of ducted was photographing the Pleiades cluster in
proposed measurements of the diameter of the constellation of Taurus: a galactic cluster in
Mercury. At this stage of the mission, optical the Milky Way which is visible to the unaided
performance of the television system continued to human eye as seven faint stars and is often called
be good even though the TV optics had not yet the "Seven Sisters". These stars are about 20,000
stabilized in temperature. As of November 7, light years from the Sun and are immersed in
Mariner 10 had returned almost 900 pictures to nebulosity. A total of 84 pictures were taken,
Earth. Experimenters were enthusiastic about the verifying the focus of the television system.
excellent quality. The Moon pictures recorded On November 8, commands were executed in
objects a mere 3 km (2 mi) across (Figs 5-8 and the spacecraft to calibrate the charged particle
5-9). Since the pictures to be returned from telescope. Scientists were pleased to see good
Mercury were expected to be of three times higher data. Also, the scanning electron spectrometer of
resolution than those of the Moon, there was the plasma science experiment produced excellent
good reason for excitem!!nt. At last, it seemed, data. These data were routed, as they arrived, to
mankilid would have a chance to resolve those the NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center in
dusky markings on the innermost planet, those Maryland so that members of the science team at
indistinct features that earlier astronomers had Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at Los
interpreted as Marslike, even erroneously with Alamos Scientific Laboratory were able to follow
linear "canal" type features. Another test con- the test in real-time by telephone links with

Fig. 5-8. The imaging team was enthusiastic about the quality of the lunar images. The close-ups obtained were excellent.

52
 Fig. 5-9. The details revealed on the Moon 's surface showed the capabilities of this new television system for planetary
photography. The computer-enhanced terminator regions showed that the system would also provide great detail in the
terminator regions of Mercury. The small picture is a mosaic; the computer-enhanced terminator regions are shown alongside.

NASA-Goddard. The team was able to compute tion about the interaction of the solar wind with
approximate plasma density, electron tempera- Venus and Mercury later in the mission.
tures, and the flux of charged particles by using By November II , over 2000 commands had
this real-time data. The Principal Investigator, been successfully sent from the Mission Opera-
Herbert S. Bridge, stated that although the tions Center to the spacecraft. Of these, 1019 were
experiment was " painfully" degraded with appar- to update the central computer and sequencer
ent loss of the data from the scanning electrostatic preparatory to making the first trajectory correc-
analyzer, valuable information concerning the tion maneuver for the spacecraft. By this time the
solar wind was being obtained, and this experi- navigation teams had determined the trajectory of
ment was still expected to produce new inform a- the spacecraft and knew that, if uncorrected,

53
Mariner 10 would fly by Venus on the wrong side Meanwhile the tracking data were being
of the planet, some 55,000 km (34,000 mi) off the examined by the navigation staff at JPL to check
aiming point and 3 hours later than desired, and the effects of the maneuver. There was momen-
would miss Mercury. The spacecraft had now to tary anxiety at the Operations Center when
be turned and reoriented in space so that its telemetry signals from the spacecraft indicated
rocket engine could be fired for a short period that the Canopus tracker had lost the star. It
and apply a change in velocity to the spacecraft in seemed that a bright particle had moved past the
the right direction to ensure that it would arrive spacecraft- perhaps a meteor or a particle from
at Venus at the right time and place to permit the the spacecraft itself- and attracted the star sensor.
later encounter with Mercury. But soon Canopus was reacquired and the
spacecraft returned to normal by 6:40 p.m. PST.
The velocity change required was some 7.8
As doppler data were analyzed , the perform-
m/sec ( about 25.5 ftlsec or just less than 18
ance of the maneuver looked good. The 'naviga-
mph) , which required the rocket engine to burn
tion team had been able to monitor both the roll
for about 20 sec and consume 1.8 kg (about 4 Ib)
and the pitch turns and to ascertain that the
of propellant. On Sunday November 1 1, project
velocity change of the main engine thrust caused
personnel gathered at the Mission Operations
a doppler shift of 71 Hz, while 72 Hz was
Center for a maneuver conference at which the
required. This corresponded to an error of 1.5%.
maneuver scheduled for November 13 was given
However, analysis of tracking data for 15 days
the go-ahead. At 1:45 p.m. PST on that date the
after the trajectory correction maneuver was
maneuvering sequence started aboard Mariner 10
needed before the exact trajectory could be
with the command that maneuver events would
determined.
start clocking at the next hour pulse within the
By November 28, it was known that the
spacecraft. This pulse occurred at 2:38 p.m., and
spacecraft was headed much closer to its required
at three sec after 3:00 p.m. the gyros began to
rendezvous with Venus, but there was still a
whirl within Mariner. Just over an hour later the
relatively small error of 1380 km (860 mi) too far
cold jets at the tips of the spacecraft solar panels
from the planet and an arrival time 2 min early
spurted nitrogen gas into space and the spacecraft
over that required (see Fig. 5-10). A scheduled
began its roll turn, taking about 4.5 min to roll
through 49 deg . Then , equally as abruptly,
opposing nitrogen jets stopped the roll. A few
minutes later jets of nitrogen spurted from other
thrusters mounted on the outriggers that support
the high-gain antenna and the magnetometer.
The spacecraft started to slowly pitch over, taking
another 12 min to pitch through 127 deg before
opposing jets stopped the pitch. Now it was ready
for the hydrazine rocket engine burn. A valve in
the propellant system opened. Nitrogen gas
pressing against a rubber diaphragm in the
propellant tank forced hydrazine into the rocket
thrust chamber, where it was decomposed by a
catalyst to produce a hot jet. The thrust lasted for
the required 19.9 sec; then the valves closed and
the engine shut off.
Four minutes later the central computer and
sequencer started the pitch jets operating, fol-
lowed by the roll jets, to return the spacecraft to
its correct orientation with respect to the Sun and Fig. 5-10. By this time navigators had checked the aiming
the stars. Then the gyros were switched off. At point at Venus and could prepare for a first trajectory
correction maneuver to change the post-injection orbit to the
5:08 p . m. the first trajectory correction maneuver desired flyby point. This was done by TCM-1 a few days after
had been completed. the Earth-Moon system had been left.

54
further trajectory correction maneuver would have the planet's surface could be covered by the
to be made later in the mission to refine the photo mosaics.
position and time of encounter. Two maneuvers On December 29, the feed system healed itself.
before reaching Venus had always been a part of The high-gain antenna performed normally again.
the mission plan. But the joy of the engineers was short-lived.
However, other troubles had shocked opera- Within four hours the fault developed again.
tions personnel. On November 21 , the gyros were Analysis indicated that the problem might have
commanded on . to put the spacecraft through a been caused by the low temperature of the feed
roN calibration maneuver. Immediately, the flight system, and it was hoped that by the time the
data system reset itself automatically to zero, but spacecraft reached Mercury the antenna tempera-
it was not known if this uncommanded reset was ture would be high enough to clear the fault and
a problem in the spacecraft power or in the permit full operation of this antenna so that the
grounding system or was a sensing error of the full complement of mosaics would be obtained.
flight data system itself. The roll calibration However, the antenna problem caused cancella-
maneuver was postponed. tion of some planned ultraviolet spectrometer
airglow experiments, together with a roll calibra-
It was not until two weeks later, on Friday, tion maneuver and other tests of the spacecraft.
December 7, 1973, that Mariner 10 performed a Engineers devised tests using duplicate hardware
successful roll calibration maneuver and a calibra- on Earth to simulate possible causes of the high-
tion of the high-gain antenna. Again during the gain antenna problem. But as the orientation
turn-on of the gyros for this maneuver, the flight relative to the Sun changed and there was some
data system automatically reset itself to zero as it heating of the antenna feed , the problem cleared
had done previously. But the most significant and up again by itself on January 3. A predetermined
ominous power-related problem did not occur contingency plan was immediately put into effect
until nearly a month later, January 8, 1974, when by Mission Operations to position the high-gain
the spacecraft automatically switched from its antenna so that the Sun would continue to warm
main to its standby power chain. This automatic the feed. By positioning the antenna to gather
switchover was irreversible: it was of concern some solar heat, the temperature was maintained
primarily because of the possibility of a fault well above the temperature at which the high-
common to both power circuits causing the gain antenna problem had originally developed.
backup power circuit to fail also and thus raising In addition to thermal considerations, the new
the possi bility of the mission's being ended right position of the high-gain antenna was selected to
there. So, following this power problem, extreme direct a side lobe of the antenna pattern toward
caution was exercised for some time in changing Earth, since the side lobes carried more radiated
the power status of the spacecraft and in power than the low-gain antenna.
maneuvering relative to the Sun, the latter to After recovery on January 3, the high-gain
avoid an automatic switchover from solar panel to antenna again failed on January 6, and the
battery power. antenna was pointed back to Earth and use of the
There was another problem connected with the side lobe discontinued. Meanwhile, other events
high-gain antenna which seemed to stem from its had occurred. On December 14, 1973, the solar
low temperature. On Christmas Day 1973, shortly panels were tilted 25 deg off the Sun to reduce the
before 1:00 p.m. PST, a part of the feed system of surface temperature of the panels by approxi-
the high-gain antenna failed and caused a drop in mately lOoC (18°F). On Decem ber 18, the scan
signal power emitted by the antenna. Mission platform was also tilted to its maximum so that
controllers tested the system , issuing diagnostic the ultraviolet airglow spectrometer could make
commands to the spacecraft. They deduced that a new measurements of emissions from interstellar
joint in one of the feed system's two probes may helium gas in a direction opposite from the Sun.
have cracked or fractured due to temperature On December 19, the gyros were turned on and
changes during the flight. The problem was another roll calibration maneuver made. This
regarded as severe because it would prevent real- time there was no power-on reset in the flight
time TV sequences from being transmitted to data system as had occurred during the previous
Earth at Mercury encounter so that less area of maneuvers. The spacecraft seemed to be behaving

55
Fig. 5-11 . On the way to Venus an opportunity arose to
observe the Comet Kohoutek from Mariner 10. Although
images were not obtained because the comet was much The attempt to photograph comet Kohoutek
fainter than originally expected, ultraviolet scans provided new
information on the comet that could not be obtained from was not, however, successful, mainly because the
Earth. (Photo: Table Mountain Observatory) comet disappointed everyone by being such a
faint object- nearly 50 times less bright than
anticipated. The comet was too faint to reveal any
quite neurotically and confounding its designers useful information in the TV pictures from
and controllers. Mariner. But Mariner's ultraviolet spectrometer
Early in January the scan platform aboard the did obtain some very good Lyman alpha (neutral
spacecraft was slewed so that the ultraviolet hydrogen) radiation measurements through the
airglow spectrometer could be ready for observa- comet's tail and into the nucleus. Preliminary
tions of the Comet Kohoutek (Fig. 5-11). The results of this ultraviolet scanning showed a very
prime objective was to obtain unique observations large hydrogen corona to the comet, having a
of Kohoutek in the ultraviolet region of the diameter of about 20 million km (12 .5 million
spectrum which could not be obtained from Earth mi) .
or from orbiting vehicles due to the Earth '5 The next major event in the Mariner 10 mission
hydrogen corona. Mariner 10 was well outside the was the second trajectory correction maneuver
hydrogen corona, thus being in a superior position required to refine the flyby of Venus to a greater
to Skylab, which was also being used to observe precision, making it possible to reach Mercury
the comet. Observations began with passive after the Venus encounter. On January 16, some
ultraviolet measurements of the tail of Kohoutek of the preliminary commands for the maneuver
starting January 9 and concluded with the were sent to the spacecraft and stored in its
passage of the comet's nucleus through the field memory within the central computer and se-
of view by January 17. Active ultraviolet scanning quencer. The objective was to make sure that
and TV imaging of the comet took place toward Mariner 10 would fly through a 400-km (248-mi)
the end of the month. Neutral hydrogen emission diameter " hole in the sky" which lay about
intensities were measured by Mariner as far as 17 16,000 km (10,000 mi) to the right and in front
deg from the comet's nucleus compared with only of Venus as seen from the approaching spacecraft.
2 deg for the Skylab-based observations from The gravity of Venus would bend Mariner's path
within the Earth's hydrogen corona. from that aiming point to pass within 5784 km

56
(3594 mi) of Venus's surface about 10:00 a.m. commands for the movable solar panels and scan
PDT on February 5. platform to be positioned in such a way as to
The navigation team redetermined the orbit ot prevent the oscillation and thus avoid further loss
the spacecraft following the trajectory correction of gas in the future. It was hoped that spacecraft
maneuver performed shortly after launch by attitude maneuvers and trajectory corrections
processing over 60 days of tracking data consist- might be conducted under certain conditions
ing of 2600 measurements of the distance of the without inducing further gas-consuming oscilla-
spacecraft from Earth. If the error at Venus were tions.
left uncorrected, the spacecraft would miss Mer- But the cause of the problem was not known
cury by 1.5 million km (nearly 1 million mi). during the final preparations for the Venus
Qn January 21 , at 11:50 a.m. PDT in response encounter. A gyro malfunction was at that time a
to stored commands, Mariner rolled itself about viable explanation, and a disastrous, uncontrolla-
46 deg, pitched over nearly 35 deg, and then, 24 ble spacecraft spinup was thought to be a possible
min later, fired its rocket engine for 3.8 sec to result if the gyros were turned on again, Thus, the
change the spacecraft velocity by about 1.3 m/sec flyby of Venus was now planned to take place
(4 ftlsec). At Mission Operations, project person- under Sun and star reference instead of inertially
nel were jubilant when the doppler frequency was by gyro control. This presented a hazard to the
measured as having shifted 17.41 Hz, which was spacecraft in that Mariner 10 might suddenly
within 0.04 Hz of the required amount. Following swing around to lock onto the bright planet
another 10 days of tracking, the navigation team instead of the star Canopus. Project engineers
confirmed that the flyby point was within 27 km analyzed the characteristics of the Canopus
(17 mi) of the aim point. All science equipment tracker and decided that the design of the baffles
was working well, ready for Venus encounter; the to protect the sensor from stray light made the
cameras were stabilized in temperature; the only probability of losing lock on Canopus acceptably
science problem was the still-closed door of the low. The risk was therefore taken, and Mariner 10
plasma experiment. But other troubles beset the bore down on Venus oriented to the celestial
spacecraft. references of the Sun and Canopus. The three-axis
On January 28 , Mariner started a series of eight gyro system remained idle.
calibration rolls that were to be completed in 79 On January 17, during the time that heaters for
min. At the end of each roll the scan platform was other Mariner 10 instruments were being turned
moved to obtain records of the diffuse ultraviolet off in preparation for the second trajectory
emissions observed over wide regions of the sky. correction maneuver, the heaters for the TV
Suddenly, an oscillation occurred in the roll cameras, which had mysteriously been off since
channel of the attitude control system, causing launch, equally as mysteriously came back on by
expulsion of attitude control nitrogen gas at a themselves. Actually, the explanation for the
disastrous rate. As the gas pressure telemetry data failure was that there had been a short in another
dropped inexorably, mission controllers knew they heater which resulted in biasing the TV heater to
were watching a spacecraft die. In the hour that it its switched-off mode. The "healing" of the
took to recognize, analyze, and respond to the camera system was most welcome, since the
problem, some 16% of the spacecraft's attitude science investigators had been concerned that the
control gas had been ejected into space. W. 1. cameras might not operate properly during Venus
Purdy, the Guidance and Control Analyst, hastily encounter because their temperature had dropped
called from a meeting, quickly determined that below freezing. Mter the trajectory correction
the gas loss was a result of a gyro-induced maneuver had been completed, the original plan
instability. He commanded gyros off, and the gas was to turn the heaters on again. But to avoid any
loss stopped. The nitrogen gas supply had risk of affecting the camera heaters, heaters in the
dropped from 2.7 to 2.1 kg (6.0 to 4.7 lb). same circuit as those for the cameras were left
Later analysis showed that the gas loss resulted turned off. Mariner had by now warmed up
from a mechanical oscillation of the spacecraft sufficiently in its approach to the Sun so that
induced by impulses from the jets mounted on the some of the heaters were no longer needed. On
extreme ends of the solar panels. Following January 23, the movable scan platform on which
extensive analysis, mission controllers issued the TV cameras were mounted was given its final

57
pointing calibration by taking three sequences of righted itself; then a little later it returned, but
test pictures of star clusters. Then the cameras not as badly as before. Despite all of the
were idled for a week. spacecraft problems, it appeared that Mariner 10
was capable of conducting the Venus encounter as
By February 4, Mariner 10 was 640,000 km conceived long before launch. Much credit was
(about 400,000 mi) from Venus and approaching due the project personnel who had nursed the
the planet at a speed of over 29 ,600 km/hr neurotic spacecraft through its troubles and had
( 18,400 mi/hr) . On this day, as the high-gain devised ways to continue the mission by operating
antenna was being moved during a calibration around the various problems. Everything was now
sequence, the feed system problem suddenly ready for the encounter (Fig. 5- 12).

VENUS
-40m••.'
-30m •••
••
-20m•• • •
••
-10m ••
PERJAPSIS ••
Om ••
•
...
~-~~
-...-
EARTH

+3Om :
•••
•
+4Om~
SUN

Fig. 5-12. A further trajectory correction maneuver and Mariner 10 was

all set for its encounter with Venus.

58
Page intentionally left blank
Chapter 6
Best Seen
in Black Light

s MARINER 10 BORE DOWN on the

A planet Venus, the brilliant jewel scintillated
in the clear sky of the Mojave desert, where the
Goldstone antenna pointed eastward to pick up
signals from the spacecraft. When Mariner 10 was
acquired by the 64-m (210-ft) radio antenna, it
was about 45 million km (28 million mi) from
Earth, approaching Venus from the dark side, its
cameras unable yet to photograph the cloud-
shrouded planet. At 9:21 a.m. PDT on February
5, 1974, Mariner started to take photographs, but
its cameras were still pointed toward space; the
first pictures displayed on the screen at JPL were
blank.
About 8000 km (5000 mi) from Venus,
Mariner 10 's television cameras took the first
picture of the planet, and shortly after 9: 50 a.m.
PDT this picture was displayed on the monitor (b)
screens. The photo showed the lighted cusp of Fig. 6-1. The first view of Venus was a fine cusp seen (a) on
Venus at the north pole (Fig. 6-1) just 12 min the television screens at JPL, and (b) processed later to show
a clearer image. But there were no protruberances or markings
before Mariner 10 made its closest approach of that would indicate cloud tops or structure at the top of the
about 5790 km (3600 mi) above the surface of atmosphere.
the planet. The scanning sequence of the cameras
sent more and more high-resolution pictures of
Venus back to Earth, pictures that straddled the showed definite haze structure above the limb
terminator boundary between night and day and (Fig. 6-2). Two distinct layers were apparent with
would have shown detail there if it were present, definite structure above the limb. This was the
pictures that curled across the limb of the planet type of information that Mariner scientists had
like caterpillars side by side. All showed equally hoped for.
featureless clouds. However, the pictures obtained Michael J. Belton of Kitt Peak National
as Mariner laid tracks across the limb of Venus Observatory, a member of the TV science team,

61
 fade as they passed deeper and deeper into the
atmosphere. To keep the signals coming back to
Earth as long as possible and thus dip as deeply
as possible through the atmosphere of Venus, the
high-gain antenna on the spacecraft was program-
med to turn slightly and direct the signals so that
when bent by the planet'S atmosphere they would
still be received at Earth (Fig. 6-3).
This program was most successful. If Venus had
been airless like the Moon, the signals from the
spacecraft would have been cut off abruptly at
10:07 a.m. PDT. As it was, the signals continued
for several minutes, and scientists were satisfied
that they had obtained a completely new probe to
great depths of the Venus atmosphere. Since these
data were collected simultaneously at two radio
frequencies, they were expected to be much better
than any earlier radio penetration of the Venus
atmosphere.
Four minutes after the tracking station lost lock
on the spacecraft signal, the antenna started to
search for the signal again as it came around the
Fig. 6-2. A short while later those same screens at JPL were other side of the planet. Again the signal was
showing haze layers on the limb-the only details visible on picked up and Mariner was tracked to its full
the many images returned from Venus during the close
encounter; all the rest of the images showed blank clouds like emergence from behind the planet. While behind
the top of a bank of fog. Venus, Mariner had continued taking pictures,
which it stored on tape together with infrared
data on the temperatures across the night and day
took time off from inspecting the new pictures of hemisphere, fields and particles observations, and
Venus to discuss them with science reporters from scans across the limb in ultraviolet.
the national press and overseas. He said the Prior to the encounter, the main action was
pictures seemed to be getting better as the concerned with preparing all the instruments and
sp acecraft moved away from the planet. making sure that the spacecraft followed a precise
Mariner 10 made its closest approach of 5794
km ( 3600 mi ) at 10:01 a. m. PDT, within one
minute of the time scheduled before launch. Fig. 6-3. The occultation experiment allowed Mariner's radio
Then, six minutes later, the spacecraft went signals to penetrate the atmosphere of Venus. Changes to the
behind the planet, and radio signals began to signals allowed scientists to measure temperatures in the
atmosphere and identify layers of clouds at different levels
above the surface of the planet.
 path to and beyond the target planet. But when
the encounter was successful, the accent changed.
With data deluging back to Earth about Venus
and its environs, action transferred to the teams of
scientists who were literally snatching hold of the
output from the computers to interpret this wealth
of new information from another world. Did it fit
the earlier theories? Did it show anything
unexpected? Excitement mounted rapidly as team
members struggled with the data records to find
answers to these and other questions. Teams
assem bled from scientists of many different
disciplines worked toward common goals, rushing
to each other with new items of information to fill
gaps in the puzzle.
Meanwhile, the spacecraft emerged from occul-
tation, heading out from Venus toward Mercury.
The TV pictures had changed from blue- and
yellow-filtered to ultraviolet. In late afternoon, the
few mem bers of the press remaining in the von
Karman auditorium at JPL, where pictures of
Venus were being relayed in real-time for the
news media- most of the journalists had left,
disappointed at the lack of detail in the first
images- were treated to a completely new view of
the cloud-shrouded planet. The first ultraviolet
Fig. 6-4. When ultraviolet photographs of Venus came back to
pictures displayed on the screens showed intricate
Earth as Mariner sped away from Venus, they showed cloud patterns (Fig. 6-4). Excitement mounted as
surprising details of atmospheric patterns. This view of the scientists identified these markings as close-ups of
southern hemisphere taken one day after closest approach
reveals spiral-like markings and streamline flows. The picture,
the indistinct ultraviolet markings recorded on
part of a 36-frame fUll-planet mosaic, was taken at 10: 15 a.m. Earth-based photographs (Fig. 6-5).
PDT, February 6, from a range of about 725,000 km (450,000
mil. The pattern of dots is on the face of the vidicon tube and The best telescopic photographs of Venus from
is used to calibrate the image. Earth only hint at the cloud patterns revealed in

Fig. 6-5. The ultraviolet markings now photographed in great detail on Venus were obviously those seen
indistinctly in ultraviolet photographs from Earth. These comparative photographs show how the gross
horizontal V-shaped marking seen from Earth is resolved into the intricate pattern of the Mariner picture on
the right.

63
ultraviolet light. Robert Strom of the University on February 13, 1974, bringing the grand total to
of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory 4165 images of the cloud-shrouded planet. Much
compared a handful of photographs of Venus had been learned during the encounter to
taken by Earth-based telescopes with the new supplement earlier observations of Venus from
Mariner 10 pictures. "These Mariner pictures spacecraft and from the Earth.
exceed our greatest expectations," he exclaimed, As Mariner 10 sped toward Venus from the
and then added that the new pictures would let planet's night side, the spacecraft 's instruments
astronomers view the Earth-based pictures from observed how Venus disturbs the magnetic field
an entirely different standpoint. " Now we will be in interplanetary space and the flow of charged
better able to understand what it is we see from particles- electrons and protons- from the Sun,
Earth," he said. known as the solar wind. Venus causes a tail-like
In the Video Analysis Facility, Verner E. disturbance in the solar wind's charged particles,
Suomi, a specialist in satellite meteorology of the stretching behind the planet away from the Sun.
Earth, peered through stereo viewers at the cloud At the same time, Mariner's magnetometer found
pictures of Venus, seeking the three-dimensional that the magnetic field in space was twisted by
effects that would enable him to measure cloud the presence of Venus so that it pointed toward
velocities. A major question was why the atmos- the planet along the tail of charged particles.
phere of Venus, as observed in ultraviolet light, But Venus's magnetic field , which is less than
rotates so fast compared with the planet itself: in one-twentieth of one percent of Earth's field, is
four days compared with 243 days for the planet. insufficient to deflect the solar wind as Earth's
One suggestion which quickly arose was that field does. This very small and irregular magnetic
solar heating of equatorial regions produces a field is insufficient also to trap stable populations
local wave in the atmosphere that gives rise to a of particles such as found in the radiation belts of
circulating equatorial current. And since hot Earth and Jupiter. Yet Mariner 10 showed that
equatorial air will also tend to move to cooler the solar wind is greatly modified by the presence
regions, there is a spiraling speedup of the of Venus. This effect was particularly noticeable
atmospheric currents at higher planetary latitudes. because, for at least three days prior to and
Transverse bands could be seen across the Venus during the encounter with Venus, general condi-
cloud streams, which Dr. Suomi likened to bands tions in interplanetary space were unusually quiet.
across streaks of cirrus clouds in Earth's skies, but Mariner 10 confirmed the earlier findings of
on a much larger scale. He pointed to cellular Mariner 5 and Venera 4, which had discovered a
structures in the Venus clouds, each some 200 to bow shock- a wave in front of the planet like the
300 km (125 to 185 mi) across. bow wave of a ship in water. Somehow the
Although the spacecraft had performed well, ionosphere of Venus forms this bow shock in the
Gene Giberson, Mariner Project Manager, admit- solar wind and stops the wind from plunging
ted to several anxious moments when interviewed directly into the atmosphere of the planet. How
just after the encounter. Twenty minutes of finger and why this bow shock occurs is not fully
crossing occurred when Mariner 10 passed closest understood. The charged particle experiment did
to Venus and was aligned in space by the star not detect any high-energy protons or electrons
sensor locked on Canopus. At any moment, glare within the bow shock, up to several Venus radii
from the brilliant Venus might have caused the downstream.
spacecraft to turn around, thereby swinging the Certainly the effect is very different from that
cameras and other instruments away from Venus on Earth, Moon, Mars, and Jupiter. The Venus
at this critical time. Giberson explained that this bow shock might be a direct interaction of the
calculated risk had to be taken since project solar wind with the atmosphere of Venus, or with
management could not risk a potentially disas- just the ionosphere. It may alternatively arise
trous gyro malfunction during the flyby of Venus. because the solar wind induces magnetic fields
The decision to make the encounter with the and produces thereby a pseudo, or false , magne-
star sensor in control had paid off; Mariner 10 topause, as though Venus had a magnetic field
kept its lock on Canopus and provided a very like the Earth.
steady platform for the photographs and other The temperature of the clouds of Venus was
experiments. The final picture of Venus was taken measured from infrared radiation emitted by

64
 them, using the radiometer carried by Mariner.
As expected from other measurements, there was
no detectable difference in the 250 K (-9·F)
temperature of the cloud tops between day and
night. Reduced infrared radiation near the edge
of the visible disc of Venus confirmed that the
atmosphere is very opaque.
The UV airglow spectrometer measured the
amount of ultraviolet emitted by Venus's upper
atmosphere to seek important gases there. One of
these gases, hydrogen, is believed to control the
chemistry of the planet's atmosphere, forming
sulfuric acid clouds and water vapor droplets.
Were Venus to lose its hydrogen, the dense, heat-
gathering atmosphere of carbon dioxide might be
rapidly dissociated by sunlight into carbon
monoxide and oxygen, with significant changes to
the planet's heat balance.
Fig. 6-6. Meanwhile, early pictures were being enhanced by
Mariner 10 confirmed the presence of hydrogen the computer to show several distinct layers of limb haze.
and, even more important, obtained evidence that This picture was obtained in orange light 15 min after closest
indicates that it originates at the Sun. If the approach on February 5. The thickness of the haze above the
visible clouds is about 6 km and appears to extend over the
hydrogen originated from the chance impact of a whole planet.
comet with Venus, as might have happened,
deuterium (heavy hydrogen) would also be
expected, but because Mariner 10 found no
deuterium on Venus, scientists conclude that the cloud deck. The highest deck extends 60 km (37
hydrogen comes from the solar wind, which has mi) above ground level. This upper layer is thin,
virtually no deuterium. So the hydrogen on Venus broken, and rapidly moving, as contrasted with
will be replenished as long as the solar wind the thick and probably unbroken lower deck.
blows. Four distinct temperature inversions, i.e., places
Mariner 10 also detected small quantities of where the temperature increases for a short
helium on Venus, but 10 times as much atomic distance with increasing height, were observed by
oxygen as on Mars. This high concentration of Mariner 10 at altitudes of 56, 61, 63 and 81 km
atomic oxygen suggests that, contrary to condi- (35, 38, 39 and 50 mi). They are possibly
tions at Mars, the upper atmosphere of Venus, associated with specific cloud layers.
where sunlight splits oxygen molecules into atoms, Mariner also found that the electrically charged
does not mix with lower layers. This lack of particles making up the ionosphere of Venus peak
mixing seems also to be evidenced by the limb into nighttime layers at 120 and 140 km (75 and
photographs, which show a distinct flat-topped 87 mi), whereas a stronger ionosphere in the
atmosphere of clouds surmounted by several daytime peaks into a higher layer at 145 km (90
tenuous horizontal layers (Fig. 6-6). mi). Earth's ionospheric layers by contrast have
By observing radio signals coming from Mari- more layers in daytime than at night.
ner 10, scientists determined how the gravity of As mentioned earlier, photographs returned
Venus pulled the spacecraft, and hence they were from Venus were at first very disappointing. They
able to clarify some of the physical properties of showed about as much detail as the top of a thick
Venus. They found that Venus is 100 times closer fog bank. Yet these photos were valuable in that
to being a perfect sphere than is Earth. Radio they proved that Venus does have a structureless,
waves passing through the Venus atmosphere as hazy, visible surface of clouds down to a
the spacecraft went behind the planet showed resolution of 100 m (300 ft) . As Mariner 10 sped
that a lower cloud layer which rises from 35 to 52 from Venus, a special sequence of ultraviolet
km (22 to 32 mi) above the planet's surface photographs revealed a complex atmospheric
consists of quite different clouds from the higher pattern. This pattern had been photographed in

65
 Fig. 6-7. Over the next few days, series of mosaics were
constructed showing a wealth of detail in the ultraviolet
markings of the planet. The relatively quick rotation of the
markings was confirmed (a) and a picture built up of the cloud
pattern around the entire planet (b). On the right side of (b)
the pictures were taken from greater distances, so detail is
lacking compared with the lett side of the picture.
(a)

EQUATORIAL LO NGITU DE
(based on 4-day rot at io n at equat or)

220 240 260 280 300 320 340

o 100 120 140
I
160
I
180
I
200
I I I I I I I
I I

I I
I
o 2 3

TIME (DAYS)
(b)

gross detail from Earth. Now Mariner 10 revealed and intricate internal structure. They cause an
its intricacies (Fig. 6-7 ). area of planetary disturbance surrounded by great
At the point on Venus where the Sun shines waves of atmospheric ripples, like those from a
from directly overhead, rising cells of air take on stone thrown into a pond, but on a scale of many
polygonal shapes. Larger cells have dark edges hundreds of miles (Fig. 6-8).

66
 Along Venus's equatorial zone are fine streams
of clouds-faint but quite distinct (Fig. 6-9). y-
and C-shaped markings, prominent on Earth-
based ultraviolet photographs, are revealed as
consistent markings, a spreading pattern of clouds
opening in the direction of rotation. Their motions
are clearly shown in time-lapse motion pictures
made from the individual photographs obtained
from Mariner showing several planetary rotations
{)f the cloud patterns. Both polar regions have
hoods of clouds with spiral patterns between the
hoods and the equatorial regions. These cloud
patterns, which would be quite invisible to the eye
of an astronaut orbiting Venus because they are
only visible in ultraviolet light, can be interpreted
by two extreme theories. One is that solar heating
develops cloud patterns without large-scale mo-
tions of the atmosphere itself. The other is that
solar heating actually drives large masses of air
from the equator to the poles, accompanied by
undercurrents back from the poles to the equator.
Which theory is closer to the truth requires
further studies of the photographs, probably
assisted by results from a later Pioneer Venus
Fig. 6-8. Close-ups, such as this picture taken February 6,
mission to the cloud-shrouded planet planned by 1974, from a distance of 790,000 km (490,000 mil, revealed
NASA several years after Mariner 10. celis of rising air at the subsolar region of Venus.

Fig. 6-9. Scientists were able to identify bowl ike waves, equatorial belts, spiral streaks, and
the bright polar regions as more and more pictures accumulated.

67
Chapter 7
Mercury, Moonlike
and Earthlike

s MARINER'S CAMERAS snapped the last

A pictures of Venus, the thoughts of the
scientists and engineers turned toward the mis-
were reduced by diffeJential tilting of the solar
panels to use the pressure produced on the panels
by solar radiation pressure in a controlled
sion's priority target- Mercury. Forty-three days manner, like wind on a sail. This technique
of cruise and a third trajectory correction maneu- significantly reduced the amount of gas which
ver remained before mission completion. Analysis would have been used in the standard celestially
of the fai lures and anomalies experienced to date controlled cruise mode.
continued at an urgent pace, while at the same On February 14, 1974, Mariner's gyros were
time the complicated Mercury science sequences tested preparatory to making the third trajectory
were subjected to detailed scrutiny in search of correction maneuver. The gyros did not oscillate
adjustments required to accommodate the corre- during the first two tests, but did so during the
sponding changes in spacecraft performance. third test and during a commanded turn of the
spacecraft. As a result, the planned trajectory
correction maneuver was cancelled; it would have
caused the loss of too much gas in gyro oscilla-
tions. Instead, a Sun-line maneuver was decided
A Troubled Journey upon, to be executed in mid-March. At that time
the position and orientation of the spacecraft
About one week after Venus encounter, a would be such that the normal position of the
decision had to be made as to how the spacecraft rocket engine, relative to the Sun and Canopus,
should be redirected toward Mercury with the would be suitable to apply the right amount and
least expenditure of maneuvering gas. direction of thrust to change trajectory without
The oscillation problem and the attendant risk requiring the spacecraft to roll or pitch to do so.
of losing all attitude-control gas if there should be By making the trajectory change in this way,
a loss of celestial reference resulted in a number project personnel would be able to send Mariner
of changes in mission operations. One was the to rendezvous with Mercury at the correct point
cancellation of further roll calibration maneuvers; on the dark side on March 29, but approximately
another was the introduction of a period of" solar 17 min later than the time desired. All the science
sailing" during which the spacecraft roll, pitch, data originally planned for Mariner to gather at
and yaw axis rates and limit cycle magnitude Mercury could still be obtained.

71
 Shortly after midnight, in the early morning of observed until the final acqulSltlOn of Canopus.
February 18, duty operators were startled to Approximately 70 millipounds of nitrogen gas
observe from the telemetered data that Mariner were lost because of this incident, which was
10 had lost celestial reference on the star thought to have been caused by a bright particle
Canopus. During the next three hours, project passing the spacecraft. The occurrence of bright
staff members rushed to JPL and watched particle distraction had increased from a rate of 1
helplessly as Canopus "drifted" through the star or 2 a week immediately after launch to about 10
tracker's field of view twice and the spacecraft a week by the end of February. On March 6, a
gyrated in short gyro-off/ gyro-on cycles. A normal group of bright particles again disturbed the star
roll search for Canopus could not be started until tracker and caused the spacecraft to roll and
communications were reestablished between the waste attitude control gas for 40 min.
spacecraft and a big ground antenna; Mariner On March 13, the project staff held a final
had been in communication with a 26-m ( 85-ft) conference to approve the Sun-line course change.
antenna at the time of the trouble. After a big On March 16, at 04: 54 a.m. PDT, the propulsion
(64-m) antenna had been obtained for the system was ignited and burned for 51 sec to
troubled spacecraft, a command was sent to change the velocity of Mariner by 17.8 m/sec (59
initiate a roll search, and Canopus was acquired ftlsec) directly away from the Sun. This would
1.3 min later. The gyros had been on for 1 hr and change the Mercury flyby from the sunlit to the
48 min, but fortunately no oscillations were dark side of the planet (Fig. 7-1). The aim point
had been carefully chosen to get the best possible
science data and also to allow a return to Mercury
six months later.
Conditions were now very critical. Because the
angle between the velocity change due to the
trajectory correction maneuver and the line
between spacecraft and Earth was 103 deg, the
doppler shift measured at Earth would show only
a small component. So no precise estimate of how
successful the maneuver had been could be
obtained until tracking data had been analyzed
for about 10 days after the maneuver. This might
be too late to make corrections and still reserve
sufficient gas for a second encounter with Mer-
cury. Another possibility was to use the high data
rate engineering telemetry to measure the pres-
sure within the rocket thrust chamber and use this
to determine the actual magnitude of the velocity
change produced by the rocket thrust. If the
engine burned too "hot," there would be an
overshoot that could not subsequently be cor-
rected by a Sun-line maneuver. If, however, the
engine burned "cold," the undershoot could be
corrected by a further firing of the rocket engine
within 24 to 48 hr.
The rocket engine fired by command as
Fig. 7-1 . Described as a "trick maneuver" because it had to scheduled. Preliminary analysis using data gath-
be done at a particular time, TCM-3 was a Sun-line maneuver ered from the engineering telemetry supple-
to aim the spacecraft for Mercury encounter. It became
necessary to do it this way because the spacecraft had mented by the doppler shift measurement indi-
encountered problems in its orientation system. This maneuver cated that the maneuver had been about one
was made when the spacecraft reached the orientation in percent short of that required. Thus the flyby was
space at which the rocket engine could be fired without the
necessity of rolling the spacecraft to direct the thrust of the expected to be 200 km (124 mi ) closer to
rocket. Mercury than planned. Since this still satisfied all

72
 the requirements of the science experiments at
Mercury, no additional maneuvers were planned.

Historic Encounter

On Sunday, March 17, the day after the

maneuver, the nonimaging science experiments
were turned on in preparation for the encounter.
All instruments were checked and confirmed to be
in excellent operating condition. A little less than
one week later the first TV image of Mercury was
displayed on screens at JPL. By now the high-gain
antenna had mysteriously recovered (never to fail
again, as it turned out), and high-resolution full
coverage of Mercury was expected.
First pictures of Mercury were about the same
as pictures obtained from Earth, but gradually, as
more pictures came back from the spacecraft,
observers could distinguish bright spots which
had apparent diameters up to 400 km (250 mi)
(Fig. 7-2). Some of the bright spots lined up with
light streaks to merge into great circle arcs like
the bright rays on the Moon.
Fig. 7-2. The first pictures of Mercury, like this taken March
By March 25, the pictures showed a surface of 24, 1974, at a distance of 4,300,000 km (2,700,000 mil,
mottled character, suggestive of a fuzzy picture of looked much like Mercury as seen in a telescope from Earth.
a cratered surface such as Earth's Moon (Fig.
7-3). Mercury appeared as a wide crescent as
Mariner 10 approached. By this time, Mariner
was 3.5 million km (2.17 million mi) from

Fig. 7-3. But as Mariner continued to bear down on its target, more and more details appeared.
 Fig. 7-4. Soon craters on Mercury were positively identified for
the first time. Many astronomers had suggested that Mercury
wou ld be cratered like the Moon. This computer-enhanced view
was taken March 27 from a distance of 1,840,000 km
(1 ,141 ,000 mil. Craters as small as 160 km (100 mil across
can be made out along the right edge of the crescent, where
the Sun is setting on the planet. North is at the top.

much to encourage lunar and planetary explora-

tion at the beginning of the space age and was a
member of the Mariner 10 TV team. Dr. Kuiper
had died several months earlier.)
During the next few days the pictures of
Mercury progressed from revealing to fantastic
(Fig. 7-5). The densely cratered surface showed a
profusion of detail. Moonlike, yet at the same
time somehow different from the Moon, the face
of Mercury was built up in picture after picture.
Hurriedly, scientists at the Video Analysis Facility
assembled the many photographs into large
photo mosaics that provided detailed views of
almost the whole lighted hemisphere of this small
world. As Mariner sent back pictures on leaving
Mercury, scientists were excited to find a huge
circular feature about 1300 km (800 mi) across
located on the terminator. This great basin was
surrounded by mountains and with radial struc-
tures very similar to the Mare Orientale of the
Moon.
Mariner 10 began taking pictures of Mercury
on March 23, from a distance of 5.3 million km
(3 .3 million mi). Photography was intermittent
for the next four days but became an almost
co~tinuous operation on March 28 , one picture
bemg taken every 42 sec. However, Mariner was
unable to photograph Mercury during the half
hour around closest approach at 1.46 p.m. PDT
on March 29, because the flight path had been
targeted to pass behind the planet on the night
side.
Mercury, and the images of the planet (Fig. 7-4) While Mariner 10 was still occulted from Earth
exceeded the highest resolution previously ob- by the planet, the cameras started taking pictures
tained by Earth-based telescopes. These and of Mercury's far side from the closest possible
subsequent images soon revealed Mercury to be a altitude of about 5790 km (3600 mi). Since the
Moon-like body, heavily cratered, with large flat planet blocked radio communications to Earth at
circular basins similar to those on the Moon and that time, the TV frames had to be recorded on
Mars. tape within the spacecraft for transmission later.
The bright spot which was the first feature seen Periodic photographic operations continued for
on Mercury in the earliest photographs was soon another five days until April 3, when the
recognized to be a small, 25-km (15-mi) bright- spacecraft was 3.5 million km (2.17 million mi)
rayed crater. (It was later named after the past Mercury. In all, more than 2000 pictures of
astronomer Gerard Kuiper, who had done so Mercury were transmitted from Mariner 10. The

74
 (b)

(a)

Fig. 7-5. During the next few hours the details increased.
Taken shortly before 12:00 noon on March 28 at 952,000 km
(590,240 mil (al shows the bright spot between limb and
terminator close to the center as a bright-rayed crater. In (bl
taken March 29 at 500,000 km (310,000 mil, a lunarlike
surface on which features as small as 11 km (6.8 mil can be
seen. The picture. no longer shows the whole of the planet. In
(cl, taken four hours before closest aproach, at 198,000 km
(122,000 mil, a profusion of craters in the southwestern
quadrant of Mercury can be seen.

75
(a)

(b)

Fig. 7-6. The Mercury encounter presented problems for the imaging team because flyby would be over the dark hemisphere. The
team had to photograph the planet going in to closest approach and then on the outward leg without being able to couple the two
sets of pictures together because of limb foreshortening. In (a), an artist's concept of the encounter with Mercury is shown; (b)
shows the TV Sighting lines sho1rtly before and after closest approach.

76
 photogeometry of the flyby and the angles at Mercury, it left in a direction that showed slightly
which the images of Mercury were obtained are more than half the planet illuminated (Fig. 7-8).
shown in Fig. 7-6. Shortly afterwards it was discovered that the
Mariner 10 cameras had shown the reJative
Mercury had appeared as a fat crescent as brightness of Mercury and the way the light
Mariner 10 approached the planet (Fig. 7-7). reflected from the planet is polarized are identical
After the spacecraft passed by on the dark side of to the Moon.

Fig. 7-7. Two photo mosaics were produced showing the view
of Mercury on the ingoing and outgoing paths. Eighteen
pictures taken at 42-sec intervals were computer-enhanced to
make this mosaic. The pictures were taken during a 13-min Fig. 7-8. The outgoing mosaic of 18 photographs showed
period when Mariner was 200,000 km (124,000 mil and 6 somewhat more of the illuminated surface taken about 6 hours
hours away from Mercury on 29 March. About two-thirds of after closest approach. The north pole is at the top, and the
the portion of Mercury seen here is in the southern equator extends from left to right about two-thirds down from
hemisphere. the top.

77
 The brightest crater on Mercury (Kuiper, Fig.
7-9) reflects almost 25% of the sunlight falling on
it, just a little more than the brightest feature on
the Moon (Aristarchus, Fig. 7-10) . Because
albedo boundaries between plains and highlands
are less clearly defined on Mercury than on the
Moon, the planet overall appears of low contrast
compared with the Moon.
Photographs of increasing detail revealed that,
although generally like the Moon, Mercury has
some distinctly nonlunar features (Fig. 7-11)
including, for example, large scarps or cliffs nearly
3 km (2 mi) high and stretching as far as 500 km
(300 mi) across the surface, which, because of
their lobate form, appear to be compressional
(thrust fault) features, perhaps resulting from

Fig. 7-9. The bright object was the first feature to be

recognized on Mercury and turned out to be a young rayed
crater. It was named Kuiper in memory of Dr. Gerard Kuiper, a
leading advocate of interplanetary spacecraft and a member of
the imaging team for Mariner 10. In (a), the crater is related to
the incoming mosaic; (b) shows the crater in close-up as seen
at a distance of 88,450 km (55,000 mil some 2-1 / 2 hours
before closest approach. Kuiper is about 41 km (25 mil in
diameter and is located on the rim of a larger (80-km) and
(a) older crater.
(b)

78
forces on the surface materials as a hot central
core of the planet cooled.
The major features of Mercury revealed by
Mariner 10 's camera were basins, craters, scarps,
ridges, lunar-like highlands, and plains. The
highlands are cratered about as heavily as their
lunar counterparts. The largest basin- named
Caloris (the Greek word for " hot") because it is
one of the two areas on Mercury that face the Sun
at perihelion-is 1300 km (800 mi) across. It
resembles the Mare Imbrium basin on the Moon
except for an unusual pattern of cracks on its floor
(Fig. 7-12). Mercury displays extensive ray
systems (Fig. 7-13), similar to those on the Moon,
and there are innumerable secondary impact
craters, crater chains and great circle alignments
of bright features closely resembling lunar ray
systems.

Fig. 7-10. By contrast the brightest object on the Moon, the

rayed crater Aristarchus, is not quite as bright as Kuiper.

Fig. 7-11 . Mariner 10 discovered unusual scarps on Mercury, very different from anything on the Moon. They are believed to be
evidence of a shrinking of the planet's crust around its metallic core.

79
Fig. 7-12. Mariner 10 also discovered a great impact basin on
Mercury that is larger than the Mare Imbrium basin on the
Moon. It has been named Caloris (meaning hot) because it is
located at one of the two spots on Mercury that face the Sun
at perihelion, Mercury's closest approach to the Sun.

Fig. 7-13. Mercury has many young bright-rayed or haloed craters such as this. They are thought to be similar to the bright-rayed
craters of the Moon and to be evidence of the final ' stages of planetary bombardment.

There is also a jumbled terrain (Fig. 7-14), antipodal to the Caloris Basin, which also IS
informally termed "weird terrain" by the TV believed to be a major impact basin.
team , which is somewhat analogous to similar
areas on parts of the Moon. It is characterized by Donald Gault of Ames Research Center has
hills and lineations on which rims of craters are postulated that the "weird terrain" could have
broken and dissected. On the Moon the jumbled been caused by seismic forces transmitted through
terrain is antipodal to the basins of Mare the body of the planet and along the surface
Imbrium and Mare Orientale, believed to be the crust, which focussed at the antipodes of the
results of major impacts. On Mercury, it is major impact basin.

81
Fig. 7-14. Antipodal to the Caloris Basin is a vast area of jumbled, peculiar terrain. It has been suggested that the immense shock
waves produced by the impact of the body that produced Caloris were focused around the planet so that the resultant seismic
disturbances broke up the surface as shown on this photograph. A close-up of part of this jumbled, peculiar terrain is also shown
(b).

Mare-like surfaces of large extent have now widespread impact cratering and basin formation.
been observed on the Moon, Mars, and Mercury. The evidence of this process, recorded on the
All show a surprising similarity in the numbers of Moon, Mercury, and Mars, has been largely
small craters that pepper them (Fig. 7-15). This wiped out on Earth and can be demonstrated
implies that all these planets received similar only by sophisticated geological mapping on
intensities of meteorite bombardment. Prior to the ancient surfaces such as the Canadian shield.
Mariner mission to Mercury, scientists thought By direct computer link through the NASA
that the amount of born bardment might differ at Communication Center, it was possible to monitor
various distances from the Sun. Now it appears the nonimaging science data being returned from
that the meteorites were spread evenly throughout the spacecraft in real-time. The data were
the inner Solar System, at least during the final processed at JPL and then transmitted to the
stages of planetary formation. various principal investigators' facilities at the
All the terrestrial planets, including Earth and University of Chicago, Los Alamos Scientific
Venus, may thus have experienced a period of Laboratory, and Goddard Space Flight Center.

83
This operation permitted continuous data cover- bow shock and fills the plasma cavity expected
age in real-time during critical calibrations and at behind an airless small body like Mercury. The
enco unters. It allowed rapid assessment of obser- source of the magnetic fiel d was a mystery, the
vations at encounter, which was especially impor- first order question being whether it was inter-
tant for the magnetometer and plasma science nally ge nerated or a result of electric currents
experiment during this first encounter with induced in the surface or in the tenuous atmos-
Mercury. phere of Mercury by the solar wind. Another visit
Magnetic measurements made in the vicinity of to Mercury would be required to resolve the
Mercury prod uced an unexpected and surprising question.
result. Mercury's effect on the solar wind revealed The high-energy charged particle experiment
the presence of a planetary magnetic field about recorded four unusual events during the first
one-sixtieth of Earth's field. This field produces a encounter. The first of these events was a low

(c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 7-15. Althoug h superficially the plains of Mercury (a) seem similar to those of the Moon and Mars, closer inspecti on reveals
significant differences. The Moon (b) shows a su rface that has been saturated with ejecta and secondary impacts. Mars (c) shows a
surface that has been partially smooth ed by wind erosion. Merc ury's surface (d) may not have been covered as completely with
secondary craters and ejecta as has the Moon.

84
counting rate, which was proba bly a 600-mi-wide This temperature difference between night and
population of residu all y trapped low-energy day is enormous. But at times, when Mercury
electrons. The next two were impulsive events of makes its closest approach to the Sun, the range
large fluxes of approxim ately 300-keY electrons can reach 650 K ( 1170°F): greater than on any
and 550-keY protons. The events are notable other planet in the Solar System.
beca use of their fas t onset times and the periodic The temperature gradient measured between
nature of the counting rates. These facts impose Mercury's light and dark sides offers further proof
severe constraints on the acceleration mechanism. that its surface is very similar to the Moon: an
All three events were observed in the magneto- insulating blanket of dust pulverized by meteoritic
sphere. The fourth event was o bserved in the impacts. A few outcroppings of rocks and freshly
boundary between the magne tosphere and the formed craters cause slight temperature varia-
bow shock. This event was composed of 300-keY tions. But generally the soil is most proba bly very
electrons whose counting r ate varied with a light and porous, with an appearance and bearing
marked 5-sec periodicity. strength similar to lunar soil. An astronaut 's
Radio tracking of Mariner showed that Mer- footprint on Mercury would be almost indistin-
cury is also much closer to being a perfect sphere guishable from one on the Moon.
than is the Earth. The mass of Mercury was Man's first glimpse of Mercury at close hand
measured to 100 times greater accuracy than was quite brief, yet Mariner 10 returned several
previously, i.e., to within one ten-thousandth of thousand photographs and tens of thousands of
the mass of the Sun (Fig. 7-16). M ariner non-imaging meas urements of the planet 'S surface
determined that Mercury does not possess an and environment. The planet had been revealed
ionosphere greater than one hundred-thousandth to be an intriguing com bination of Earthlike and
that of the Earth. Although Mercury is virtually Moonlike characteristics, a body whose early
without an atmosphere, the planet does have history, the record of which is preserved on its
more helium than the Moon, possibly originating ancient surface, is an important piece in the
from radioactive decay of uranium and thorium puzzle that is the origin of our Solar System. As
or capture from the solar wind. had been the case with earlier pl anetary missions,
A night temperature low of 90 K ( - 297°F) was a few hours of spacecraft observations had added
measured by Mariner's infrared radiometer just more to man's store of knowledge about a little-
before dawn on Mercury. The maximum daytime known planet than centuries of Earth-based
temperature in late afternoon was 460 K (369°F ). observations.

Fig. 7- 16. The radio experiment made with Mariner 10 allowed

the mass of Mercury to be determined with much greater
precision than had the best earlier measurements made by
radar and optical observations.

85
, - - - - -- - - - -

Chapter 8
Retu rn to the
Innermost Planet

OLLOWING THE FIRST encounter with Ominous Beginnings

F Mercury, several more trajectory corrections
were needed to direct the spacecraft into an orbit Just two days following Mercury I, while far-
that would permit a return to Mercury on encounter television pictures were still being
September 2 1, 1974. With suitable corrections taken, another failure suddenly and alarmingly
Mariner 10 could again pass by Mercury, this struck the already crippled spacecraft. An addi-
time at 50 ,000 km (31 ,000 mi) above the tional 90-watt load on the power system, accom-
daylight side. The TV optics design is such that panied by a rapid rise in the temperature of the
the altitude provided substantial expansion of the power electronics bay, startled exuberant but tired
photography of Mercury at I km (5/8 mi) mission controllers. Following the early, still
resolution. Exactly the same face of Mercury unexplained switchover, main to standby, this
would be illuminated by the Sun, but the daylight new failure was indeed foreboding. At a hastily
pass would allow photographs to be obtained that called Project meeting late at night on March 31 ,
would tie together the two halves of Mercury seen workarounds to control the temperature problem
at the first pass (Fig. 8-1). Then scientists were found , as were techniques to accommodate
expected to be able to make a detailed and the additional stress on the power system. Other
accurate map of almost one complete hemisphere failures, however, were to follow. That same
of this innermost of the planets to a level of detail week, the tape recorder power turned on and off
equal to that on maps of the Moon before the several times without command, and the unit
space age. Targeting for the second encounter was soon fai led altogether. Commands to change the
chosen such that a third encounter could also be transmjt power level to the radio system proved
achieved in order that the important question of ineffectual. The flight data subsystem experienced
the nature of Mercury's unexpected magnetic field a failure which eliminated many of the engineeer-
(i.e., whether it is intrinsic to the planet or ing data channels, thereby increasing the difficulty
induced by the solar wind) could be answered. of nursing the ailing spacecraft twice more around
Figure 8-2 shows the aim points for the three the Sun and to reencounter Mercury. The oscilla-
Mercury encounters. tion problem had robbed Mariner of most of its

89
(al

80 Fig. 8-2. The selection of aim pOint was important to permit a

third encounter with Mercury six months later. The three aim
points for the three encounters are shown in this diagram.

48 attitude control gas, and analysis showed that gas

32 usage would have to be reduced well below the
, 18 normal cruise rate to last until Mercury III.
III 0 Further, multiple trajectory correction maneuvers
o had to be conducted (five were finally required
~ 18
i=-32 between the first and third encounters), meaning
~-48 that a way had to be found to use the gyros
without causing the oscillation problem. The only
technique available to reduce gas usage, which
involved using the solar panels and high-gain
antenna as solar "sails," was as yet little
understood . Only limited experience had been
gained so far during the mission with regard to
LONGITUDE dag
this unplanned method. The prospects of achiev-
ing a third encounter therefore seemed dim, and
Mercury II, although far more likely, was by no
(bl means assured.
Fig. 8-1 . The second encounter with Mercury allowed Mariner A fourth trajectory correction maneuver was
10 to fly by the planet on the sunlit side, thereby filling in the commanded for mid-May 1974. Because only one
missing areas between the two sections photographed at the TCM had been used between Venus and Mercury
first encounter. This second encounter took place on
September 21 , 1974. Additionally, in this encounter Mariner I, this fourth maneuver was large. To prevent
was able to obtain good views of the south polar region of overheating of the rocket engine; the maneuver
Mercury. An artist's concept of the second flyby is shown in was programmed in two stages. A burn on May 9
(a); (b) shows the added coverage obtained of the illuminated
hemisphere. produced a velocity change of 50 m/sec ( 164 ftf

90
 sec), and on May 10 the second firing produced a
velocity change of 27.6 m/sec (91 ftlsec). This
two-phase maneuver refined the aiming point of
the spacecraft to 46,000 km (29,000 mi) above
the sunlit hemisphere of Mercury.
Mariner 10 reached solar conjunction on June
6, 1974, when it was on the opposite side of the
Sun from the Earth (Fig. 8-3). During this period,
communications with the spacecraft were inter-
rupted . .The dual-channel S- and X-band signals
emitted by the spacecraft had to pass within 1.67
deg of the Sun's surface as viewed from Earth.
Effects of the solar corona's electron clouds were
recorded at the ,DSN Goldstone station. The
primary effects were to cause the radio signal to
scintillate, like a star twinkling in the night sky. A
phase delay of the signal also occurred. Analysis
of the difference in doppler effects on the S- and
X-band signals yielded important information
regarding the radial electron density distribution
in the outer corona of the Sun.
The influence of the Sun's corona on the range
data received at X- and S-band became quite Fig. 8-3. On its long journey around the Sun to the second
noticeable as conjunction approached. Soon the encounter, Mariner passed on the far side of the Sun from
Earth through superior conjunction. Contact with Earth was lost
difference reached 3.6 microsec; a maximum of for a short while. A fifth trajectory correction maneuver had to
about 5 microsec was expected at closest ap- be made soon after solar conjunction with the spacecraft at
proach. Effects of the Sun's enormous gravita- almost its most distant pOint from the Earth, as shown in this
diagram.
tional field were expected to reach as high as 160
microsec in an experiment to verify the effects of
general relativity on the radio signals.
On July 2, 1974, an important fifth trajectory
correction maneuver had to be made. Mariner 10 planet. A short while later the spacecraft com-
was not far from the Sun as seen from Earth, manded itself back to the cruise orientation and
being on the far side of the Sun, and when the telemetered data were again received.
cold gas jets turned the spacecraft into the Without the fifth correction, Mariner 10 would
position for the maneuver, the telemetry signals have passed about 34,000 km (21 ,000 mi) from
being displayed in the Mission Operations Center Mercury 's sunlit side, at a point about 45 deg
all dropped to zero. The pens on the plotter made south of the planet's equator. With its new orbit
straight lines; communication had been broken. velocity, Mariner was expected to pass 16,000 km
But the stored commands were being executed. (10 ,000 mi) farther away from Mercury, or about
The spacecraft was automatically commanded to 50,000 km (31 ,000 mi) at about 40 deg south
roll 56.1 deg, then pitched 57.8 deg. The rocket latitude (see Fig. 8-4). There were two reasons
engine fired for 18.8 sec to cause a velocity why this fifth correction maneuver was com-
change of 3.32 m/sec (almost 11 ftlsec). First manded. First, a more favorable passage was
indication that the spacecraft had performed its desired at the second Mercury encounter (which
maneuver came from the doppler data. A small became known as Mercury II) in terms of science
group looking at the readouts of the doppler data return. The second. objective was to allow
residuals showed the results to Gene Giberson retargeting of the resultant trajectory between
and N . William Cunningham (NASA Headquar- Mercury II and a possible Mercury III to a variety
ters Program Manager, who was visiting JPL). of realizable aiming points at Mercury III which
The maneuver looked good. Mariner 10 seemed would not exceed Mariner 10 's remaining trajec-
all set for its second rendezvous with the inner tory correction capability.

91
Fig. 8-4. As a result 01 the trajectory correction, aim pOints lor
the second encounter, termed Mercury II, brought the (a)
spacecraft farther out on the sunlit side to gain improved TV
coverage.

Focus on the Southern Hemisphere

Point of closest approach during the second

encounter occurred at 1: 59 p.m. PDT on Septem-
ber 21, 1974, and some 500 pictures of Mercury
were returned during the three-day encounter
sequence. This second encounter provided a
substantial increase in area of the planet covered
by detailed mosaics (Fig. 8-5), in extending the
coverage from 50 to 75% of the illuminated
hemisphere, and it showed details in the south
polar region (Fig. 8-6). No totally new terrain
types were found, increasing scientists' confidence (b)
that Mercury I conclusions were based on a
representative sample of the Hermian surface.
Scarps similar to those noted at the first encounter
were found in southern latitudes, thereby verify-
ing the global character of the forces which
formed them.

Fig. 8-5. The new pictures were fantastic. A southern

hemisphere area 01 heavily cratered terrain (460 by 650 km,
285 by 400 mi) on which a prominent scarp extends several
hundreds 01 kilometers at the upper left is shown in (a). The
smallest details measure about 1.7 km (1 mi). Another
densely cratered region containing a scarp which rises about
two km (7500 It) above the surrounding area is shown in (b).
The scarp shown in (c) is more than 300 km (185 mi) long.
These structures are explained as compressive laults caused
when the core of Mercury shrank after most of the craters had (e)
been formed on the surface.

92
 Mercury .II was an epic encounter, the first time Many of these mosaics are reproduced in an
any spacecraft had returned to its target planet appendix. The additional coverage of the planet
for a second look. The second encounter was by the second encounter is shown on the U.S.
made when the spacecraft was much more distant Geological Survey map reproduced in Fig. 8-7
from Earth than at the first encounter, and in and one of the mosaics in Fig. 8-8.
order to get the full complement of TV images The second flyby was main!y devoted to
back to make a complete mosaic of the planet, imaging science, since the spacecraft was too far
engineers at the Goldstone station had to develop from the planet to obtain significant data with
an unusual antenna configuration. They con- some of the other science experiments. However,
nected the three big Goldstone antennas to- the ultraviolet experiment was able to make good
gether- one 64-m and two 26-m antennas- with use of the distant sunlit-side encounter. The slit of
microwave links and operated them as one large the spectrograph was commanded through many
antenna. The error rate for this distant encounter slow drift scans across the surface of the planet.
was thereby reduced to about 3 bits per hundred, Thus, good ultraviolet data were obtained to set
and pictures of superb quality were obtained in even more accurate upper limits of the density of
real-time. the helium atmosphere of Mercury than those set
at the first encounter, i.e., less than 10- 15 the
These pictures provided mosiacs over large density of Earth 's atmosphere. Also during this
areas of the planet's surface, with coverage of encounter, the emission lines of helium were seen
some areas from several different viewing angles. again.

Fig. 8-6. On this second flyby, Mariner 10 was able to obtain close-ups of the south pole of Mercury, showing that no different land
forms exist in the polar region . Also, the photographs show that the compressional scarps extend into the polar regions. The pole
is located inside the large crater, 180 km (110 mil in diameter, on Mercury's limb (lower center). Just above and to the right of the
south pole is a double ring basin about 200 km (125 mil in diameter. A bright ray system, splashed from a 50-km (30-mi) crater,
appears at the upper right. The picture was taken at a distance of 85,800 km (53,200 mil, within two hours of Mariner's
approaching closest to Mercury.

93
 NORTH POLAR REGION SOUTH POLAR REGION

NORTH

0°
SOUTH

Fig. 8-7. The additional coverage of Mercury by the second encounter is shown by the hatched portion over this USGS map made
on the basis of the first encounter.

In this second encounter a navigational tech- one hundred pictures were taken by the TV
nique was tested that would be essential for imaging system to obtain angular measurements
subsequent missions to the outer planets. All between Mercury and stars. First results showed
interplanetary flights to date relied solely on that the experi.ment was successful, demonstrating
Earth-based radio measurements for navigation. that long missions to outer planets will be able to
Project scientists decided to conduct experiments use this technique to navigate spacecraft through
with Mariner 10 to find out if optical navigation the intertwining orbits of satellites of the big
is practical. From September 17 through 19, some planets, Jupiter and Saturn.

94
Fig. 8-8. The new mosaics produced from the pictures
returned from Mercury II were equally as good as the two
from the first encounter. Mercury II mosaics gave many
different panoramas of the same area seen at various viewing
angles. These mosaics are reproduced in Appendix A. The
one shown here covers the heavily cratered south polar region
as seen from a distance of about 65,000 km (40,000 mil. The
south pole is just off the field of view at the bottom, and north
is at the top. Numerous scarps are revealed, some of which
are several hundred kilometers long and transect and distort
large craters. Ray systems associated with two fresh craters
are prominent at the top and bottom of the picture. Small
areas of relatively smooth, flat terrain are visible near the
center of the field of view and appear to fill a large, badly
degraded, circular basin 350 km (220 mil in diameter near the
terminator.

Attempting a Third Visit of the gyros, and the resultant oscillation events
depleted the gas supply below that required to
After Mercury II, Mariner 10 was placed back achieve Mercury III (160 days of cruise re-
in the cruise mode in which the high-gain mained ). Roll axis stabilization had therefore to
antenna and solar panels were used as light- be abandoned, and a "roll drift" mode adopted,
pressure torquers to save attitude control gas for a whereby the spacecraft was allowed to roll slowly,
third encounter. The antenna was placed in a the rate being controlled by differentially tilting
position whereby solar radiation pressure could be the solar p anels. The roll rates had to be
used to maintain the spacecraft's correct orienta- maintained quite low to prevent excessive use of
tion, and the solar panels were differentially tilted the pitch and yaw jets, and also to allow gyro
to minimize roll jet gas usage. These techniques turn-on for trajectory correction maneuvers and
sharply reduced the expenditure of the space- pre-encounter reacquisition without inducing an
craft's precious nitrogen supply, but more extreme oscillation. The method was made more difficult
measures became necessary. by the loss of engineering telemetry channels
mentioned earlier. The Canopus intensity channel,
On October 6, the Canopus star tracker, from which a "star map" capable of defining roll
distracted by a bright particle passing through its position quite accurately could be calculated, had
field of view, lost lock on the reference star, and been lost. The" roll error " signal from the tracker
the spacecraft went into an uncontrolled roll. The remained, but this gave only an approximate
automatic reacquisition sequence had been inhib- position of those stars bright enough to be
ited, and repeated reacquisition attempts using acquirable by the tracker. Since at no time during
commands timed on the basis of the star tracker the Mercury II- III transit were there more than
roll error signal telemetry were unsuccessful. Each three such stars, roll position knowledge was
of these attempts required the momentary turn-on difficult to obtain with any precision.

95
 One technique to obtain this information which orientation for the third flyby of the innermost
proved very useful was measurement of the planet. It had been a close call-reacquisition had
intensity of the signal from the low-gain antenna, been achieved just a few hours before closest
which varied with roll position because of the approach.
nonuniformity in the antenna 's radiation pattern
Although this flyby was aimed primarily at
(measured before launch) and its noncentral
obtaining data on the magnetic field of Mercury,
position on the spacecraft. This measurement was,
in fact, the sole indication of roll position and
rate upon which the critical command to stop the
spacecraft for reacquisition was sent just hours
before the third encounter. But " roll drift"
worked, reducing gas consumption to some 25 %
of normal cruise usage, allowing Mariner to reach
Mercury III with a slim margin (the gas supply
was exhausted just a few days following encoun-
ter).
The continuous rolling of the spacecraft compli-
cated the navigation task, in that it introduced a
modulation on the doppler measurements· because
of the off-center position of the low-gain antenna.
This complication required special modifications
to the complex orbit determination computer
programs. The problem was further aggravated
by sharply reduced station coverage (Mariner
could be tracked less than 20% of the time
because of the needs of the Pioneer and Helios
programs). Nevertheless, three trajectory correc-
tion maneuvers were successfully completed
during this period, putting the spacecraft on a
trajectory which produced the closest planetary
flyby yet accomplished (Fig. 8-9).
A few days before the encounter, trouble again
hit the spacecraft and added considerable drama
to the final stages of this extended mission.
During the attempt to reacquife the reference star
Canopus, the spacecraft rolled into a null position
on the low-gain antenna, and communications
with Earth were broken. To compound the
problem, the spacecraft could not be commanded
by the smaller DSN antennas, and there were
demands on the bigger antennas to communicate
with other spacecraft: Pioneer 11 , on its way to
Saturn, and Helios, approaching its perihelion
passage. To save Mariner, the German controllers
of Helios were asked to surrender some of their
scheduled receiving time on the big antennas.
Even though this was the period of maximum
scientific interest during the Helios mission, they
acceded to the Mariner project's request. As a
(el
direct result, commands reached Mariner from the
Fig. 8-9. The third encounter is graphically shown in this
big antenna at Madrid, and the spacecraft broke artist's concept (a), while (b) and (c) show the flight path as
from its null mode and achieved its correct seen from the Earth and from the Sun .

96
the incoming and outgoing paths provided oppor- As anticipated, the important science results
tunities for imaging science as they did at the first from the third encounter were those obtained by
encounter. The cameras were directed to produce the particles and fields observations. The mag-
high-resolution mosaics of areas of interest netic field experiment produced evidence that the
discovered at Mercury I. The third encounter field of Mercury is intrinsic to the planet and not
produced some remarkably detailed pictures of induced by the action of the solar wind. Norman
small areas of the Hermian surface on which Ness, principal investigator for this experiment,
objects as small as 137 m (450 ft) can be calculated the time of events expected to be
identified. Figure 8-10 provides a selection of observed by Mariner 10 at Mercury III, assuming
these pictures. that the planet's magnetic field is a scaled-down

Fig. 8-10. High-resolution pictures, each only a quarter frame, were obtained at the third encounter, Mercury III. In the upper portion
of (a), which was taken from a distance of 67,000 km (41 ,500 mil on March 16, 1975, a multiple impact feature of three craters of
different sizes nested within the largest is shown. The smallest crater is about 15 km (9 mil in diameter. The bright feature at the
bottom was caused by impact of a meteorite; it is a fresh crater. Craters ranging in size from 30 to 50 km (18.5 to 31 mil are
shown in (b). It was taken at a distance of 65,000 km (40,000 mil, one hour and 45 min before closest approach. The fractured
and ridged plains of the floor of the Caloris basin are shown in (c). The area is located at 31 ° N latitude and 183°W longitude. The
picture was taken at a range of 19,000 km (11,800 mil, 34 min after the spacecraft swept past Mercury for the third and final
encounter.

(a) (e)

97
version of the Earth's field. The actual times of
passage through the bow shock, the magneto-
pause, and the maximum field were almost BOW SHOCk WAYE
exactly as predicted (see table ).
SOLAR - - -..
WIND

Magnetometer R esults

Time of observation (PDT),

hr:min
TO SUN
Significant Events Predicted Actual
+3
Bow shock 3:31 ±02 3:31

Magnetopause 3:39 ±01 3:39

Maximum field* 3:49 ±01 3:49

Magnetopause 3:54 ±01 3:56

Bow shock 3:58 ±02 3:59

(a)

*Amplitude predicted was 200 to 500 gamma; actual was

400 gamma.

In addition, observations of the low-energy w

C/l
solar wind electrons revealed that the magneto- N
- '
sphere of Mercury fits very closely to a scaled- o
down Earth's magnetosphere (Fig. 8- I I), there by «
a: 0
reinforcing the results of the magnetometer >-
a:
' experiment. Finally, the observations of relativis- ::J
()

tic particles confirmed that Mercury, like the a:

w
::2' -1
Earth, has a magnetically neutral "tail," with a
dividing neutral sheet. From this region, explo-
sively accelerated bursts of electrons and protons
are ejected. These brief, high-intensity bursts, first -2
detected on Mercury I, are believed to originate
from cancellation of magnetic fields.
2 o -1 -2 -3
MERCURY RADII, X SE
Mariner left Mercury behind and started
(b)
another orbit of the Sun, its maneuvering gas just Fig. 8-11. Mariner 10's path through the th ird encounter
about exhausted. The end came on March 24, passed over the planet. Looking down from the north, (a)
1975, when the final depletion of the nitrogen shows the interaction of the solar wind with the magnetic field
of the planet. The crossings of the bow shock wave and the
supply was signalled by the onset of an unpro- magnetopause corresponded with the times predicted from the
grammed pitch turn. Commands were immedi- measurements made during the first encounter, thereby
ately sent to the spacecraft to turn off its confirming that the magnetic field of Mercury is intrinsic to the
planet. An equatorial plane view of the planet's magnetic field
transmitter, and radio signals to Earth ceased. A lines is given in (b), which shows portions of the path of
silent Mariner 10, its extended mission completed Mariner 10 through the field at the first and third encounters.

98
despite the many obstacles, continued its lonely that order in the evening sky, a brilliant celestial
orbiting of the . Sun. A few days later, the U.S. necklace of other worlds. There were few people
PQstal Service issued a commemorative stamp at that time in science or engineering who would
(Fig. 8-12) honoring the project in ceremonies at have thought that mankind would explore 'all
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. these planets with spacecraft within 40 years. Yet
Mariner 10's observations of the two inner now that Mariner 10 has visited Mercury, Pioneer
planets, with three observations in one mission of 10 has visited Jupiter, and Pioneer II has safely
the innermost, added another to the long series of passed Jupiter and is on its way to Saturn for a
NASA firsts in the , golden age of planetary flyby in 1979, this tremendous feat of interplane-
exploration. tary exploration has been accomplished, and man
In March 1940 the planets Mars, Saturn, has become more aware of the Solar System and
Venus, Jupiter and Mercury were all lined up in the place in it of the Earth.

MARINER 10 * VENUS/MERCURY

Fig. 8-12. Commemorative stamp issued by the postal service honoring the achievements of Mariner 10.

99
Chapter 9
A Clearer
Perspective

M ARINER 10 PROVIDED an important addi-

,tion to man's view of the inner solar system.
Previously, the Apollo program had provided a
than that of the planet itself. While the mecha-
nisms responsible for these remarkable features
are not yet understood, their eventual elucidation
direct sampling of rocks fro m another world, thus will be of profound importance to our under-
allowing age-dating of planetary material even standing of Venus's atmosphere. Further, obser-
further back than was possible on Earth because vations of the interaction of the planet'S atmos-
of major disturbances to the Earth's surface phere with the solar wind were extended signifi-
following its formation. An orbiting Mariner cantly. These new data, combined with Mariner's
spacecraft had surveyed the whole of the planet direct, highly precise measurements of hydrogen,
Mars and revealed unexpected surface features, a helium, carbon and argon abundances, provided
planet that was partly primordial and partly better insight into the processes by which plane-
molded by volcanism and atmospheric effects. tary atmospheres evolve and are modified by the
Venus had been visited by a number of Sun.
American and Soviet spacecraft, and the general But Mariner 10 's principal contribution to the
nature of its atmosphere and surface conditions study of the Solar System lay, as expected, in the
determined, with reasonable, but yet untested Mercury observations. A major discovery was
inferences regarding its internal structure and Mercury's magnetic field. This result was com-
evolutionary history. Direct observational data on pletely unexpected and very exciting. Mercury
Mercury were sparse. Its mass and density were was known to be a slowly rotating planet, and the
known, and evidence existed that its atmosphere early Mariner 10 pictures had shown it to be one
was at best tenuous. There were no data on which, like the Moon, had not experienced
Mercury 's surface topography or body charac- significant crustal modification by internal activity
teristics, from which both evolutionary history since its infancy. Our best theories told us that
and internal composition might be inferred. planetary magnetic fields were generated by a
Mariner 10's investigation of Venus yielded a dynamo effect which was caused by the presence
modest, but important increase in knowledge. of a molten electrically conducting core within a
Fine-scale markings in the upper atmosphere of rotating planet. Another possible explanation
Venus that are visible only in ultraviolet light would be the induction of a magnetic field by the
were observed. These "cloud " patterns exhibit a interaction of a cold, but conductive planet with
rapid rotation with a 4-day period, much faster the fluctuating magnetic field of the solar wind.

101
This effect could produce a magnetic field similar forming those further from the Sun has a greater
to one which was internally generated and very proportion of the lighter elements. A chemical
difficult to distinguish from the latter in a single gradient model allows the condensation from the
observation. primordial nebula of different combinations of
Mercury III provided a second observation. The chemical compounds at various distances from the
third encounter results showed unequivocally that Sun; some planets would receive water, others
the field is of internal origin, and the explanation would not. Thus the innermost planets, Mercury
of Mercury's magnetic field became a sort of and Venus, might have accreted in a zone around
scientific " Catch-22. " The field had to be either the Sun where there was little water, whereas the
actively generated at the present or a relic of a Earth formed in a zone with an abundance of
previous field. With regard to the latter, the water.
"catch" is that the high temperatures which are It is further speculated that following the
required for the generation of a field (i.e. , accretion of the planets there was a period of
temperatures above the Curie point, when metals internal heating during which the original accre-
lose their induced magnetism) destroy induced tionary surface was molded. This appears to some
magnetism once the dynamic field-generating scientists to be borne out by observations of the
process stops. The" catch" in the presently active surface of Mercury from Mariner 10. Between the
(dynamo) explanation is the fact that Mercury's craters there appear to be many areas of an
surface shows no evidence of internally generated ancient smoothed surface. Some planetologists
deformation or volcanism for at least 3 billion feel that an early process of melting is evidenced
years. Thus the best explanation for the origin of by these "intercrater" plains and that they are
the field - i.e., a large, hot, thermally convecting the record of the chemical differentiation which
core- seems at odds with the clearly primitive appears to be required to explain Mercury's
state of the planet's crustal development. magnetic field, i.e., heavy materials in the core
The photographic record of Mercury's surface and lighter elements near the surface. However,
produced by Mariner 10 has allowed planetolo- this differentiation could have taken place during
gists to take a deeper look at the inner Solar the actual process of accretion; i.e., the heavy
System. Some now see a pattern emerging in materials might have accreted into a protoplanet
which there were five major epochs in the which later collected lighter materials as these
building of the terrestrial planets. condensed from the primordial nebula. The
The first epoch was one of major accretion, in question of the timing of Hermian differentiation
which the basic mass of each planet came is now being attacked by scientists specializing in
together from Solar System material in a rela- planetary thermal evolution models. Their obser-
tively short time of several million years about 4.5 vational limits have been set by Mariner 10 and
billion years ago. Whether or not this was an lunar age dating.
accumulation of particles of the same general Between 4 and 3.3 billion years ago, according
composition irrespective of distance from the Sun, to the evidence of the lunar rocks, the Moon was
or a differentiated accumulation of particles subjected to bombardment by swarms of large
depending upon distance from the Sun, is not yet bodies, which created large impact basins and
known. smaller craters accompanied by secondary and
In the former case, all the inner planets would tertiary craters. Then, as abruptly as it com~
have started out with basically the same materi- menced, this tremendous bombardment ended.
als, ranging from heavy elements such as iron to Comparative studies of the cratered terrains of
lighter volatiles such as hydrogen and helium. Mars, and now Mercury, show that these planets,
Then subsequent evolution of the planets would too, were subjected to similar bombardment.
have caused a change to their present states in Crater densities observed on these three widely
which the planets differ radically in composition, separated planets suggest that the source of the
some having more heavy elements and fewer bombarding objects could be remote from the
volatiles than others. inner Solar System, and not necessarily in the
In the latter, generally more favored case, asteroid belt, as was thought before the beginning
planets closer to the Sun accreted from material of spacecraft planetary exploration. In addition,
richer in the heavier elements, while the material the use of a remote source area for this uniform

102
 bombardment flux implies simultaneity of the measurement that on the Moon the latest lava
bombardment for all bodies in the inner Solar flows occurred about 3.3 billion years ago. It
System. This episodic, nonuniformitarian theory, appears, based on crater counts, that the smooth
although philosophically objectionable in terms of plains on Mercury occurred about the same time,
the orderly operation of a natural system which assuming a si multaneity in the heavy bom bard-
can be described statistically, has considerable ment of both planets.
appeal to those concerned with the practical The final phase of planetary evolution 1S
problems involved in describing the early history represented on the Earth by a tectonic phase III
of the Solar System. Final heavy bombardment, if which convection within the mantle gave rise to
episodic, simultaneous and ubiquitous in the inner shield volcanoes, subduction zones, sea-floor
Solar System, provides a "marker horizon" for spreading centers, and the motion of crustal
dating epochs in planetary evolution. One sugges- plates. The major volcanoes on Mars and the
tion for the origin of the bombarding bodies is great plateau on which they are found represent
the penetration of a large (10 23 grams) body into the manifestation of tectonic processes. On Venus,
the inner Solar System on a Venus satellite escape too, some of the radar data suggest that although
trajectory, followed by its fragmentation as it Mariner 10 shows an almost spherical planet,
passed Venus inside the Roche limit (a distance much closer to a sphere than is the Earth, the
within which the gravitational energy of the surface itself has great irregularities. This may
larger body causes the smaller one to fragment). indicate that convective forces have been actively
Another is a sudden disruption of a very large molding the surface of Venus too.
body in the vicinity of the asteroid belt. Note that
the latter model, while not requiring a remote There have been postulations that Mars may be
source, still implies simultaneity. entering an active phase of tectonism, leading to
On Mars and Mercury the bombardment did an Earthlike planet in the future. There has been
not destroy all the old surface. On the Moon it speculation that the great Coprates chasm repre-
did. We cannot be sure what happened on Venus, sents the beginning of rifts in the continental mass
although radar observations do show evidence of and shows the start of a breakup into continental
large craters on that planet. On the Earth there is plates. However, the results of the Mercury
steadily emerging evidence of a period of exten- encounter, taken in conjunction with comparative
sive born bardment of the most ancient continental crater counts, seem to strengthen the view that
cores like the Canadian shield. In the main, of the Martian volcanic activity took place hundreds
course, Earth's bombardment history has been of millions of years ago, not so recently as was
erased by subsequent events. However, it is first supposed. This leads to a picture of a planet
important to note that all the planets of the inner whose evolution toward a tectonically active
Solar System were most likely subjected to Earthlike body has run its course, arrested in its
bombardment by asteroid-sized bodies at some infancy by an insufficient supply of internal heat.
time subsequent to accretion and chemical differ- The latter presumably is traceable to the initial
entiation. chemical constitution of the planet.
As the impacts subsided, the Moon entered It is clear from the evidence on hand that the
another phase of evolution-volcanism. Lava Moon and Mercury have been quiescent since the
flowed into the big impact basins and filled the formation of marelike smooth plains shortly after
floors of large claters. On the Moon these flows the cessation of heavy bombardment. Mercury,
are very evident. Not so on the Earth and Mars. unlike the Moon, appears to have gone through a
The smooth post-bombardment pl ains of Mercury tectonic phase of sorts, i.e., crustal shortening.
strongly resemble the lunar maria, and many This occurred quite early, during the bombard-
planetologists argue that they also represent an ment epoch, and probably represents a simple
epoch of extensive volcanism. Others, however, crustal adjustment to a slight shrinking of the
point out that no primary volcanic features large Hermian core. As far as can be gathered
(domes, vents, pit-craters, etc.) have been recog- today, the planet-building process stopped about
nized on Mercury, and caution that the marelike 3.5 billion years ago as the episodic period of
plains may have been formed by impact-melt bombardment ended and the inner Solar System
processes. It has been determined by direct was cleared of much of its debris. After that, the

103
 l

individual planets were on their own; they Arts in Paris, regarding the Institute of France,
evolved from the materials then within them. the Louvre and Notre Dame, speculated on the
The past decade of planetary exploration has definition of civilization, saying " what is civiliza-
provided mankind with a completely new view of tion? I don't know ... But I think I can recognize it
the inner planets which has reflected into our when I see it." In Mariner 10 and its views of
view of the Earth. Planetology has developed into little known worlds, we can recognize an element
a comparative science in which the broader of our own.
viewpoint of accurate information concerning all David Morrison , reporting in the scientific
the terrestrial planets- even though still fragmen- journal Icarus in the First International Collo-
tary- is allowing scientists to take a much harder quium on Mercury held at Caltech in 1975, stated
look at many aspects of Earth sciences- geology, " This Colloquium demonstrated the degree to
geophysics, climatology and even meteorology. which Mariner 10 observations have plucked
While currently we by no means know all there is Mercury from obscurity, so that now data on this
to know about how the planets were formed , planet are providing important input to discus-
speculations are based on direct knowledge, sions of the origin and early chemical and
knowledge that could never be gained by remote dynamical evolution of the solar system as well as
observations from Earth. to theories of planetary surfaces and interiors . . .it
Our shiny, fragile spacecraft have given us a seems certain that the Mariner data will continue
perspective totally unavailable to the greatest to be analyzed for many years to come, and that
scientists of the past. Planetary exploration is this planet is now firmly fixed in both public and
essentially a cultured activity- a creature and scientific consciousness as a real world , as
indicator of the level and nature of our civiliza- interesting and unique as is each of the other
tion. Kenneth Clark, standing on the Pont des planets."

104
Page intentionally left blank
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
Mercury Mosaics
and Maps

This appendix presents mosaics of Mercury made from images obtained during the
second flyby, September 2 1, 1974, when Mariner 10 's closest approach was 50,000 km
(30,000 mi) over the sunlit hemisphere. These mosaics link the two mosaics obtained during
the first encounter to provide a total coverage of 45% of the illuminated hemisphere at
useful viewing angles. The series of mosaics take n at the second encounter include several of
the same areas of Mercury seen fro m different viewing angles. During the third encounter,
imaging concentrated on high-resolution pictures of areas of interest. Some of the results are
included in this appendix and compared with views taken during the earlier encounters.
Some unique stereo pairs of areas of Mercury which can easily be viewed with a simple
mirror to provide an astronaut's impression of the surface of the innermost planet of the
solar system are also incl uded here.

107
 Fig. A-1 . Eighteen pictures, taken at 42-sec intervals by
Mariner 10's two TV cameras, were computer-enhanced and
assembled by hand into this photomosaic. The pictures were
taken during a 13-min period when Mariner was 200,000 km
(124,000 mil from Mercury on March 29, 1974, and was
rapidly approaching the planet. Latitude and longitude
references for the figure are given in (a); (b) identifies some of
the geological features. Kuiper was the first marking
recognizable on the Mariner pictures taken during the approach
to Mercury. Hun Kal is the reference crater for latitude and
longitude on Mercury, almost on the equator at 20 degrees
longitude (see Fig. A-3). North is at the top, and the Sun is
illuminating the planet from the left.

(al

108
 Fig. A-2. This photomosaic of Mercury was constructed of 18
photos taken at 42-sec intervals by Mariner 10 six hours after
the spacecraft flew past the planet on March 29, 1974. A
large circular basin about 1300 km (800 mil in diameter
straddles the terminator. This is Caloris. Bright-rayed craters
are prominent in this view of the planet. The pictures were
taken from a distance of 210,000 km (130,000 mil. In (a)
latitude and longitude references for the mosaic are provided,
and (b) identifies some of the geological features. Again , north
is at the top, and the Sun is shining on the planet from the
right.

'(.

L EGEND
--+-- RI DG ES
SCARPS
(hatches on high side)
c::J PL A I NS MATER IAL
(a) (b)

110
Fig. A-3. A fresh new crater in the center of an older crater
basin provides a landmark for the tiny crater named Hun Kal -
the Mayan number 20-which is the basis for positioning the
longitudes on Mercury. By definition, the 20° meridian passes
through the center of this small crater. Assuming that the spin
axis of Mercury is perpendicular to its orbital plane, the
latitude of Hun Kal is 0.23° S. This picture, which covers an
area of 130 by 170 km (90 by 105 mil, was taken from a
distance of about 20,700 km (12,860 mil, a half-hour before
Mariner made its first close flyby of Mercury, March 1974.

112
NORTH POLAR REGION SOUTH POLAR REGION

NORTH
0°

... +-

0°
SOUTH

Fig. A-4. From the photomosaics obtained by Mariner, the U.S.

Geological Survey is preparing an atlas of Mercury. A control
net of Mercury has been established together with coordinates
of over 1000 points from the Mariner 10 photographs. The
series of maps of Mercury will be produced at a scale of
1:5,000,000. Topographic and albedo features are portrayed by
airbrush techniques similar to an earlier series of maps of the
Moon and of Mars. The map reproduced here shows the
coverage obtained during Mercury I to a scale of 1:25,000,000.
The diagonal gap across the map was, of course, filled in by
the photographs obtained later at the second encounter.

113
 Fig. A-5. This first of the mosaics obtained at the second
encounter covers much the same area of Mercury as the
incoming mosaic of the first encounter but extends farther into
south polar regions. The crater Kuiper is clear in the top part
of the picture. North is at the top. and the Sun illuminates
Mercury from the left. The black areas represent parts of
Mercury that were not covered in this mosaic. The line
drawing below relates the mosaic to latitude and longitude on
the illuminated disc of the planet at the time of the encounter.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o d 3 h 11 m 48 s

114
 Fig. A-S. The second mosaic swings up toward the limb
region. Two bright craters in the lower left quadrant of Fig.
A-5 are now placed centrally to the right and immediately
below the black area of missi ng coverage on this mosaic.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

116 o d 1 h 57 m 36 s
 Fig. A-7. This mosaic covers regions to the south at
increasing resolution . The two bright-rayed craters are in the
upper left-hand quadrant of this picture. The prominent scarp
in the middle of the top half of the picture is named Astrolabe
after the ship used by d'Urvilie in Antarctica in 1838-1840. It
is located at 45° 8 latitude and 70° longitude. A system of
bright rays radiates from a crater off the right bottom of the
mosaic.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o d 1 h 45 m 0 s

118
 Fig. A-8. This mosaic covers the southern terminator region .
Discovery scarp is at the top center, named after one of
Cook's ships on his last voyage to the Pac;;ific during 1776-
1780. The south pole of Mercury is located in the large crater
with its floor in shadow one-third of the way along the
term inator from the bottom of the mosaic.

TIME FROM CLOS EST A PP ROACH

od 1 h 32 m 24 s

120
 Fig. A-g. Moving northward again, this mosaic is centered
about 300 S latitude and 75° longitude. It shows again the twin
bright-rayed crater of Figs. A-6 and A-7. The Astrolabe Scarp
is one-third the way up the right-hand edge of the mosaic.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o d 1 h 15 m 36 s

122
 Fig. A-10. This mosaic extends to the southeast of the twin
bright-rayed crater of Fig. A-g. Increasing resolution shows a
wealth of fine structural detail of the planet 's surface.

30 N

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

Od 1 h3mO s

124
 Fig. A-11 . Continuing southward, this mosaic shows the south
polar region in great detail ; the south pole of Mercury is within
the shadowed crater one-quarter of the way from the bottom
of the right-hand edge of the mosaic. Two mountain tops
gleam as tiny spots within the crater. Three large double-ring
basins are between 150 and 200 km in diameter. Alongside
them, smooth plains contain many ridges and scarps.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 50 m 24 s

126
 Fig. A-12. As Mariner flies by the planet it looks at a part of
the surface on which the sun is shining from overhead.
Craters and mountains cast no visible shadows and surface
features are seen as albedo differences, light rings of crater
walls, streaks, rays, and light and dark splotches. The center
of this mosaic is approximately 90° longitude and 200S
latitude.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 37 m 48 s

128
 0
Fig. A-13. This mosaic is centered about 100 longitude and
400 S latitude. Somewhat closer to the terminator, it provides
more shadow detail than the previous mosaic. The area
includes some large crater rings with very rugged surrounding
terrain and one very prominent double ring that is almost an
impact basin.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 25 m 12 s

130
 Fig. A-14. An area a little farther south abuts on the previous
0
mosaic. Its center is at 100° longitude and 60 S latitude. The
ray systems in the left half of this mosaic can be traced
upward into the lower left of Fig. A-13, where there is a very
slight overlap of the two mosaics. The prominent bright, large
crater with its huge central peak is about 100 km in diameter.
Near to it is the large 200-km-diameter double-ring crater, the
largest of the three such craters in Fig. A- 11 on which the
bright, large crater also appears.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 12 m 36 s

132
 Fig. A-15. Again the mosaic moves south , this time with a
little more overlap with the previous mosaic of Fig. A-14. Part
of the large double-ringed crater at the bottom of Fig. A-14
can be seen at the top of this mosaic. The origin of the long
rays seen in both Figs. A-13 and A-14 is identified in thi s
mosaic as a fresh young crater with a central peak. It is
about 50 km in diameter. The two smaller double-ring basins
of Fig. A-II also appear on this figure.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

OdOhOmO s

134
 Fig. A-16. Returning to the sun-drenched landscape near to
the equator at 80° longitude, this mosaic reveals a criss-
crossing area of light streaks from ray craters. This whole
area was foreshortened near the limb of the planet as seen in
the two mosaics of Mercury I encounter.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 12 m 36 s

136
 Fig. A-17. Another area close to the limb regions of the
incoming and outgoing mosaics of the first encounter is shown
here in a region centered just north of the equator at
longitude 110° . There is slight overlap with Fig. A-16. The
small irregular dark splotch at the top left of Fig. A-16 (close
to a bright crater) is near to the bottom right corner of this
mosaic.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 25 m 12 s

138
 Fig. A-18. This mosaic covers an area to the east of A-17;
the bright ray crater bottom right of A-17 is top left on this
0
mosaic. The mosaic is centered about 125 longitude and
15°S latitude.

TIME FROry! CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 37m 48 s

140
 Fig. A-19. Moving its cameras southward and toward the
terminator, Mariner 10 took this series for a mosaic centered
about 135° longitude and 30°8 latitude. The mosaic is
dominated by a bright-ringed large crater almost at its center.
Just above it is a large basin that shows a ruined inner ring.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

o dOh 50 m 24 s

142
 Fig. A-20. South still more and toward the evening terminator,
this mosaic shows enormous detail again under low Sun
angles. A bright-rayed crater dominates the lower part of the
picture. This is the bright-rayed crater of Fig. A-15. North of it
and to the west are some unusually long narrow valleys and
several prominent scarps. Another young, bright-rayed crater
dominates the northern part of this mosaic. There are l1!any
large areas of smooth plains material , including a large filled
basin marred by subsequent major impacts.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

Od1h3mOs

144


L
`^c

IL

^, ' • r+ f: + ; ' .,•. ^ •• Wiz+

lot

'
r °1! a ^^ $` ^` i'.^a'.. yak

kl

4 •^, ` ^ ^, t l
X1;0 `^ •^ ^,^ . ^

ITT
 Fig. A-21. Centered about 90° longitude and 15°S latitude, this
mosaic shows some of the areas covered earlier but from a
different viewpoint. The picture is dominated by albedo
markings under a high illumination with virtually no shadow
detail.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

Od1h20m30s

146


soy

,. ^,lC ^ -3 r - xt' :'^. •M , ^ tit

.
^!^':4 ,♦., s .•'-^:
'.s^ r ^ ^1' . ms` s `' A^ ^ r^

fey
y LQj•
I R

fe

y ,r

rnr r .
 Fig. A-22. This mosaic provides details toward the south pole
along longitude 120 ` . Again it is dominated by albedo
markings and light rays. The spacecraft was leaving Mercury
so that resolution is decreasing.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

0d1h33m6s

148
 trot.

%Oki

L
148^^
 Fig. A-23. The south polar regions are seen here from the
opposite side of the planet from Fig. A-11. This mosaic is
centered at 160° longitude and 45°S latitude. Close to the
right edge of the mosaic is the large crater with its bright rim
which is centered in Fig. A-19. Note the bright crater with a
central peak and dark halo in the center of the left of the
picture. This crater appears at the bottom of the next mosaic
but on a smaller scale.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

0d 1 h45m42s

150


i h -Ni
S•

... ^ t ^ :
^^ f s+^ ^ ^.. ^.^,^
t 4e
IN

°t tV-v`i

1. ♦ Y . 4k
lr ^^ R ,' J^^ t °^

y s
,^; .mot 4 (9.

.F L

r , ^rR
<. ti, ^ . ^ t Qi;l

t ^
^^^
• ^ ^^ -^: 1 is

r . t t ^'^[^
2
6^ Y

.gyp y `^ ^ ,.a i ^. 1: t ^ ! ^

Nk tpt
^ f ^ i 7 ,^' .t y^^ a : wr

r •^ .:"^ Asti, . °,'^

P. , - ^ 7 acv«^
1 ^'

y
^+^ '^^ .r ^ qc^' g
^^^ KK y a ,
ly

y^ - a .f,
 Fig. A-24. The final mosaic of the second encounter sweeps
northward to include the Caloris Basin, seen from a somewhat
different viewpoint compared with the first encounter.

TIME FROM CLOSEST APPROACH

Od3h8m18s

152
 ry <
,^ y

'fir.• 'i!°

^ W
i

. '•
e
OP
SOP

ti y ', t

k
 .y r ^i ^

!s ..F ;:d WIL P" R:

b) •

Fig. A-25. The Caloris Basin as imaged at the three

encounters is shown in this series of photographs. In the
computer-enhanced mosaic from Mercury I (a) is outlined the
area viewed at Mercury 11 (b). The small white boxes identify
the locations of the high-resolution frames (c) and (d) obtained
at Mercury Ill. Alongside (d) is shown a high-resolution picture
of the same crater—tentatively termed the "Teddy Bear--taken
at Mercury I (e).

(C)
(d) e)


+ " +r" ^i " j @ t 4

^y.

^l. Coil.. ^'.. -:1^'.^1'ii . ^l'_'.s.. ~^ ._ ws ^ ^ ^`7-^:i;•'

Fig. A-26. This unusual view of Mercury was prepared from

hand assembly of individual pictures, computer-enhanced and
projected for a viewpoint close to the south pole. The crater
containing the south pole of Mercury is the large one in
shadow on the terminator at the bottom of the mosaic. This
view links many of the former mosaics.

156
Fig. A-27. Shown on the following two pages are comparative
views of the incoming and outgoing mosaics of Mercury I and
a wide-angle polar view obtained during Mercury II presenting
a view similar to Fig. A-26. Several features are identified on
each mosaic and shown in high-resolution images alongside.

157
 taP

Ih

4
W. 4
*

41, 1

,-^AML

158
4

IF

WON

hL

A,

.14k

159

Non

130° 125° 120 ° 115° 11

144 0 140° 135°
rF
to l ^.. ^r rz 'f
(i i p
C j ,. !( t ° \ J f i fir, { ' ,,, {
Mow J'I
f^^•/ / a
•'^ tg ^^ ^^
c ti r •J 4. 1 a
V 1 ^,:
o . ^ L7 D u r e ^I t ] ,
` ^' TI
q ref
'

c' x !`
CA
c

Na T qbu
12 it c
150

' l ipC
tit

,'3or ' ' r ^, l Y , t`

V r ,'

4
^t c
a

I A. I..cil
C'^"N
0

1,. y s i PP us

° At /
_01
, A,
—5

r
'
-10 ' —/
Murk Twain ,, aJ . ice' r i \r ` .
'.c• (.

F ciao , ^ ^. ^ r ^ ^. r 1 is f ' , , p 'a,l r ^. l

"1I J •^ t , ^^ `• ;•

\r

' 1 `

B E E' '^ . H O V.,

.' '

,^ ^ • Y; f'' Iwo; <

V'a 1 m a ii^ t / , « v

_25
1350 130° 1250 1200 1150 11
144 0 1400
So


105 0 1000 950 900 850 Soo 750 720

C ^ ♦ ^ ' 250
e + { Fig. A-28. This shaded relief map of he Beethoven quadrangle
of Mercdryy is one of a series of map of the planet prepared
by the United States. Geological Survey for NASA. This series
of topographic ma sheets cov rers that part of the surface of
Mickiewicz ; Mercury that was illuminated during the Mariner 10 encounters.
!A^ The maps are based on the images returned by the Mariner
10 television exp riment.
20°
(
i ^. tc ^ la (
^ r
( G)` .

15°
(( ° t5 Vivaldi

ai
14. kJA t

^ /•^ ^ir4 ' ^^^ /^ I r

C.

`\ ( 4 k v^p
„ „ 1 r. ^j ' .4 `, ♦
^• At•
nu 7e , ^ / .( , •
;r. T p
4̀411^,J r. ^ ^" ,
tt
( r
,

w
a.. ( yL / , 1 • / `1 (c^ 8ethius
0

(I , l

—5

% a, i , —100
a' ( ^—! C Y, t ^.i -^ l^ ( Vf

Sullivan r ^(l
:•

_RapHaa^. °
,^. ^• ,•.• r

Ma m t I' s s e
irl
—25 0

105 0 1000 950 900 850 800 750 720

 t

5 r

S1

(a)
Fig. A-29. Close inspection of the many individual frames used to make the mosaics of the earlier figures provides a wealth of new
information about the innermost planet. The presence of other large basins was confirmed. In (a) is shown a flooded 240-km (150-
mi) diameter basin, its walls indicated by arrow heads, as revealed at Mercury I. Another flooded basin (b) photographed at Mercury
II is 350 km (220 mi) in diameter and appears to be flooded with plains material and then subsequently cratered by some large
impacts. Not only did the filling material partially inundate small craters which had formed along the rim of the basin at the lower
left but also overflowed the rim and spilled onto the surrounding terrain at the top right.

162
 tl

IV

tat

`-

It

ol
`

Vk

(u)

163
 V 1

:6 a ` W
I e ^

3
_ 4: .
•"%r,.;

Ile
L ^ 4

F Ile

r ^^'TTY./j .J01
Of t "" •;

J,

(a)
Fig. A-30. Victoria Scarp is one of many large lobate scarps M-- ,.
M
on Mercury. It was named after the first ship to sail around
the world under the command of Magellan and del Cano in
1519-1522. It is located at 48°S latitude and 35 longitude.
The picture of the scarp obtained at Mercury I is shown in (a);
outlined is the area imaged at Mercury III (b) shown alongside.
A computer-processed version of the Mercury I image (b)
projected to appear as if looking directly down on it is shown
in (c). This orthographic projection is used for map making
but, of course, lacks fine details in the highly foreshortened
regions of the original projection.

(c)

164
 k

t t • r`r ,
,^ w
t t 1^1 r:

t
l^

I lk ST ;.

•.
4 ^i,
s

*` l

q,
4 S 1

^`1

(a)

Fig. A-31. Discovery Scarp, at latitude 52°S and longitude 35°,

was photographed at the first, second, and third encounters. A
Mercury I picture (a) shows the scarp transecting craters on
the right side of the picture. A smaller scarp runs through the
floor of a large crater at the top and into surrounding terrain.
This picture also shows two long, narrow valleys consisting of
many small craters. Mercury II (b) shows the southern section
of the scarp from a somewhat different viewing angle. The two
transected craters are not included in this image. Mercury III
(c) provides high-resolution detail of the northern section of
the scarp and again shows the transected craters. The viewing
angle is very similar to that of Mercury I. Note that in the
larger crater there is a graben-type valley to the right of the
scarp, but no such feature in the smaller of the transected
craters.

(b)

165


!!4*'1'.i, '
► . ► , r ^r
b+

' -Iv
r, t ^J ^ {. •^^
f ► •
1 ^^^' ^j
y fll^ • 1 ^ 1 t# !^ n ^ ^ '^ ^`

r .,fi ^a ^ , i n ^^ ?^ d^ ,t^ :^,^^, f^ ;^ ,Y

'j: ,^ , f •r' y .^ r.
a .t . IL
t• , Y ' i ^ tJh ^' ^f'` j^ ^' '^''ti ^ r'
'(. A_'y 'C*"O'^7''

d Jar
^ 1 ` i r •`r^ . j^^ ^ a . r ^^ ^ t^ fh ^^c ^':^ r ^ , t f 1f' r^'(}
P; ' ^f; ^`a^.
y,,

/. 1^
D
,(y
^,
^1<, \^ r ^ , ^^ ^^/S ^Y - , l `'7 ^4'r ^t
.yj^ ifl ^fi ++ 4
`\
;`[y.h 5 ' ^^ f`/y^, a
y 1^
^`

' car. .t^.R{'

r(, r i Wt',
i f,d't1^• ^' r'

IR

^ `Y f'7^{., ,t (' }cj .''^F+\^^; },t ^ 4, ! •, °f^l f S t« ^ [, '1y' , ^W'4t.,1.'^

^- +' ^ ({ ,^^^

^ .^, t y A ^(' ,l '. t , u . •^b{ `\ lY;,^^,^ rA 't ^i , ' ry

V ^r t
t^ ^
I

'^. }r" t. h 1 3"]'l^ ►`2 1 "•''i'. rW^

19 • ^",y .^Y t t - , Y1

Y t
Zv" ^^, ,^, ^^ ^i ^Y 1^^' ;r,y_ ) ^,'xr
j ^^ _ ^'jr. •" n s f^^ ^i77 ', .r
AL

Ik

(tie
y ^ ..7 J

fV^
lot W

(a)
Fig. A-32. The jumbled terrain antipodal to the Caloris Basin
was also covered in detail by Mariner. A photomosaic from
Mercury I (a) shows the peculiar nature of this area of hills
and ridges cutting across craters and intercrater areas. The
rims of flat-floored craters are partially disrupted and hills are
dissected. A close view of part of this terrain is shown in (b)
and an even closer view in (c). A high-resolution frame within
the area obtained by Mercury III is shown in (d). Since this
terrain is antipodal to the Caloris Basin, it has been
speculated that it may have been caused by a focussing of
seismic forces originating from the Calors impact.

166
 t
^.
Aftr w:
a

i
^ Id)
• d

•j

}^r

(b)

Icl

^^ 1
,i y. ^ t -. is
•^ri.t-

^5 ^^
• ' "i

1. ^J
• ^^ t 1y

Apt }
r
 An Astronaut's View of Mercury

"Three stereo pairs of photographs of Mercury are reproduced on the following six pages.
Obtained at Mercury I and 1I, these photographs provide an astronaut's view of the surface
of the innermost planet. The locations of the areas covered by stereo are shown on Fig.
A-34 on the facing page.
The right picture of each pair has been reversed in printing so that the pairs can be
viewed in stereo with a simple plane mirror as shown in Fig. A-33. Place the book opened
flat on a table so that both pictures of a pair are illuminated brightly and equally, i.e., facing
a window or a good desk light. Take a plane mirror (a 12- by 12-in. wall tile mirror from a
hardware store is ideal) and place it vertically on the center of the book as shown in the
figure, its reflecting surface to the right. Look directly down on the book as shown in the
photograph, placing the nose on the top edge of the mirror. Look at the left-hand picture
with the left eye and slightly rotate the head so that you look at the reflection of the right
hand picture with the right eye, both eyes looking toward the left-hand picture because of
the tilt of the head. The right eye reflected image is now superimposed over the left eye
direct image. This superimposition is aided if you close first one eye and then the other
alternatively and concentrate on tilting the head and the mirror very slightly so that the
right-hand and left-hand images of one of the prominent craters concide.
The view of Mercury pops out in sharp relief, you gain the impression of height as though
you were an astronaut flying over the surface of the innermost planet.

TILT HEAD SLIGHTLY

rw

ML XW

\ LEFT EYE LOOKS

DIRECTLY AT
RIGHT EYE SEES LEFT PAGE
REFLECTION
OF RIGHT PAGE
SUPERIMPOSED HOLD 12" X 12" A
OVER LEFT PAGE PLANE MIRROR
VERTICAL, ITS
REFLECTING SURFACE
TO THE RIGHT Ca

OPENBOOK ON
FLAT TA LE TOP

Fig. A-33. How to view the stereo pairs with a 12- by 12-in. wall tile mirror.

Fig. A-34. Locations of the stereo pair areas on the incoming

168 mosaic of Mercury.
4.7w

4 . k^^. J ^+ ' `' 14 f 4t ` ^^ ti ^fj`

14


vn
4
,1

y w Y a
.. s

T f Yom• ^ ^.

bag

^: t
irlf

At

ly ^ N
e Y
^ ^`' a
.07

14

' Alt , ^t.

 _^
r

MIT

, y: ^^^ 1 a

r ^
u

f. r^. 4

ii

f
y }.
F r
 r

r _ tv

` r
- 1

q.

y^

iL t
 I- }

AWOA

Ar'

t
v
^a

_ sw

r t ;,
r^ w

. t .

r
Y

3^ fi

d- Ii%

_ Jf

Y.

A^ pt

TTT^^J ja

'Ali
 l WAN
s

gob

.r

^ ^^
^^
LTTT^^" R

^' ^^':'^^, ,ems _ a ^ •T:^^. is

E.^

cp
As

`t om .•^;tr ^. {-, i

.^ ^ FMK.

^ _ r

^ k
M

Ol
 v

41,

NO

Aw
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix B
Processing
the TV Images

Data returned from the spacecraft are recorded on the As each picture became available from Mercury or Venus
ground in what are termed data records. The original data it was displayed in a raw version on screens in the Mission
record (ODR) is a local-computer-processed record on Command and Control Center. Because of the high data rate
magnetic tape of the data as received at the ground station. associated with real-time transmission of the pictures, every
This record can be replayed from the station only after the picture could not be displayed in real-time. However, those
pass has been completed, i.e., when the station has ended its that were shown enabled the experimenters to gain a good
communication with the spacecraft. idea of the quality of the imaging and to make sure that the
A system data record (SDR) is made at the Mission imaging sequence was proceeding according to the plan laid
Control and Computing Center from the data transmitted in down before the encounter.
real-time by the receiving stations over ground data links to A Digifax system allowed close-to-real-time (30-min
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This record always contains delay) production of hard-copy pictures of the TV images
more errors than the original data record; but whereas the that were displayed on the real-time screens. An improved
original data record takes time to transport physically to photoimage of each TV frame was available some time later
Pasadena, the systems data record is available in real-time. through the mission test computer. This was known as the
The production of these records is shown in Fig. B-1. Also MTC version of each picture. Later still there was an even
shown on the figure is an analog record made at each Deep more refined version available, known as the IPL, since it
Space Network station, recording the received signals in their was produced by the Image Processing Laboratory. Figure
raw form before any computer processing takes place. B-3 compares these three versions of a single picture of
An experimenter data record (EDR) was later produced Mercury.
from a merging of the original and systems data records to The MTC photoimages were sent in raw and filtered
eliminate some erroneous data. From this experimenter data versions of enhanced detail to the National Space Data
record the science data were supplied to experimenters, Center at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, where
including the television experimenters. scientists worldwide can obtain access to them. 70-mm
The experimenter data record tapes were physically versions of all pictures on film were also sent to the Science
transferred to the Video Analysis Facility at the Laboratory, Data Center.
where a library of tapes is maintained. These tapes can be The most sophisticated pictures result from the operations
processed into photographic copies in the Image Processing of the Image Processing Laboratory. Here the analysts can
Laboratory on a variety of machines that convert the digital change contrasts, rectify images, correct bit errors and
information on the tapes into small gray squares (pixels) on a accentuate details into the terminator regions. Figure B-4
photoemulsion. These squares of different shades of gray, shows an A-camera Mariner 10 image of Mercury as
arranged side by side in adjacent lines, build up the complete produced from the experimenter data record at the Image
picture, just as photographs reproduced in a newspaper are Processing Laboratory compared with the same image that
built up of many small black dots of different sizes. Because has been corrected in the Laboratory by use of what is
there are sufficient numbers of these pixels, the shades of termed a convolutional filter to compensate for modulation
gray of each pixel are fused by the eye into a continuous, characteristics in the electronics of the A-camera of the
smooth-looking picture ( Fig. B-2). spacecraft. This considerably sharpened the features shown

177
on the image. Figure B-5 shows a similar pair of pictures shows the result of orthographic projection correction to the
processed in this way for a B-camera image. Note image frame.
particularly the increased fine detail in the floor of the large On an airless planet such as Mercury, the amount of light
crater. reflected from the surface close to the terminator boundary
Figure B-6 illustrates how the Image Processing Labora- between light and darkness is very much less than from the
tory can clean up errors in real-time pictures. The first picture rest of the visible disc. Thus details of the images in the
(a) shows a Mercury I encounter picture as received at terminator regions are difficult to see. When a mosaic is
Canberra in real-time with a bit error rate of one error in 33 made up of frames that are processed with normal contrast
bits of data. This same picture is shown (b) after the through a conventional high-pass filter, there is relatively
computer at the Image Processing Laboratory detected and poor contrast near the terminator, as illustrated in this
replaced 57,000 pixels that were in error. It did this by Mercury I picture of the Caloris Basin (Fig. B-8). By putting
averaging between the correct neighboring pixels that these TV images through a spatially dependent filtering
surrounded each pixel in error. However, out-of-tolerance operation on the computer, the contrast and visibility of the
departures were processed differently. One of the five most features near the terminator is considerably improved (Fig.
significant bits was reset to bring the pixel value closest to the B-9).
neighbor averages. This is a "smart" despiker algorithm in The Image Processing Laboratory can also operate on
that it does not simply replace an erroneous pixel with pictures of a cloud-covered planet such as Venus to enhance
neighbor averages. the details of cloud structure. The series of images in Fig.
The next two pictures, (c) and (d), show the same camera B-10 show first the uncorrected raw image of Venus (a)
frame as received in real-time at Goldstone with an even followed by an image on which the spatial variation and
greater error rate of I bit in 14, and as corrected by the nonlinearity in response of the spacecraft camera have been
removal and replacement of 128,000 pixels. Because of the removed (b). The contrast was also increased 1.5 times on
higher error rate, the quality is not as good as the corrected this photograph. Next (c) the contrast was increased still
picture from the Canberra station. Finally, a virtually error- further to 3.5, making additional features of the clouds stand
free version of the picture that was recorded on the tape out. Then a two-dimensional, high-pass filter was applied to
recorder of the spacecraft and later played back at a slow the pixels for about half of the planet, thereby removing
data rate is shown for comparison (e). While this picture is global shading and making a more even illumination (d).
obviously much better than the high error rate but corrected The contrast on this image was increased 4 times. The next
image from Goldstone, it is not noticeably different from the image (e) shows an even further increase in contrast to 8
corrected lower error rate Canberra picture. Indeed, a great times. Finally, a smaller high-pass filter was applied to
deal of work went into a hard examination of the maximum emphasize the details of small-scale clouds in the atmosphere
allowable bit error rate so as to be able to use 117.6 kbits- at two contrasts (f) and (g).
the previous Mariner video threshold was 5 kbits only. For Mariner 10 pictures to be used in mapping Mercury,
The next series of pictures (Fig. B-7) shows examples of the precise locations of craters and other objects are needed.
another process of image improvement used by the Image The coordinates of control points for cartography are
Processing Laboratory. The Mercury I real-time image of measured by counting pixels on versions of the photographs
Mercury as received by Canberra (a) has typical pixel errors, made especially for this purpose. Before launch, the
shown as dark spots all over the picture. The picture was coordinates of 111 positions on the vidicon tube of each
processed (b) to remove these errors and also to correct for camera were measured to high precision. Reseau marks
some photometric distortion in the spacecraft camera. Next appear on each image to relate it to the vidicon tube
(c) a two-dimensional, high-pass filter was used to retain coordinates. A computer control program allows the pixel
25% of the low-frequency brightness components, and the measurements of control points on an image frame to be
resultant image had its contrast increased about 2 times. related to image coordinates at the vidicon faceplate at the
Visually, the picture is more pleasing than the previous time the picture was taken. Since the position of the
pictures and allows a better interpretation of the surface spacecraft relative to the planet is known at this same time,
features. the precise location of the control points on the surface of
The picture was then further enhanced (d) by correction of Mercury can be determined relative to a latitude and
the characteristics of the camera in regard to the modulations longitude system on the planet.
obtained in its electronic circuits. Finally, because the To aid in counting pixels, some photographs are repro-
spacecraft was looking at the planet at an angle, and the duced (Fig. B-11) with an orthogonal-type grid. Black and
individual picture frames have to be assembled into large- white dashes show every 25 pixels. Pixel measurements can
scale mosaics of the planet's surface, the projection of the be made to within one-tenth of a pixel, and by averaging the
picture has to be changed. This, too, is done by the Image count of several people of the same control point, a suitably
Processing Laboratory. The final picture in the series (e) accurate measurement is obtained.

178
Fig. B-1. Several types of data records were produced for the Mariner Venus/Mercury mission.

179
Fig. B-2. The small area circled on the picture of Mercury
(Caloris Basin) is enlarged to show the individual picture
elements (pixels) that make up the picture. Each of these
elements is transmitted from the spacecraft as a binary
number which the ground computer processes through
phototerminals into the reconstructed picture to duplicate the
picture originally recorded on the vidicon aboard the
spacecraft.

t=

180
 nits D2 R041,

^':.i` s av
"US

PIT
M [S D2 R041117,
r

c`
U
t
ro ar^M h,^ .^,,,K ^ t
, WPM yp

Fig. B-3. Three versions of a single picture of Mercury are compared: (a) the Digifax system, (b) the MTC improved version,
and (c) the IPL version.

181
 y j fit y{
y r }

r^ ifs
^." r ^
1► ^

Il it , IS

j+
r ,'

iA s r t z a

(a)

Fig. B-4. Comparison of images produced (a) from the

experimenter data record and (b) from compensated data that
correct for modulation characteristics of the electronics of the
A-camera from which the image data were received.

182

IV
(
P^ t

r
t
'' i;

(bl

183
 4. 41'4
t
{, r

(a)
Fig. B-5. A similar pair of images from the B-camera are
shown improved in the same way by convolutional filtering.

184


r r,^
` r

^' f ^•^ a ^^ t
l

4 ^ t


^Q(^ J r
f ^/1},

r J 1

ice' t 4 £ t. ^/ s ^ 1

I t. r ^ ^, t t^b e
a ,e ^ e^
^r
f 1, .. Fa ^; 14
Rif

(b)

185
 (al
Fig. B-6. This series of pictures shows how the Image
Processing Laboratory cleans up errors in real-time pictures:
(a) a real-time picture with a bit error rate of 1 in 33; (b) the
same picture after cleanup of 57,000 pixels in error, (c) the
same frame received with an error rate of 1 in 14, and (d)
when it has been cleaned up by 128,000 pixels; (e) a virtually
error-free picture received later by tape playback from the
spacecraft.

186
(b)

187
 (c)

188
(d)

189
 lel

190
Fig. B-7. This series shows another method of removing errors
from real-time pictures: (a) a picture received from Canberra
with typical pixel errors showing as black dots; (b) the picture
processed to remove the errors and to correct for some
distortion in the camera; (c) the effect of a high-pass filter to
increase contrast two times; (d) a further correction to
eliminate a camera electronic distortion; (e) the corrected
picture reprojected for assembly into a large-scale mosaic of
the type shown in Appendix A.

191
 (bl

192
(c)

193
194
(e)

195
 Fig. B-8. This mosaic has been assembled from frames that
were processed with normal contrast. The result is loss of
detail in the terminator region.

196
Fig. B-9. This same region is here reproduced from frames
that were processed through spatially dependent filtering to
improve the visibility of features in the region of the
terminator.

197
 (a)
Fig. B-10. This series of images shows how cloud structure can be enhanced by computer processing: (a) the
uncorrected raw image of Venus, (b) the errors introduced by the camera of the spacecraft have been taken out and
the contrast of the image has been increased 1.5 times: (c) the contrast is further increased 3.5 times, (d) global
shading has been removed to present more even illumination over the whole of the planet, and the contrast has
also been further increased; (e) a further step in increasing contrast, (f) and (g) images processed through high-pass
filters to emphasize small-scale cloud details.

198
1 bl

199
 (cl

200
(d)

201
 (e)

202
If)

203
204
Fig. B-11. Special versions of pictures were also made on which black and white dots are introduced every
25 pixels in the form of a grid on the picture as shown here. By counting pixels on pictures such as this,
the coordinates of control points on Mercury's surface were established as part of the map-making process.

205
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix C
Spacecraft and
Science Teams

Mariner 10 Project Management

Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
John E. Naugle .............................................. ......................Associate Administrator for OSS
Vincent L. Johnson .................... .........................Deputy Associate Administrator for OSS
Robert S. Kraemer .............................................. ......................Director, Planetary Programs
Ichtiaque Rasool ................................ .........................Deputy Director, Planetary Programs
N. William Cunningham ........................ .......................................................Program Manager
Gunther Strobel ......................................... .......................................................Program Engineer
Stephen E. Dwornik .................................. .......................................................Program Scientist
Joseph B. Mahon ..................................... ......................Director, Launch Vehicle Programs
T. Bland Norris ...................................... .......................Manager, Medium Launch Vehicles
F. Robert Schmidt .......................... ......................................................Manager, Atlas-Centaur

Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA Headquarters,

Washington, D.C.
Gerald M. Truszynski ....................................................Associate Administrator for OTDA
Arnold C. Belcher ........................................................................................Network Operations
Maurice E. Binkley ...........................................................................................Network Support

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California

William H. Pickering ............................. .....................................................Laboratory Director
Charles H. Terhune, Jr ...................................... .........................Deputy Laboratory Director
Robert J. Parks ....................................Assistant Laboratory Director for Flight Projects
Walker E. Giberson .................................... .......................................................Project Manager
John R. Casani ......................................................... .....................Spacecraft System Manager
James N. Wilson .................................. ......................Assistant Spacecraft System Manager
Norri Sirri ............................................... ........................Mission Operations System Manager
Victor C. Clarke,Jr .......................................Mission Analysis and Engineering Manager
James A. Dunne ............................................ .......................................................Project Scientist
Clayne M. Yeates ......................... .....................................................Assistant Project Scientist
Nicholas A. Renzetti ........................... .......................Tracking and Data System Manager
Esker K. Davis ............................................. ...........................Deep Space Network Manager
Gael F. Squibb ................................................... ..........................Chief of Mission Operations
Dallas F. Beauchamp ........................ .........................Deputy Chief of Mission Operations

207
 Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Bruce T. Lundin ....................................................................................................Center Director
Edmund R. Jonash ..........................................................................Director, Launch Vehicles
W.R. Dunbar .....................................................................Deputy Director, Launch Vehicles
Daniel J. Shramo ....................................................................Atlas-Centaur Project Manager
Rodney M. Knight ...............................................................................Center Project Engineer

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

KurtH. Debus .......................................................................................................Center Director
John J. Neilon ..........................................Director, Unmanned Launch Operations, ULO
John D. Gossett ...................................................Chief, Centaur Operations Branch, ULO
Donald C. Sheppard ......................................Chief, Spacecraft Operations Branch, ULO
James E. Weir .........................................................................Spacecraft Operations Engineer

Boeing Company, Kent, Washington

Edwin G. Czarnecki ...........................................................................................Project Manager
Haim Kennet ........................................................................................Deputy Project Manager

Mariner 10 Project Staff

The project staff of' the Mariner 10 program, together with those many people in
industry and at NASA facilities and universities who jointly made this exploratory
mission possible, received group achievement awards from NASA and are listed in
Appendix D.

Experiments and Investigators Newell J. Trask

U.S. Geological Survey
Television Experiment Associate Team Members:
Team Leader: James L. Anderson
Bruce C. Murray California Institute of Technology
California Institute of Technology A. Dollfus
Observatoire de Paris
Team Members:
Donald E. Gault
Michael J. S. Belton NASA Ames Research Center
Kitt Peak National Observatory
John Guest
G. Edward Danielson, Jr. University of London Observatory
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Robert Krauss
Merton E. Davies University of Wisconsin
Rand Corporation
Gerard P. Kuiper
Bruce Hapke University of Arizona
University of Pittsburgh
Brian T. O'Leary
Hampshire College
Plasma Science Experiment
Robert Strom
University of Arizona Principal Investigator:
Verner E. Suomi Herbert S. Bridge
University of Wisconsin Massachusetts Institute of Technology

208
 Co-Investigators: Co-Investigator:
J. Ashbridge J. E. Lamport
Samuel J. Bame University of Chicago
M. Montgomery
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
A. Hundhausen
Radio Science Experiment
University of Colorado Team Leader:
Leonard Burlaga H. T. Howard
R. E. Hartle Stanford University
Keith W. Ogilvie
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Team Members:
J. H. Binsack Irwin 1. Shapiro
A. J. Lazarus Massachusetts Institute of Technology
S. Olbert
Massachusetts Institute of Technology John D. Anderson
Gunnar Fjeldbo
Clayne M. Yeates Arvydas J. Kliore
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Gerald S. Levy
George L. Siscoe Jet Propulsion Laboratory
University of California at Los Angeles
Associate Team Members:
G. Tyler
Ultraviolet Spectroscopy Experiment Stanford University

Principal Investigator: R. D. Reasenberg

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A. Lyle Broadfoot
Kitt Peak National Observatory D. Lee Brunn
Richard Dickinson
Co-Investigators: Robert E. Edelson
Pasquale B. Esposito
M. B. McElroy Charles T. Stelzried
Harvard University Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Michael J. S. Belton
Kitt Peak National Observatory
Magnetic Fields Experiment
Principal Investigator:
Infrared Radiometry Experiment
Norman F. Ness
Principal Investigator: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Stillman C. Chase, Jr.
Co-Investigators:
Santa Barbara Research Center
Kenneth W. Behannon
Co-Investigators: Ronald P. Lepping
Ellis D. Miner J. Scheifele
Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

David Morrison Kenneth H. Schatten

University of Hawaii Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

Gerry Neugebauer Y. C. Whang

California Institute of Technology Catholic University

Charged Particles Experiment Mariner 10 Key Subcontractors

Principal Investigator: Spacecraft system and support
John A. Simpson The Boeing Company
University of Chicago Kent, Washington

209
Spacecraft Engineering Hardware Electronic parts screening

Celestial sensors General Electric, Space Division

Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Honeywell Radiation Center
Lexington, Massachusetts Solar cells

Data storage tape transport Centralab, Semiconductor Division of Globe-

Union Inc.
Lockheed Electronics Co. El Monte, California
Plainfield, New Jersey
Printed circuit boards
Radio frequency subsystem, flight data subsystem
Innovative Electronics
Motorola, Inc., Government Electronics Monrovia, California
Division
Scottsdale, Arizona Solar cell glass cover filters

Data storage subsystem, flight command unit, Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
telemetry modulation unit Santa Rosa, California

Texas Instruments, Equipment Group TWT amplifiers

Dallas, Texas
Watkins-Johnson
Power subsystem Palo Alto, California

Xerox Corp., Electro-Optical Systems

Pasadena, California Science Instruments
Flight batteries Infrared radiometer

TRW Systems Group Santa Barbara Research Center

Redondo Beach, California Goleta, California

Reaction control jet nozzle assemblies Television

Sterer Engineering and Manufacturing Co. Xerox Corp., Electro-Optical Systems

Los Angeles, California Pasadena, California

210
Appendix D
Mariner 10
Award Recipients

On Friday, August 16, 1974, Dr. William H. Pickering, even some new data on the Moon. Although a full
D ri ector of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, welcomed guests understanding of all the Mariner 10 scientific information
to a special awards ceremony following the successful will take years of study, it is already clear that we will gain
completion of the nominal mission of Mariner 10 to Mercury valuable new insights on the two innermost planets. In
via Venus: addition to its direct scientific value, a better understanding
"We are honored today in welcoming Dr. James Fletcher, of these planets will lead to a better understanding of our
Administrator of NASA, and our distinguished guests to an own Earth, its probable history, and its possible destiny.
awards ceremony that offers special recognition to those "As a technical achievement of space engineering, the
individuals and teams who have contributed outstandingly to Mariner 10 mission broke new ground in interplanetary
the mission of Mariner 10 to Venus and Mercury. The flight. It was the first flight demonstration of the gravity-assist
Venus/Mercury 1973 Project has added another notable technique, a promising propulsion aid for future missions.
chapter to the 12-year story of Mariner — a spacecraft that The two-planet flight plan called for a new degree of
has led the way in exploring the near planets of the Solar navigation accuracy, with Mariner 10 being directed within
System. seven miles of its aiming point at Venus. The spacecraft
"The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California passed within 416 miles of Mercury's surface, giving the
Institute of Technology are proud of you awardees. You have experimenters excellent close-range planetary data; Mariner
demonstrated high professional competence and brought 10 is now en route to a second encounter with Mercury in
great credit to yourselves and to our institution. Congratula- September. The spacecraft successfully flew closer to the Sun
tions on a job well done." than any man-made object ever has before. Finally, the
In presenting the awards, Dr. James Fletcher emphasized adaptive nature of the mission and spacecraft permitted a
the importance of Mariner 10 in planetary exploration and in number of in-flight modifications and additions to the
demonstrating how an advanced scientific project can be scientific program.
accomplished within cost goals:
"Mariner 10 was also a triumph of management. The
"The Mariner 10 Awards Ceremony we are holding today
Project Team developed and agreed to a restrictive financial
recognizes the splendid achievements of the NASA-
plan at the outset, and proceeded to deliver full performance
Industry-University team in the Mariner Venus/Mercury
on time and under cost estimate. This establishes the Mariner
1973 mission. Mariner 10 will be remembered in history as
Venus/Mercury 1973 Project not only as a distinguished
an engineering triumph which gave mankind unique
member of the Mariner, and indeed the entire NASA family
television pictures and other scientific data from two distant
of projects, but as a model of cost-effectiveness as well.
planets. But we know that these accomplishments were the
result of human endeavor and today we pay tribute to it as a "Mariner 10 is nominally `completed' and has met in full
human triumph by honoring some of the men and women all the objectives that were stated in advance. It is now
who made Mariner 10 the success that it was. continuing on an extended mission which, hopefully, will give
"As a scientific achievement in interplanetary scientific NASA, the scientific community, and the taxpayers the bonus
exploration, Mariner 10 is adding to the laurels of the of a second mission to Mercury on the same flight. All of us
Mariner series of projects a new perspective on the planet in NASA take great pride in the achievements of the Mariner
Venus, our first close-up study of the planet Mercury, new 10 team—scientific, technical, and managerial—and offer
observations of the interplanetary medium and the stars, and them our enthusiastic congratulations."

211
 NASA Distinguished Service Medal
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Walker E. Giberson

NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal

Jet Propulsion Laboratory
John R. Casani

NASA Distinguished Public Service Medals

The Boeing Aerospace Company
Edwin G. Czarnecki

California Institute of Technology

Bruce C. Murray

NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medals

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Herbert S. Bridge
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Victor C. Clarke, Jr.
James A. Dunne

University of Chicago
Enrico Fermi Institute
John A. Simpson

NASA Exceptional Service Medals Francis M. Sturms, Jr.

Fred Vescelus
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Peter B. Whitehead
Lida M. Bates James N. Wilson
Lyle V. Burden
Elliott Cutting
G. Edward Danielson, Jr.
Esker K. Davis
Richard L. Foster NASA Public Service Awards
Darya] T. Gant The Boeing Aerospace Company
Harold J. Gordon
Adrian J. Hooke Richard A. Axell
William R. Howard (Deceased) William E. Bramel
Edward H. Kopf, Jr. Haim Kennet
William I. Purdy, Jr. Bernard M. Lehv
Norri Sirri George B. Rickey
F. Louis Sola
Anthony J. Spear Planning Research Corporation
Gael F. Squibb Kunihei Kawasaki

212
NASA Group Achievement Awards H. Richard Maim
Robert G. Polansky
Flight Project Representative Team Thomas M. Taylor
(Award acepted by Allen P. Bowman)
Philco-Ford Corp.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Nick Fanelli
Allen P. Bowman
Frank A. Goodwin Mission Control and Computing Center
Harold J. Gordon (Award accepted by Michael J. Sander)
Eugene A. Laumann
Floyd A. Paul The Boeing Aerospace Company
William 1. Purdy, Jr. D. M. Sargent
Michael J. Sander
F. Louis Sola Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Anthony J. Spear Wailen E. Bennet
Eric E. Suggs, Jr. Richard L. Foster
Herbert G. Trostle Ralph P. Hurt
David B. Lame
Flight Data Subsystem Development Team Gary D. Metts
(Award accepted by Alan Messner) Rolf H. Niemeyer
George M. Reed
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Michael J. Sander
Frank F. Baran William H. Stapper
James E. Blue Michael R. Warner
Gordon A. Crawford
Raymond P. Del Negro Philco-Ford Corp.
Ralph De Santis Bruce H. Walton
Harvey L. Jeane Eugene G. Herrington
Ronald R. Manaker Edward R. Kelly
Carl F. Mazzocco Allan L. Sacks
Alan Messner
Martin N. Orton Planning Research Corp.
Richard Piety Kunihei Kawasaki
Thomas Shain
John H. Shepherd
L. Richard Springer Mission Sequence Working Group
James Stahnke (Award accepted by Rodney Zieger)
Fred A. Tomey
Ralph E. West Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Peter B. Whitehead G. Edward Danielson, Jr.
Jervis L. Wolfe Adrian J. Hooke
Larry W. Wright Kenneth P. Klaasen
Lawrence Koga
Motorola, Inc. Sergio X. Madrigal
Philip Girard Donna L. Shirley
William Hatcher Ronald C. Spriestersbach
David Skoumal Gael F. Squibb
Harry Wagner Kennis Stowers
Robert I. Toombs
William A. Webb
Ground Data System Integration Team Clayne M. Yeates
(Award accepted by Robert G. Polansky) Steven J. Zawacki

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Philco-Ford Corp.

James W. Capps Roy E. Bates
John M. Carnakis Patricia M. Kirkish
Edward L. Dunbar, Jr.
Richard L. Foster The Boeing Aerospace Company
C. Wayne Harris Michael R. Cramer
Jay A. Holladay George M. Elliott
David B. Lame Merlyn J. Flakus

213
 Bernard R. Migas Television Subsystem Development Team
Dudley A. Vines (Award accepted by David Norris)
Rod Zieger
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lloyd A. Adams
G. Edward Danielson, Jr.
Navigation Development and Operations Team Harry T. Enmark
(Award accepted by Jeremy B. Jones) Mark Herring
Kenneth C. La Bau
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Clayton C. La Baw
Marvin H. Bantell, Jr. Leonard Larks
Raymond A. Becker David Norris
Carl S. Christensen Gerald M. Smith
Leonard Dicken Daniel L. Smyth
Vincent L. Evanchuk Fred Vescelus
Harold J. Gordon Joachim G. Voeltz
Jeremy B. Jones
Roger E. Koch Electro-Optical Systems
C. Jeffrey Leising William Cunningham
Edward L. McKinley Nicolaas M. Emmer
Richard V. Morris
V. John Ondrasik Work Unit Management Team
Gerald E. Pease (Award accepted by Teofile A. Almaguer, Jr.)
Stephen J. Reinbold
Andrey Sergeyevsky Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Gary L. Sievers Jerome E. Abraham
The Boeing Aerospace Company Teofile A. Almaguer, Jr.
Philip M. Barnett
Jarrett H. Thomas Raymond A. Becker
C. Glen Bullock
Frederick R. Chamberlain
G. Wade Earle
Roll Axis Anomaly/Solar Sailing Team Vincent L. Evanchuk
(Award accepted by Walter F. Havens) Arthur O. Franzon
Robert E. Freeland
Jet Propulsion Laboratory H. Kent Frewing
Edward G. Gregory
Teofile A. Almaguer, Jr.
Donald E. Hayes
Alan T. Campbell
Donald D. Howard
A. Earl Chemiack
Herman L. Johnson
Vincent L. Evanchuk
L. Earl Jones
Patrick J. Hand
Edward E. Kellum
Walter F. Havens
Dan B. Kubly
John M. Kent Donald D. Lord
Edward H. Kopf, Jr.
Floyd A. Paul
William I. Purdy, Jr.
James A. Roberts
Jack W. Rhoads
Charles H. Savage
Lawrence L. Schumacher
L. Tom Shaw
Robert L. Shrake
Charles A. Smith
Stephen Z. Szirmay
Stephen G. Sollock
Jaiyun M. Yuh
Alvin B. Sorkin
The Boeing Aerospace Company James H. Stevens
William H. Tyler
John R. Barton Ronald J. Zenone
Julius D. Budos
Tord Dannevig
C. Thomas Golden System Contract Procurement Team
Jerome H. Hardman (Award accepted by John Heie)
Robert P. Lang
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
David H. Merchant
Bernard R. Migas Daryal T. Gant
Paul H. Stern John Heie

214
 Eugene C. Reiz William I. Purdy, Jr.
Donald E. Weckerle Jack W. Rhoads
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Eddie Royal
(Award accepted by William H. Pickering)
Lawrence L. Schumacher
Robert A. Shepard
Leticia Eckerle Charles A. Smith
Bruce M. Hayes Richard L. Smith
John C. Hewitt Daniel L. Smyth
Sharon D. Jones F. Louis Sola
Harold J. Wheelock Anthony Joseph Spear
Ronald C. Spriestersbach
Gael F. Squibb
Mariner 10 Headquarters Staff Support Group Garvin T. Starks
(Award accepted by Stephen E. Dwornik) Kennis Stowers
Eric E. Suggs, Jr.
Maurice E. Binkley David H. Swenson
Stephen E. Dwornik Fred A. Tomey
Nicholas W. Panagakos William H. Tyler
Robert F. Schmidt Peter B. Whitehead
Guenter K. Strobel Vincent A. Wirth, Jr.
Regina F. Wong
Clayne M. Yeates
Spacecraft Flight Operations and Jaiyun M. Yuh
Mission Control Teams
(Award accepted by Merlyn J. Flakus)
The Boeing Aerospace Company
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Ross R Barta
Jerome E. Abraham John R. Barton
Teofile A. Almaguer, Jr. John H. Bruns
Rebecca L. Arenas Julius D. Budos
Ronald S. Banes Theodore C. Clarke
Dallas F. Beauchamp Richard T. Cowley
Raymond A. Becker Emery J. Durand
Albert G. Brejcha Michael D. Ebben
Phillip E. Brisendine Merlyn J. Flakus
C. Glen Bullock Malcolm D. Gray
Ralph De Santis Jerome M. Hardman
Larry N. Dumas Lawrence A. Hughes
James A. Dunne William F. Just
John E. Earnest, Jr. James Leisenring
Robert E. Edelson Robert K. MacGregor
Vincent L. Evanchuk Boyd D. Madsen
Robert A. Exler F. Alfred Matzke
H. Kent Frewing Bernard R. Migas
Walter F. Havens Ken Nakagawa
Mark Herring Harold L. Nordwall
Adrian J. Hooke Donald M. Sargent
Harvey H. Horiuchi James F. Schmidling
Oscar L. Irvin Larry D. Shirk
William N. Jensen Charles H. Terwilliger
John M. Kent Jarrett H. Thomas
Edward H. Kopf, Jr. James R. Williams
Clayton C. La Baw Ronald C. Zentner
Paul Lecoq Victor S. ZumBrunnen
C. Jeffrey Leising
Donald D. Lord
Dan S. MacGregor Philco-Ford Corp.
Sergio X. Madrigal Conni J. Berry
John C. McKinney
Alan Messner
Hiroshi Ohtakay Electro-Optical Systems
Richard B. Postal William Cunningham

215
Boeing Aerospace Management Team University of Chicago
(Award accepted by O. C. Boileau, President, James E. Lamport
The Boeing Aerospace Company)
Television Science Team
Data Records Group (Award accepted by Bruce C. Murray)
(Award accepted by John R. Tupman)
Ames Research Center
Alpha Services
Donald E. Gault
Edward J. Philips
California Institute of Technology
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
James L. Anderson
Roger W. Bun Bruce C. Murray
Richard L. Foster
Raul D. Rey Hampshire College
Concomly A. Seafeldt
John R. Tupman Brian T. O'Leary

Philco-Ford Corp. Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Ray Caswell Wailen E. Bennett
Dale Christiansen Virgil B. Combs
Earl T. Lobdell G. Edward Danielson, Jr.
Michael A. Orr Ralph A. Johansen
Allan L. Sacks Kenneth P. Klaasen
Donna Stapper David Lame
Jean J. Lorre
Planning Research Corp. Donald J. Lynn
John R. Schoeni
James P. Dunphy James M. Soha
Kunihei Kawasaki Robert 1. Toombs
The Boeing Aerospace Company Kitt Peak National Observatory
Roger A. Vail Michael J. S. Belton
V.I.P. Engineering Co.
Philco-Ford Corp.
Harold Hsu David L. Atwood
Michael Morrill
Science Instrument Development Team Norma J. Stetzel
(Award accepted by David H. Swenson)
Planning Research Corp.
Goddard Space Flight Center Joanne Currie
Kenneth Behannon
The Rand Corporation
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Merton E. Davies
David H. Swenson
Clayne M. Yeates University of Arizona
Gerard P. Kuiper (deceased)
Kitt Peak National Observatory Robert Strom
Samuel C. Clapp
University of London Observatory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Guest
Robert Butler
University of Pittsburgh
Santa Barbara Research Center Bruce W. Hapke
Jack Engel
University of Wisconsin
The Boeing Aerospace Company Robert Krauss
John H. Bruns Verner E. Suomi
Theodore C. Clarke
F. Alfred Matzke U.S. Geological Survey
Ken Nakagawa Newell J. Trask

216
 Spacecraft System Design Team James M. Ellis
(Award accepted by James M. Ellis) Herschel F. Eppenstein
Robert L. Farmer
The Boeing Aerospace Company Donald C. Flint
William E. Bramel C. Thomas Golden
Dwayne E. Broderson James P. Grady
Tord Dannevig Jack A. Grimmett
Gordon N. Davison John W. Griswold
David R. Douglass Jack W. Hakala
James M. Ellis Roy E. Juberg
Merlyn J. Flakus Peter V. Jude
C. Thomas Golden Walter M. Keenan
Ivan W. Hudgins Earl D. Kuhl
Bernard M. Lehv Morton Kushner
Charles W. Luke James A. Lackey
George B. Rickey Robert G. Lane
Edwin E. Spear Bernard M. Lehv
Douglas B. Stoddard Patrick S. Lettenmaier
Charles H. Terwilliger Gordon P. Lowe
Donald K. MacWhirter
Temperature Control Design Team Earl L. McCabe
(Award accepted by Raymond A. Becker) Herbert M. McDaniel
D. Paul Meyer
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Donald A. Miller
Virgil L. Minter
Raymond A. Becker
Warren I. Mitchell
The Boeing Aerospace Company Calvin P. Morgan
Harold L. Nordwall
Robert K. MacGregoror Morton A. Palmer
Harold L. Nordwall John L. Pertesis
Lawrence C. Phelps
Boeing Cognizant Work Unit Engineers Francis B. Robins
(Award accepted by Paul H. Stern) Perry H. Scarlatos
Richard S. Seymour
The Boeing Aerospace Company Robert R. Shamp
John E. Anderson Larry D. Shirk
Ole A. Bakken Alan T. Simmons
George C. Bentley Julius Skolnick
Freddie G. Boyd John R. Steding
Steve S. Campbell Paul H. Stern
Leonard Cancler Paul L. Szyperski
Edward B. DeGroot George Trusk
David A. Dougherty Richard D. White
David R. Douglass Patrick F. Wilson

217
Page intentionally left blank
Suggestions for
Further Reading

Anon., The Exploration of Venus, Sky and Telescope, Vol. Burgess, E., Success at Venus, New Scientist, Vol. 61, Feb.
41, Feb. 1971, pp. 81-83. 14, 1974, pp. 410-412.
Anon., Mercury Revisited by Mariner 10, Sky and Telescope, Burgess, E., Mariner 10: The First Results, New Scientist,
Vol. 49, No. 5, May 1975. Vol. 61, Feb. 28, 1974, pp. 540-541.
Armstrong, T. P., Krimigis, S. M., and Lanzerotti, L. J., A Burgess, E., Mercury in All Its Glory, New Scientist, Vol. 62,
Reinterpretation of the Reported Energetic Particle Fluxes Apr. 11, 1974, pp. 62-63.
in the Vicinity of Mercury, Journal of Geophysical Burgess, E., Return to Mercury, New Scientist, Vol. 64, Oct.
Research, Vol.80, Oct. 1, 1975, pp. 4015-4017. 3, 1974, pp. 20-24.
Ashbrook, J., Findings from Mercury's Transit, Sky and Burgess, E., A Hat-Trick for Mariner, New Scientist, Vol. 66,
Telescope, Vol. 40, July 1970, pp. 20-24. Apr. 3, 1975, pp. 15-18.
Baker, D., Mariner Venus-Mercury 1973 Project History, Burns, J. A., Consequences of the Tidal Slowing of Mercury,
Spaceflight, Vol. 17, No. 4, Apr. 1975, pp. 131-133. Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 453-458.
Beatty, J. K., Mariner 10's Second Look at Mercury, Sky and Busse, F. H., Generation of Planetary Magnetism by
Telescope, Vol. 48, No. 5, Nov. 1974. Convection, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
Beebe, R. F., and Herzog, A., Surface Properties and Vol. 12, No. 4, Sept. 1976. pp. 350-358.
Effective Resolution from Ground-Based Observations of Carpenter, R. L., and Goldtein, R. M., Radar Observations
Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 25, Aug. 1975, pp. 555-560. of Mercury, Science, Vol. 142, Oct. 18, 1963, pp. 381-382.
Belton, M. J. S., Hunten, D. M., and McElroy, M. B., A Cassen, P., Young, R. E., Reynolds, R. T., and Schubert, G.,
Search for an Atmosphere on Mercury, Astrophysical Implications of an Internal Dynamo for the Thermal
Journal, Vol. 150, 1967, pp. 1 l 1 1-1124. History of Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp.501-
508.
Bourke, R. D., and Beerer, J. G., Mariner Mission to Venus
and Mercury in 1973, Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 9, Chapman, C. R., Chronology of Terrestrial Planet
No. 1, Jan. 1971, pp. 52-59. Evolution-The Evidence from Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 28,
Aug. 1976, pp. 523-536.
Broadfoot, A. L., Ultraviolet Spectrometry of the Inner Solar
System from Mariner 10, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Chase, S. C., Jr., Miner, E. D., Morrison, D., Muench, G.,
Physics, Vol. 14, Nov. 1976, pp. 625-627. and Neugebauer, G., Mariner 10 Infrared Radiometer
Results-Temperatures and Thermal Properties of the
Broadfoot, A. L., Shemansky, D. E., and Kumar, S., Mariner Surface of Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 565-
10-Mercury Atmosphere, Geophysical Research Letters, 578.
Vol. 3, Oct. 1976, pp. 577-580.
Colombo, G., Rotational Period of the Planet Mercury,
Burgess, E., Innermost Planets of the Solar System, Venus Nature, Vol. 208, 1965, p. 575.
and Mercury as Planets, Mission to the Inner Planets,
Venus and Mercury Encounters, Mariner 10 Views of Cross, C. A., Encounter with Mercury, Spaceflight, Vol. 16,
Venus and Mercury, Mercury I1 and III Results, The Now Aug. 1974, pp. 282-290.
Frontier, series of 6 NASA educational Pamphlets for Cruikshank, D. P., and Chapman, C. R., Mercury's Rotation
schools, 1973/75. and Visual Observations, Sky and Telescope, July 24, 1967.

219
Danielson, G. E., Jr., Our Present View of Mercury and Guest, J., Mercury, The Solar System, New Scientist Special
Venus, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, Vol. 13, Review, 1975, pp. 12-16.
No. 3, Aug. 1975. Guest, J. E., and Gault, D. E., Crater Populations in the
Diner, D. J., Westphal, J. A., and Schloerb, F. P., Infrared Early History of Mercury, Geophysical Research Letters,
Imaging of Venus, Icarus, Vol. 27, Feb. 1976, pp. 191-195. Vol. 3, Mar. 1976, pp. 121-123.
Dollfus, A., New Optical Measurements of Planetary Hanson, J. E., and Arking, A., Clouds of Venus, Evidence for
Diameters, V- Planet Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, Their Nature, Science, Vol. 171, Feb. 19, 1971, pp. 669-
pp. 601-604. 672.
Dollfus, A., Optical Polarimetry of Planet Mercury, Icarus, Hapke, B., Photometry of Venus from Mariner 10, Journal of
Vol. 23, Nov. 1974, pp. 465-482. the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 33, Sept. 1976, pp.1803-
Dollfus, A., and Auriere, M., Optical Photometry of the 1815.
Planet Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 23, 1974, pp. 456-482. Hartle, R. E., Curtis, S. A., and Thomas, G. E., Mercury's
Dorschner, J., The Exploration of the Planet Mercury, Helium Exosphere, Journal of Geophysical Research,
Astronom y and Raumfahrt, No. 2, 1975, pp. 33-41 (in Vol.80, Sept. 1975, pp. 3689-3692.
German). Hartman, W. K., The Significance of the Planet Mercury In
Dragesco, J., First Results from Pioneer 10 and Mariner 10, Terms of Mariner 10 Data, Sky and Telescope, Vol. 51,
L'Astronomie, Vol. 88, Sept. 1974, pp. 285-291 (in May 1976, pp. 307-311.
French). Herbert, F., Wiskerchen, M., Sonett, C. P., and Chao, J. K.,
Dunne, J. A., The Mariner 10 Venus Encounter: A Review, Solar Wind Induction in Mercury-Constraints on the
Endeavour, Vol. 109, 1975. Formation of a Magnetosphere, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug.
1976, pp. 489-500.
Dunne, J. A., Mercury, The 1976 McGraw-Hill Yearbook of
Science and Technology. Hill, T. W., Dessler, A. J., and Wolf, R. A., Mercury and
Mars-The Role of Ionospheric Conductivity in the
Eckman, P. K., The 1973 Mariner Mercury Mission, Acceleration of Magnetospheric Particles, Geophysical
American Astronautical Society Paper No. 69-97, Denver, Research Letters, Vol. 3, Aug. 1976, pp. 429-432.
June 1969.
Hooke, A. J., The 1973 Mariner Mission to Venus and
Eshleman, V. R., The Atmospheres of Mars and Venus, Mercury, Spaceflight Vol. 16, Aug. 1974, pp. 25-34, 46-
Scientific American, Vol. 222, Mar. 1969, pp. 79-89. 54.
Eshleman, V. R., et al., Venus: Lower Atmosphere Not Howard, M., The Atlas-Centaur, Spaceflight, Vol. 17, Feb.
Measured, Science, Vol. 162, Nov. 8, 1969, pp. 661-665. 1975, pp. 74-75, 80.
Evans, J. V., and Taylor, G. N., Radio Echo Observations of Hunt, G., Venus, The Solar System, New Scientist Special
Venus, Nature, Vol. 184, Oct. 31, 1959, pp. 1358-1359. Review, pp. 17-19.
Fairfield, D. H., and Behannon, K. W., Bow Shock and James, J. N., The Voyage of Mariner II, Scientific American,
Magnetosheath Waves at Mercury, Journal of Geophysical Vol. 209, July 1963, pp. 70-84.
Research, Vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, pp. 38978-3906.
Jastrow, R., The Planet Venus, Science, Vol. 160, June 28,
Fricker, P. E., Reynolds, R. T., Summers, A. L., and Cassen,
1968, pp. 1403-1410.
P. M., Does Mercury Have a Molten Core?, Nature, Vol.
259, Jan. 29, 1976, pp. 293-294. Kaula, W. M., Comments on the Origin of Mercury, Icarus,
Friedman, L. D., and Lewis, J. L., Future Exploration of Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 429-433.
Venus, Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 13, May 1975, Keene, G. T., Venus: Uniformity of Clouds and Photogra-
pp. 46-58. phy, Science, Vol. 159, Jan. 19, 1968, p. 305.
Goldstein, R. M., Green, R. R., and Rumsey, H. C., Venus
Klaasen, K. P., Mercury's Rotation Axis and Period, Icarus,
Radar Images, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 81,
Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 469-478.
Sept. 10, 1976, pp. 4807-4817.
Goldstein, R. M., and Carpenter, R. L., Rotation of Venus: Kotel'nikov, V. A., Radar Contact with Venus, Journal of the
Period Estimated from Radar Measurements, Science, Vol. British Institute of Radio Engineers, Vol. 22, 1961, p. 293.
139, Mar. 8, 1963, pp. 910-911. Kumar, S., Mercury's Atmosphere-A Perspective after
Goldstein, R. M., Radar Observations of Mercury, Astronom- Mariner 10, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 579-591.
ical Journal, Vol. 76, 1971, pp. 1152-1154.
Lacis, A. A., and Hansen, J. E., Atmosphere of Venus:
Goody, R., Mars and Venus, Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 19, Pt. Implications of Venera 8 Sunlight Measurements, Science,
2, 1975, pp. 197-214. Vol. 184, May 31, 1974, pp. 979-982.

220
Larks, L., The Narrow-Angle Telescope for the Visual Ness, N. F., et al., Magnetic Field of Mercury Continued,
Imaging Subsystem of the Mariner Venus/Mercury (1973) Nature, Vol. 255, 1975, pp. 204-205.
Spacecraft, Proceedings of SPIE Instrumentation in Ness, N. F., et al., The Magnetic Field of Mercury Part I,
Astronomy, Vol. 44, Mar. 1974. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 80, 1975, pp. 2708-
Leontev, L. V., Crater Distribution on the Surface of 2716.
Mercury, Kosmiche.skie Issledovania, Vol. 13, November-
Newlan, I., First to Venus, the Story of Mariner 11, McGraw-
December 1975, p. 949 (in Russian).
Hill Book Co., New York, 1963.
Malin, M. C., Observations of Intercrater Plains of Mercury,
Nikander, J., Displacement of the Clouds of Venus, Nature,
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 3, Oct. 1976, pp. 581-
Vol. 227, Aug. 1, 1970, p. 477.
584.
O'Leary, B., Venus, Vertical Structure of Stratospheric Hazes
Malkus, V. V. R., Hadley-Halley Circulation on Venus,
from Mariner 10 Pictures, Journal of Atmospheric Science,
Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 529-
June 1975.
533.
Peale, S. J., Does Mercury Have a Molten Core? Nature, Vol.
Malling, L. R., and Golomb, S. W., Radar Measurements of
262, Aug. 26, 1976, pp. 765-766.
the Planet Venus, Journal of the British Institute of Radio
Engineers, Vol. 22, Apr. 1961, p. 297. Peale, S. J., Determination of Parameters Related to the
Interior of Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 17, 1972, pp. 168-173.
Mariner-Venus 1962, Final Program/ Report, NASA SP-59,
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 1965. Pettengill, G. H., et al., A Radar Investigation of Venus, The
Astronomical Journal, Vol. 67, May 1962, pp. 181-190.
Mariner Venus 1967, Final Program Report, NASA SP-190,
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1971 Pettengill, G. H., and Dyce, R. B., A Radar Determination of
the Rotation of the Planet Mercury, Nature, Vol. 206,
Maron, I., Luchak, G., and Blitzstein, W., Radar Observa- 1968, p. 1275.
tions of Venus, Science, Vol. 134, Nov. 3, 1961, pp. 1419-
1420. Priam, R. G., Venus: Composition and Structure of the
Visible Clouds, Science, Vol. 182, Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 1132-
Mayer, C. H., The Temperature of the Planets, Scientific
1135.
American, Vol. 224, May 1961, pp. 58-65.
McCord, T., and Adams, J., Mercury: Surface Composition Price, R. et al., Radar Echoes from Venus, Science, Vol. 129,
from the Reflective Spectrum, Science, Vol. 178, 1972, pp. Mar. 20, 1959, pp. 751-753.
745-746. Rumsey, H. C., Morris, G. A., Green, R. R., and Goldstein,
Moore, P., The Planet Venus, Faber and Faber, London, R. M., A Radar Brightness and Altitude Image of a
1959. Portion of Venus, Icarus, Vol. 23, 1974, pp. 1-7.
Morrison, D., IAU Nomenclature for Topographic Features Schultz, P. H., and Gault, D. E., Seismic Effects from Major
of Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 605-606. Basin Formations on the Moon and Mercury, The Moon,
Vol. 12, Feb. 1975, pp. 159-177.
Mueller, H., Some Results of the Flight of Mariner 10 to
Venus and Mercury, Orion. Vol. 32, Dec. 1974, pp. 211- Sharpe, H. N., and Strangway, D. W., The Magnetic Field of
219 (in German). Mercury and Modes of Thermal Evolution, Geophysical
Research Letters, Vol. 3, May 1976, pp. 285-288.
Murray, B. C., et al., Imaging of Mercury and Venus from a
Flyby, Icarus, Vol. 15, Oct. 1971, pp. 153-173. Siegfried, R. W., and Solomon, S. C., Mercury, Internal
Murray, B. C., Mercury, Scientific American, Sept. 1975. Structure and Thermal Evolution, Icarus, Vol. 23, 1974, p.
192.
Murray, B. C., First Look at Mercury, Engineering and
Science, Vol. 38, Oct./Nov. 1974, pp. 30-33. Siscoe, G., and Christopher, L., Variations in the Solar Wind
Stand-off Distance at Mercury, Geophysical Research
Murray, B. C., Mercury-Mariner 10 Results, Scientific
Letters, Vol. 2, Apr. 1975, pp. 158-160.
American, Vol. 233, September 1975, pp. 58-68.
Murray, B. C., and Burgess, E., Flight to Mercury, Columbia Siscoe, G. L., Ness. N. F., and Yeates, C. M., Substorms on
University Press, 1977. Mercury, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 80, Nov. 1,
1975, pp. 4359-4363.
Murray J. B., Dollfus, A., and Smith, B., Cartography of the
Surface Markings of Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 17, 1972, pp. Smith, B. A., Rotation of Venus, Science, Vol. 158, Oct. 6,
576-584. 1967, pp. l 14-1 16.
Ness, N. F., Behannon, K. W., Lepping, R. P., and Whang, , Smith, B. A., and Reese, E. J., Mercury's Rotation Period:
Observations of Mercury's Magnetic Field, Icarus, Vol. 28, Photographic Confirmation, Science, Vol. 162, Dec. 13,
Aug. 1976, pp. 478-488. 1968, pp. 1275-1277.

221
Smith, E. I., Comparison of the Crater Morphology-Size Various authors, The Mission of Mariner II: Preliminary
Relationship for Mars, Moon, and Mercury, Icarus, Vol. Observations-Profile of Events, Science, Vol. 135, Dec. 7,
28, Aug. 1976, pp. 543-550. 1962.
Smith, W. B., Radar Observations of Venus 1961 and 1959,
Various authors, Mariner II: Preliminary Reports on
The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 68, Feb. 1963, pp. 15-21.
Measurements of Venus, Science, Vol. 139, Mar. 8, 1963.
Snyder, C. W., et al., Mariner V Flight Past Venus, Science,
Vol. 158, Dec. 29, 1967, pp. 1665-1689. Various authors, Mariner V Flight Past Venus, Science, Vol.
158, Dec. 29, 1967, pp. 1665-1689.
Solomon, S. C., Some Aspects of Core Formation in Mercury,
Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 509-521. Various authors, Mariner 10 • Venus Encounter: Results,
Soter, S. L., Mercury: Infrared Evidence for Nonsynchronous Science, Vol. 183, Mar. 29, 1974, pp. 1289-1321.
Rotation, Science, Vol. 153, Sept. 2, 1966, p. 1112.
Various authors, Mariner 10 Mercury Encounter, Science,
Stephenson, A., Crustal Remanence and the Magnetic Vol. 185, July 12, 1974, pp. 141-188.
Moment of Mercury, Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
Vol. 28, No. 3, Jan. 1976, pp. 454-458. Victor, W. K., and Steven, R., Exploration of Venus by
Radar, Science, Vol. 134, July 7, 1961, pp. 46-48.
Stevenson, D. J., Dynamo Generation in Mercury, Nature,
Vol. 256, Aug. 21, 1975, pp. 634. Ward, W. R., Colombo, R., and Franklin, F. A., Secular
Stevenson, D., Planetary Magnetism, Icarus, Vol. 22, 1974, Resonance, Solar Spin Down, and the Orbit of Mercury,
p. 403. Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 441-452.
Strom, R. G., The Planet Mercury as Viewed by Mariner 10, Weaver, K. F., Mariner Unveils Venus and Mercury,
Sky and Telescope, Vol. 47, No. 6, 1974. National Geographic, Vol. 147, No. 6, June 1975.
Sturms, F. M. Jr., and Cutting, E., Trajectory Analysis of a
Weidenschil ling, S. G., Accretion of the Terrestrial Planets,
1970 Mission to Mercury via a Close Encounter with
Icarus, Vol. 27, Jan. 1976, pp. 161-170.
Venus, Journal of Spacecraft, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 1966, pp.
624-631. Weidenschilling, S. G., A Model for Accretion of the
Trask, N. J., and Strom, R. G., Additional Evidence of Terrestrial Planets, Icarus, Vol. 22, Aug. 1974, pp. 426-
Mercurian Volcanism, Icarus, Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 559- 435.
563. Wilhelms, D. E., Mercurian Volcanism Questioned, Icarus,
Various authors, The Planet Mercury, Journal of Geophysical Vol. 28, Aug. 1976, pp. 551-558.
Research, special issue, Vol. 80, June 10, 1975, pp. 2341-
2514. Wilson, J. H., Return to Venus, TM 33-393, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., July 1968.
Various authors, Conference on the Atmosphere of Venus,
Journal of Atmospheric Physics, special issue, Vol. 37, June Zohar, S., and Goldstein, R. M., Surface Features on
1975. Mercury, The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 79, 1974, p. 85.

222
Index

Accretion, 102 Charged particles experiment team, 209 Experimenter data record, 177
Airglow spectrometer, 20, 24, 25, 55, 65, 85, Civilization, 104 Extended mission. 30, 40
93 Cloud layers, Venus, 65
Alzak, 32 Cloud patterns, Venus, 64
Colombo, Guiseppe, 11 Feed problem, antenna, 55
Analyzers, electrostatic, 23, 47 Filtering, pictures, 178, 184, 197
Antenna: feed problem, 55, 58; Goldstone, Comet, 20, 27, 56
Command capability, 33 Filters, imaging, 27
61, 91, 93; high-gain, 17, 21, 26, 30, 34, Fletcher, J., 213
35, 36, 55, 58, 73, 90, 95; low-gain, 30, 35 Commands, 53
Communications, 17, 96 Flight data subsystem, 17
Apollo, 1 Flyby trajectory, 29
Apparitions, planetary, 3, 4, 99 Computer, on-board, 33, 54
Configurations, solar panels, 31 Focus, 46
Articulation pointing system, 30, 31. 34 Formation of planets, 5
Astrolabe scarp, 1 18, 122 Conjunction, 3, 90
Cook, Captain, 4, 120 Frame, T.V., 27
Astronaut's view, 168
Atlas/Centaur, 11, 13, 16, 34, 45 Coordination, science, 40
Corona, solar, 91 Gain, antenna, 34
Attitude control problem, 57, 71, 72, 90, 95 Galileo, 3
Award recipients, 213 Cosmic rays telescope, 19, 24
Countdown, 42 Gas jets, 3l, 54, 57
Cratering, 83 Gas, reaction control, 30, 54, 57, 71 72, 90,
Battery, 38
C-shaped markings, 67 95
Belton, M. J., 61
Cunningham, N. W., 91 Gault, D., 81
Beta cloth, 32 Giberson, Walker, E., 13, 64, 91
Bibliography, 221 Goddard Space Flight Center, 38, 53, 85,
Bit error rate, 29, 40, 41 Data quality, 40, 41, 178
Data records, 41, 177 177
Bit rates, 40 Gravity, 5, 65
Blowdown design, 33 Deep Space Network, 36, 41, 91, 177
Deployment, sunshade, 36 Gravity-assist trajectory, 11, 13, 29
Boeing Company, 13, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, Guidance precision, 13
40, 41, 42, 46 Diameter, Mercury, 6; Venus, 6
Digifax, 177, 191 Gyroscopes, 57, 64, 71, 72
Bombardment, 102
Bridge, M. S., 53 Discovery scarp, 120, 165
Bright particles, 72, 95 Door, protective, 31, 41, 47 Heater problem, 46, 57
Butman, S., 40 Helios, 96
Earth: magnetic field, 24; pictures, 47 Helium, 65, 85, 93, 102
Calibration, cameras, 47, 52, 58 Eastern Test Range, 36, 42 Hermes, I
Caloris basin, 79, 81, 152, 155, 166 Ecliptic, 3 Hesperus, 1
Cameras, 20, 26 Electrostatic analyzer, 22, 47 Horus, 1
Canopus tracker, 41, 54, 57, 64, 72, 95. 96 Elongation, 4 Hydrogen corona, 56
Cartography, 5l, 178, 205 Encounter, planetary, 29 Hydrogen, Venus atmosphere, 65
Celestial mechanics, 26 Engineering data loss, 89 Hun Kai, 112
Centaur, 14, 46 Error correction, 178, 186, 191
Changes from earlier Mariners, 17 Evening star, 1, 3, 4 Image processing, 177, 181
Charged particles, 24, 46, 64, 84 Evolution of planets, 103 Image Processing Laboratory, 177

223
Imaging experiment, 20, 26, 29, 40, 41, 93, Occultation, 4, 19, 25, 62, 74 Solar sailing, 30, 71, 90
177, 208 Occultation spectrometer, 24, 25 Solar thermal vacuum tests, 36
IMP spacecraft, 24 Optical navigation, 94 Solar wind, 6, 7, 19, 22, 23, 64, 84, 85
Incoming mosaic, 157 Original data record, 177 Soumi, V. E., 64
Incremental mode, 33 Oscillation, roll, 57, 71, 72 Spacecraft, separation, 42
Inferior conjunction, 3 Outgoing mosaic, 157 Spacecraft teams, 208
Inferior planets, 3 Oxygen, atomic, 65 Space Science Board, 12
Infrared radiometer, 19, 21 Spectrometers, 20, 24, 33, 46, 47, 65
Infrared radiometer team, 209 Period, orbital, 4 Stamp, commemorative, 99
Internal heating, 102 Period, synodic, 1, 4 Stereo pairs, 168
Ionosphere: Mercury, 85; Venus, 65 Periodic time, 1 Subcontractors, 209
Phases, inner planets, 3, 5 Sun-line maneuver, 72
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 11, 13, 30, 31, Phosphorous, I Sunshade, 17, 32, 33, 36, 46
32, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 54, 73, 83, Pioneer 10, 33, 41 Superior conjunction, 3
91, 177, 213 Pioneer spacecraft, 24 Surfaces, planetary, 103
Pixel, 27, 177, 178, 180, 186 Synodic period, I
Jumbled terrain, 81, 166
Plains, 79, 83, 102
Planets, 2, 102 Tank, propellant, 31
Kapton, 32
Planets, evolution, 103 Tape transport, 37, 89
Kennedy Space Center, 14, 38, 42
Planets, formation, 5, 102 Teflon, 32
Kohoutek, 20, 27, 56
Planetary exploration, 104 Telescope, low-energy, 41
Kuiper, G., 74
Plasma analyzer, 19, 22, 41, 47, 208 Television cameras, 20, 26, 33, 41, 46, 52,
Plasma science team, 208 57, 73, 177
Launch of Mariner 10, 45 Plasma, solar wind, 23 Television experiment team, 208
Launch simulation, 41 Pleiades, 52 Temperature, cameras, 46, 57
Launch window, 29 Pointing accuracies, 30 Temperature, solar panels, 30
Locations, instruments, 41 Polar hoods, 67 Temperature, Mercury, 85
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 52, 83 Pole, south, Mercury, 156 Temperature, Venus clouds, 64
Position mode, 33 Testing, 34, 36, 42, 51
Magnetic disturbance, Venus, 64 Power, electrical, 30 Thermal control, 17
Magnetic fields, 23, 24 Power switchover, 55, 89 Thermal stress tests, 36
Magnetic fields experiment team, 209 Processing, image, 177 Thrusters, 33
Magnetometer, 19, 23, 38, 64, 84 Propulsion system, 17, 30, 33, 72 Time, periodic, I
Magnetosphere, 98 Protection, rocket engine, 31 Time, synodic, I
Management, 40 Protection, spacecraft, 31, 32 Titan III/Centaur, 1 I
Maneuvering capability, 30 Purdy, W. 1., 57 Trajectory correction, 33, 53, 57, 71, 89, 90,
Mariner series of spacecraft, 14 91
Mariner 10 spacecraft, 14; subs ystems, 16; Transmission rates, 40
weight, 16 Radio communications, 37, 40, 96 Transit, 3, 5
Mariner Venus/Mercury, 13, trajectory, 13 Radio experiment, 20, 26, 62, 65, 85 Two-channel data stream, 29
Mare surfaces, 83 Radio science team, 209
Mars, satellites of, 5 Ray craters, 79
Relativity, 91 Ultraviolet markings, 63
Mars, surface features, 103 Ultraviolet radiation, 19, 47, 56
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 52 Reset, FDS, 55
Rocket engine, 31, 36, 54, 72, 90, 91 Ultraviolet spectroscopy team, 209
Mercury: albedo, 4, 78; atmosphere, 21, 25, University of Chicago, 83
85; closest approach to, 74; density, 7; Roll calibration, 55, 57, 71
elongation, 4; encounter, 73, 89, 97; first Roll drift mode, 95
pictures, 73; ionosphere, 85; magnetic Rotation, Mercury, 7, 21 Variable tilt, 30, 31
field, 84, 89, 97, 101, 102; mass of, 85; Rotation, solar panels, 31 Venus: albedo, 4; atmosphere, 6, 21, 65,
mosaics and maps, 93, 107; occultation by, Rotation, Venus, 6 101; closest approach to, 62; clouds, 20,
74; orbit, 2; other names, 1; phases, 5; 41, 61, 64, 659 67, 101; elongation, 4; first
photo sequence, 74; plains, 102; regolith, picture, 61; haze layers, 61; image process-
Satellites, 27
85; rotation, 7, 21, 101; shape, 85; solar ing, 198; ionosphere, 64, 65; occultation
S-band, 17, 34, 91
wind, 84; surface, 7, 74, 79, 85; tempera- by, 62; orbit, 2; orbital period, 4; other
Scan platform, 24, 33, 56, 57
ture, 85; trajectory, 71, 72, 89, 90, 91; names, l; phases, 3, 5; rotation, 6, 101;
Scanning electron spectrometer, 22, 47
transits, 4 shape, 65; size, 6; surface temperature, 6;
Scarps, Mercury, 78, 92
Meridian, Mercury, 112 synodic period, 4; trajectory, 41, 47, 54,
Science coordination, 40
Mission Control and Computing Center, 41, 56, 57; transits, 4; ultraviolet markings, 6,
Science instruments, 13, 19, 41, 46
177 63, 101
Science reports, 221
Mission, extended, 17 Vibration tests, 35
Science Steering Group. 13, 40
Moon, north pole, 51 Victoria scarp, 164
Science teams, 208
Moon, pictures, 47, 51, 52 Video Analysis Facility, 177
Set, 1
Morning star, 1, 3, 4 Shipment, spacecraft, 42
Skylab, 33, 56 Weight, spacecraft, 16
National Space Data Center, 177 Solar cell panels, 17, 30, 34, 57, 71, 90, 95 Weird terrain, 81, 166
Navigation, optical, 94 Solar conjunction, 90 Wide angle TV, 41
Nitrogen gas loss, 57, 72, 96 Solar corona, 91 Window launch, 29, 38, 40, 45
Nitrogen tank, 30 Solar flares, 24
Null position, 96 Solar gravity, 91 X-band, 17. 34, 91

224 tr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 0-254522