https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19810005401 2019-04-09T14:13:54+00:00Z

NASA-TP-1750 19810005401

NASA Technical Pap er 1750 , /

Environmental Analysis of the

Chemical Release Module Program

James P. Heppner and Maurice Dubin

• -- _ d
NOVEMBER 1980 _.]_2_.;_'__'- ,'_c_

_'_NC,LEIy .RESEARCH CENTER

LIB RAR',",NASA
NASA Technical Paper 1750

Environmental Analysis of the

Chemical Release Module Program

James P. Heppner and Maurice Dubin

Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland

NIIX
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Scientificand Technical
Information Branch

1980
 PREFACE

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has initiated a program for the develop-
ment and operation of a Chemical Release Module Facility (CRMF) as part of the Solar Terrestrial
Spacelab Program. The CRMF is an outgrowth of studies conducted by the Chemical Release
Facility Definition Team (CRFDT) of the AMPS Scientific Working Group (AMPS-SWG). It is to
function as a multi-user facility to perform chemical release experiments selected from proposals
submitted by Principal Investigators (PI's) in response to a NASA "Announcement of Opportunity."

The Chemical Release Module (CRM) is an expendable free-flying spacecraft which is deployed
from the space shuttle with an attached "kick motor" which is subsequently fired to place the CRM
into the orbit required for the scientific objectives of the mission. The CRM is designed to carry a
large number of chemical release canisters with provisions for carrying scientific instruments when
they are needed for diagnostic functions. The canisters can be of various types and sizes in response
to the specific scientific requirements of each experiment. This implies different chemical compo-
sitions, different release masses, and different modes of release ranging from nozzled thermite
explosions of a solid mixture to the slow venting of a gas. The specific composition, mass, and loca-
tion of each release will not be finally defined until experiments are selected. This introduces a
potential uncertainty in environmental analyses in the sense that there is the possibility that experi-
ments could be proposed that are not covered by existing analyses. Additional analyses may be
required if or when this occurs. It is, however, unlikely that many such cases will arise in view of
both historical precedents and the CRFDT's preliminary surveys of potential experiments which did
not reveal experiments with a recognizable potential for having adverse environmental effects.

Historically, chemical releases have been conducted for scientific studies from several hundred
sounding rockets over the past 25 years. Similar releases have been conducted from several orbiting
vehicles at large distances from the earth and in one case at an altitude of 960 km over polar regions.
To our knowledge these experiments have not produced an adverse public reaction in the sense of
concern over environmental effects. Similarly, the scientific community has not been concerned
with environmental effects except for the alteration of the natural abundance of lithium at altitudes
greater than 80 km and for this case it was, in general, found that the release experiments con-
tributed to, rather than handicapped, the scientific studies that were effected.

The lack of adverse reaction to previous release experiments has been based on two factors:
one technical and the other psychological, as follows. (1) Knowledgeable scientists have not found
reasons to believe that the releases have adverse effects. (2) The non-technical public within viewing
range, notified in advance, and aware that the phenomena are transient, distant, and from a small
amount of material, has observed the releases with interest and not fear. In view of this history,
it becomes logical to ask why it was desirable, or necessary, to undertake an environmental review
and analysis of the CRM releases. One basic reason is that NASA's NHB8800, "Procedures for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," requires an environmental assess-
ment for new spaceflight programs and an analysis is a logical first step. Aside from this formal

iii
requirement the reasons, relative to the past, relate to the potential "scope" of the CRM releases.
Technically this means greater masses of selected chemicals and thus the need for examining cumu-
lative effects. The difference, however, appears primarily in the realm of psychological impact.
A brilliant red trail visible across the entire continental U.S. is likely to generate considerable public
response. Uninformed, or incorrectly informed, segments of the population may attribute subse-
quent storms, earthquakes, air pollution, disease, etc. to these strange happenings in the sky. They
may find it difficult to believe that such an extensive display could come from only tens of kilo-
grams of common chemicals. Their apprehensions and questions must be answered by knowledge-
able people who in turn must have confidence that the possibilities for environmental impact have
been studied and documented and found to be negligible.

This report documents studies conducted in advance of the formal "Environmental Assessment
of the CRM Program" which is to be a separate NASA document. It is to serve as both documenta-
tion for statements contained in the environmental assessment and as an independent reference-
able source of information. It is in two parts: (1) the report of a review by a panel of highly quali-
fied scientists, and (2) a reprinting of the environmental analysis conducted by Pressman Enterprises
under a NASA contractual arrangement with the Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity for support of the activities of the CRFDT. The task of the review panel was twofold:
(a) to bring forth any new environmental considerations, and (b) to review a draft version of the
report from Pressman Enterprises to note any important omissions or errors. In free discussion,
the panel brainstormed many thoughts and questions in addition to the attention directed to the
common types of releases. This process further strengthened the key conclusion that "no dele-
terious environmental effects of a widespread or long-lasting nature are anticipated from chemical
releases in the upper atmosphere on the scale and of the type indicated for the CRM program."

James P. Heppner
Maurice Dubin

iv
 CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ............................................................... iii

PART I-REPORT ON MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 1979 OF A

REVIEW PANEL ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
THE NASA CHEMICAL RELEASE MODULE (CRM) PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1

OVERALL SCALE OF EFFECTS ......................................... 2

SPECIFIC MATERIALS ................................................. 2

POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................. 3

REFERENCES ........................................................ 5

APPENDIX A-PANEL MEMBERS ........................................ 7

APPENDIX B-OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING OF

NOVEMBER 30, 1979 .................................................. 9

APPENDIX C-ENHANCEMENT OF AMBIENT BARIUM DUE TO

CRM RELEASES ...................................................... 11

PART II-ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE CHEMICAL RELEASE

MODULE PROGRAM

SUMMARY ........................................................... 13

I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION, OBJECTIVES AND

BACKGROUND .................................................... 15

2. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

(INCLUDES EFFECT OF NEUTRAL AND IONIZED MOLECULES
AND PARTICULATES) .............................................. 30

3. CUMULATIVE AND LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............ 49

4. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ........... 50

 CONTENTS

Part II-Continued

5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .... 51

6. KNOWN OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH STATE, REGIONAL, OR

LOCAL PLANS OR PROGRAMS ....................................... 52

7. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS VS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF

THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ........................................... 53

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) OR ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES .... 54

9. SOURCES ......................................................... 56

APPENDIX A-GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE CHEMICAL RELEASE

MODULE PROGRAM................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B-CHEMICAL RELEASE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ........... B-1

APPENDIX C-SOME DATA ON THE GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......... C-1

APPENDIX D-SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS ON THE EFFECT OF

CHEMICAL RELEASE EXPERIMENTS ON SPACECRAFT ..................... D-1

APPENDIX E-CONSIDERATION OF LITHIUM CHANGES IN THE

UPPER ATMOSPHERE ........................ ......................... E-1

APPENDIX F-TOXICITY OF BARIUM .................................... F-1

APPENDIX G-THE IMPACT OF CHEMICAL RELEASE EXPERIMENTS

ON OPTICAL ASTRONOMY ............................................. G-1

vi
 PART I

REPORTON MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 1979 OF A

REVIEW PANEL ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE NASA CHEMICAL RELEASE MODULE (CRM)
PROGRAM

Preparedby

ErnestBauer
Institute for Defense Analyses
Chairman of the Review Panel

January25, 1980
 REPORTON MEETING OF NOVEMBER30, 1979 OF A REVIEW
PANELON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTOF THE
NASACHEMICAL RELEASEMODULE (CRM) PROGRAM

Prepared by Ernest Bauer

(Institute for Defense Analyses)
Chairman of the Review Panel

January 25, 1980

INTRODUCTION

The membership of the panel convened by J. Heppner (NASA/GSFC)is listed in Appendix A.

Panel members had been sent copies of a draft report "Preliminary Assessment of the Chemical
Release Module Program. ''a The panel was briefed by J, Heppner on the CRM program, and by J.
Pressman on his draft report. After extensive discussion and expression of the views of all the panel
members, a preliminary report of this meeting was prepared by the chairman and iterated to the
panel members and to all other attendees at the November 30, 1979 meeting (see Appendix B)o All
comments received by January 16, 1980 have been incorporated in the present report.

The key conclusion, endorsed unanimously by all panel members, is as follows: No deleterious en-
vironmental effects-of a widespread or long-lasting nature-are anticipated from chemical releases
in the upper atmosphere on the scale and of the type indicated for the CRM program.

Releases of a variety of chemical species in the upper atmosphere in quantities of 10 to 100 kg or

even larger have been conducted several hundred times since the early 1950's, when rockets suitable
for use as payload carriers became available to study a variety of atmospheric problems such as high-
altitude winds and electromagnetic fields by this technique.

In any such experiment there is the following dichotomy: injections must be on a large enough
scale for the effects to be observable and useful, and yet small enough not to cause or trigger major
perturbations of the atmosphere. In none of the past releases is there any evidence for significant,
long-lasting, deleterious, environmental effects; the presently contemplated individual releases of up
to 10 to 100 kg are not larger than past individual releases, Thus the present review panel endorses
the conclusions of earlier assessments, such as that of a Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)
group (see Kellogg, 1965), of the Space Shuttle 2,3 in anticipating that no long-term, large-scale,
harmful environmental impact on the upper atmosphere or the biosphere would result from chemi-
cal releases in the upper atmosphere on the scale contemplated by the CRM program.

1pressman, J., "Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the Chemical Release Module Program," draft, October 1979.
2NASA, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Space Shuttle," April 1978.
3Ibid.
The present discussion addresses only the effects of deliberate chemical releases from CRM on the
upper atmosphere or on people on the ground. It does not consider launch operations, including
the effects of rocket effluents or the result of possible accidents, or operational factors such as the
contamination of one spacecraft by a release from another spacecraft, or critical communication
interference effects; all of these can be avoided by proper sequencing and design of operations.

OVERALL SCALE OF EFFECTS

While specific plans for individual experiments using the CRM have not yet been made, the cumula-
tive annual rate of atmospheric releases from the CRM is estimated at less than 2000 kg per year
according to studies by the Chemical Release Module Facility Definition Team, including perhaps
1000 kg of barium and 100 kg of lithium. Additional materials that may be injected include other
alkali and alkaline earth metals, TMA ( = (CH3)3A1), SF6, NO, CS2, and the combustion prod-
ucts of the release reactants. The input into the upper atmosphere of meteoroidal material has
been estimated as (1.6-6) X 107 kg per year (see Cosby and Lyle, 1965; Barker and Anders, 1968;
Hughes, 1975). Thus, the total annual rate of mass injection is of order 10 "4 times the total meteor-
oidal rate of mass injection; for particular species, however, such as Ba or Li this factor can be much
greater, even exceeding unity.

SPECIFIC MATERIALS

Barium:

Metal and its soluble compounds are poisonous 4 ; however, much or most of the atmospheric input
will reach the lower atmosphere and ground as barium sulfate (BaSO4) which is highly insoluble,
chemically inert, and nontoxic. A simple, semiquantitative discussion given as Appendix C
demonstrates that the contribution of CRM sources to the existing barium in the biosphere (lowest
atmosphere and upper ocean) is very small (of order 10.6 or smaller).

Lithium:

One would expect a detectable enhancement upper atmospheric lithium as a result of contemplated
CRM injections s but there is no known hazard resulting from this.

Other Injectants:

We did not consider other injectants in detail because, to our knowledge, no harmful effect has been
suggested.

4part II of this volume, Appendix F.

5part II of this volume, Appendix E.
 Energyof Injection:

The energy of a release is the heat of reaction of the injectant, perhaps 100 kcal/mole or 4 eV/bond,
plus the kinetic energy due to orbital motion with a velocity of approximately 7 km/sec. For a
50 kg release this is of order 2 × 109 joules. By comparison, an International Brightness Classifica-
tion (IBC) Class I aurora (the weakest identified class), with a duration of 30 minutes and an extent
of 106 km2 corresponds to an energy deposition in the upper atmosphere of order 1013 joules; the
energy deposition due to a chemical release is thousands of times smaller.

POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Upper atmospheric visual glows resulting from Li, Ba, Sr, Na, etc. releases may be readily visible to
the general public. They are transient (duration of some minutes) and produce no long-term or
harmful effects.

Effectson HumanHealthdueto Toxic Materials

See Appendix C for an estimate of the perturbation due to barium. In view of both the small rela-
tive injection as well as the insolubility of at least part of the material (BaSO 4), there is no data that
would indicate a hazard.

Effects on the Ionosphere

Under certain conditions high-latitude chemical releases appear to have triggered small geomagnetic
substorms (W. W. Berning, private communication). It is thus possible that, under conditions of
full-scale, high-latitude CRM operation, up to 10 percent of small geomagnetic substorms may
occur somewhat earlier than in the absence of chemical releases. (The principal effect of such a sub-
storm is possible interference with ionospheric HF radio communication.)

The release of barium or other materials in the F-region produces local enhancement in ionization,
which could change HF radio propagation characteristics. However, the scale of these perturbations
lies within the natural variability in the ionosphere, and it is unlikely that natural and artificial per-
turbations to HF propagation can be separately identified.

EffectsonWeatherand Climate

It appears that at least some metals (Na, Mg) may reduce stratospheric ozone by a catalytic cycle
(see Ferguson, 1978). However, the quantitative effect of metals from CRM injections is unlikely
to be significant.

There are controversial suggestions of solar activity-climate interactions through the triggering of
auroras or substorms (i.e. geomagnetic activity). Insofar as releases may perhaps trigger substorms
(see p. 4) there might perhaps be some interaction. However, we do not consider this level of per-
turbation to be of significant impact.
Effects on Ground-BasedOptical Astronomical Observations

This can probably be addressed during the operations by informing the relevant astronomical com-
munity when and where a release is to be made. The appropriate method of informing astronomers
is the International Astronomical Union (IAU) announcement system, and there should be ample
time to avoid adverse effects on observing programs.

Regarding long-term enhancement of the concentration of some trace metals such as lithium in the
upper atmosphere, we know of no harmful effects from the case of lithium, even though lithium
releases can be used to obtain knowledge about the dispersion of atmospheric gases around the Earth.

SatelliteOperations

The effects of sputtering of surfaces on spacecraft and possible interference with critical radio com-
munication links should be addressed in an operational context (see Introduction).

4
 REFERENCES

1. Barker, J.L. Jr., and E. Anders, "Accretion Rate of Cosmic Matter from Iridium and Osmium
Contents of Deep-Sea Sediments," Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta, Chicago University,
vol. 32, June 1968, pp. 627-645.

2. Broecker, W.S., "Radioisotopes and Oceanic Mixing," Technical Progress Report No. COO-
3180-2, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Palisades, N.Y., May 1974.

3. Cosby, W.A., and R.G. Lyle, "The Meteoroid Environment and Its Effect on Materials and
Equipment," NASA, SP-78, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1965.

4. Ferguson, E.E., "Sodium Hydroxide Ions in the Stratosphere," NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory,
Boulder, Colorado, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 5, December 1978, pp. 1035-1038.

5. Hughes, D.W., "Cosmic Dust Influx to the Upper Atmosphere during Major Meteor Showers,"
XIV Proceedings of the 16 Planary Meeting May 23-June 5, 1973, Sheffield University, Shef-
field, England, Space Research, vol. 15, 1975, p. 531.

6. Kellogg, W.W., "Pollution of the Upper Atmosphere by Rockets," Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, Calif., Space Science Reviews, vol. 3, August 1964, pp, 275-316.

7. Reiter, E.R., and E. Bauer, "Residence Times of Atmospheric Pollutants," The National
Stratosphere of 1974, CIAP Monograph 1, Department of Transportation Report DOT-TST-
75-51, Institute for Defense Analysis, Science and Technology Division, Final Report, Sep-
tember 1975, pp. 2-134.
 APPENDIX A

PANEL MEMBERS

Dr. Ernest Bauer (Chairman) Mr. Herman E. Lagow

Institute for Defense Analyses 9336 Harvey Road
400 Army-Navy Drive Silver Spring, MD 20910
Arlington, VA 22202
Dr. John E. Naugle
Mr. Warren W. Berning 7211 Rollingwood Drive
(New Mexico State University) Chevy Chase, MD 20015
11007 Candlelight Lane
Potomac, MD 20854 Dr. George C. Reid
Aeronomy Laboratory
Dr. Herbert C. Carlson NOAA
Code ATM Boulder, CO 80303
National Science Foundation
Washington, DC 20550 Dr. S. F. Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences
Dr. Dan Golomb University of Virgina
RD-682 Charlottesville, VA 22903
Office of Research and Development
Environment Protection Agency Dr. Fred L. Whipple
Washington, DC 20460 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
60 Garden Street
Prof. Curtis L. Hemenway Cambridge, MA 02138
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
University of Maine Prof. Edward C. Zipf
Orono, ME 04473 Department of Physics
University of Pittsburgh
Dr. William W. Kellogg Pittsburgh, PA 15261
National Center for Atmospheric
Research
Boulder, CO 80303

7
 APPENDIX B

OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER30, 1979

Mr. Roland H. Chase Mr. Jerome Pressman

Code ST-5 4 Fessenden Way
NASA Headquarters Lexington, MA 02173
Washington, DC 20546
Dr. David Reasoner
Mr. Nathaniel B. Cohen Code ES-53
Code LB-4 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters Huntsville, AL 35812
Washington, DC 20546
Mr. Leo Richards
Dr. Maurice Dubin Code JA-51
Code 963 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL 35812
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Dr. Erwin R. Schmerling
Dr. James P. Heppner Code ST-5
Code 696 NASA Headquarters
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Washington, DC 20546
Greenbelt, MD 20771

Dr. George P. Newton

Code ST-5
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546

9
 APPENDIX C

ENHANCEMENT OF AMBIENT BARIUM DUE TO CRM RELEASES

Let us assume a maximum plausible CRM input into the upper atmosphere of 1000 kg Ba per year.
This is larger than the presumed meteoritic input of 3 X 10.6 (Mason, 1971) times (1.6-6) × 107 kg
per year (see Section 2), or 50-200 kg Ba per year.

Of concern to the biosphere would be the resultant enhancement in the atmosphere's planetary
boundary layer (and spread uniformly over a depth of 1 km in the globe, this would give an enhance-
ment of 2 × 10 -7 jug/m3-year) or in the upper ocean (spread uniformly over a depth of 50 m in the
global ocean, this would give an enhancement of 6 × 10-x 7 gm/gm seawater-year, or 6 X 10s /ag/
m 3-year).

A mean turnover time in the atmospheric boundary layer is 1-10 days (see, e.g. Reiter and Bauer,
1975) and in the upper ocean, 100 to 1000 years (Broecker, 1963). Thus, with measured air values
of .006 _tg/m3 in the atmosphere and 10-s gm/gm seawater (see Part II, Appendix F, also Goldberg
1963, for references and ranges), fractional enhancements of barium are of order 3 × 10 -7 in the
atmosphere, or 2 × 10 -9 in the ocean. These values may fluctuate by 1 to 2 orders of magni-
tude; note however, that some of the added material in the atmosphere will tend to be BaSO4
which is insoluble, inert, and non-toxic.

Evidently most of the barium in the biosphere must be due to terrestrial sources such as wind-blown
dust, sea spray, and the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels.

I1
 PART II

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE

CHEMICAL RELEASE MODULE

Preparedby
JeromePressman

PressmanEnterprises
Lexington, Massachusetts
under Contract No. 601069

February 1980
 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE CHEMICAL
RELEASEMODULE PROGRAM

Prepared by Jerome Pressman

(Pressman Enterprises
Lexington, Massachusetts
under Contract No. 601069)

February 1980

SUMMARY

This is an environmental analysis for the Chemical Release Module (CRM) program of NASA. The
findings indicate no adverse environmental effect on the basis of (a) the data from hundreds of pre-
vious chemical releases, (b) specific experimental analyses, (c) order-of-magnitude chemical release
energetics and mass considerations, (d) comparison with other anthropogenic effects, (e) compari-
son with natural phenomenology and variability and (f) the input from other related environmental
assessments. Consequently, it is recommended that no environmental impact statement be required.

The CRM program proposes to create a multi-user facility, Space Shuttle launched, which inter-
changeably accommodates a large number of chemical canisters for a variety of alternate chemical
release experiments during the timeframe 1982 to 1986. These limited and controlled releases into
the upper atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere have a capability for contributing toward the
solution of key problems (for the earth and other planets) in atmospheric/magnetospheric coupling,
space plasma physics, atmospheric dynamics and chemistry, gas dynamics, auroral phenomena,
ionospheric communication disturbance, solar wind magnetosphere interactions, physics of comets,
and more.

Moreover, the ability to move ahead on projected economic utilizations of space involving large-
scale operations such as those inherent to the Solar Power Station (SPS) and the creation of large
space structures is, in part, dependent on knowledge of the environmental effects of releases in
space. The CRM releases can provide the types of information necessary for understanding the rel-
evant interaction mechanisms and their effects. These studies will be a valuable by-product of the
CRM science experiments.

The findings are that adverse effects are not expected because of the small masses involved and the
transient nature of the environmental changes induced by the chemical releases. No health effects
are anticipated because the relatively small chemical release masses, diffused globally before reach-
ing the earth's surface, are greatly diluted and their concentrations are many orders of magnitude
below even the most ingent toxic standards. No effects on orbiting spacecraft are anticipated be-
cause the only phase of the release possibly affecting the spacecraft is during the expansion of the
release when the particulate, neutral and ion densities are still high. Proper launch scheduling and
coordinated trajectories can be utilized to eliminate this category. No detrimental effect on com-
munications is expected because of the localized disturbance, the brief duration, the self-healing
nature of the ionosphere, and, for most cases, the general isolated location of the disturbances.

13
Other than a short term and operationally insignificant change in lithium in the upper atmosphere,
no significant compositional changes are expected. Because of the small masses and low energies
involved, no changes in the magnetosphere are anticipated. No significant effect on astronomical
"seeing" is anticipated because the limited luminous clouds created low in the atmosphere are
generally short in duration while the deeper space clouds are of limited angular size and diffuse
rapidly as they traverse the sky. Coordination with the astronomical community is recommended.
Finally, no significant effect on weather or climate is anticipated since no significant changes in
upper atmsophere composition or processes are expected.

If the CRM program proceeds as proposed and according to plan, there should be no significant
impacts on the physical, biological, or socioeconomic environment as described above. Cost-benefit
considerations indicate the high advantage of the program not only in terms of the scientific data
to be obtained but also in terms of small scale pilot tests of the massive releases involved in pro-
jected space engineering projects.

There is an exceedingly small probability that a spacecraft with instruments susceptible to surface
contamination could pass close to the CRM at the time of a release. To eliminate this possibility for
contamination, it is recommended that follow-up technical analyses be directed toward defining
"safe-distance" criteria and establishing operational procedures which can be implemented to pro-
hibit releases at these rare times.

14
 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION, OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND*

This report represents, for administrative purposes, an environmental analysis of the proposed
Chemical Release Module (CRM) program and is being carried out in accordance with NASA guide-
lines, NMI 8800 7D, September 5, 1979 and Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, 43 FR
55978 (1978).

1.1 Descriptionof ProposedChemicalReleaseModule(CRM) Program

1.1.1 General

The CRM program proposes the extension of known techniques for releasing chemicals in space
from rockets to the Space Shuttle System and is described in detail in 1.3 in Appendix of Sources.
More extended information on the CRM program is also given here in Appendix A, to which the
reader is referred. This includes information on: Program Category, Planned Launch Times, Mis-
sion Lifetime, Mission Functions, Mission Elements, Typical Mission Orbits, Status, Approach Con-
ceptual Mission Sequence, CRM Characteristics, Observing Operations and Program Schedule. The
scientific objectives are given below in summary fashion and discussed in more detail in Source 1.3.

Development of a space transportation system based on a reusable Space Shuttle was initiated by
NASA in early 1972. Initial program plans call for orbital flight testing in 1979 and operational
status during 1980. Early operations at low inclination orbits are from the Kennedy Space Center
(KSC) followed by activation of facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) after 1983 to
permit higher inclination orbital missions.

For twenty years, chemical release experiments carried by high-altitude sounding rockets have pro-
vided important data on the near-earth environment at relatively low cost. See Sources 1.5 to 1.39
for a partial list of references to this literature. Also see Appendix B for a brief discussion of chem-
ical release history and background, a partial log of some chemical releases, and a brief discussion of
the initial expansion phase of releases. The potential for chemical releases from the Space Shuttle
has been identified by science advisory committees contributing to Shuttle experiment planning
Source 1.3. Such experiments represent a substantial extension of rocket experiments because the
availability of Space Shuttle transportation permits exploration of new areas in the ionosphere/
magnetosphere and the capability to carry heavier weight. Additional benefits that accrue include
the large range of altitudes and latitudes that may be covered, the orbital velocity incremental to
the release velocity, the precision in release location, and the utilization of the Space Shuttle itself
as an observation platform in space. The program also appears to be applicable to the concept of
cost sharing with multiexperiment flights.

*Liberal use has been made throughout this report of general descriptive material from various sources which are, in some cases, not
completely referenced.

15
1.1.2 Technologyfor ChemicalReleaseSystems

The technology of chemical release systems has been well developed over two decades of experi-
mentation and is described in detail in Source (1.40)and in a series of Thiokol reports, (Sources 1.41
and 1.42). To createthe desired effects, the selected chemical must be ejected in the proper state,
usually as a gas or vapor, sometimes as a liquid for subsequent vaporization, and sometimes as solid
particles. Liquids and gases are released by standard techniques while chemical reactions and explo-
sion devices may provide vaporization energy for materials such as alkali metals. Dispensing mecha-
nism and rates are varied depending upon the configuration required for the experiment-a long,
thin trail, spherical cloud or high-velocity jet. Given in Table 1-1 is a list of chemicals utilized
in previous high-altitude experiments. Figures B-1 and B-2 (Appendix B) show the launch locations
and approximate altitude distribution for previous releases.

1.1.3 Initial CRM MissionScenarios

As a preliminary environmental assessment, this document is directed specifically toward an initial

sample listing of prospective CRM experiments and generically similar ones of a comparable mass
class and not to all conceivable chemical release experiments.

Table 1-2 gives a sample listing of CRM experiments including identification code and experimental
objectives, while Table 1-3 furnishes the mass, altitude and payload of the experiment. It is noted
that most experiments are in the 5 to 100 kg class with a few designed for a 1000 kg mass.

Because of the large number of prospective experiments, scientific and operational details for the
sample list are not furnished here but are available in the document of model mission profiles
(Source 1.4). Therein can be examined the individual experiment scientific objectives, experimental
scenario, release characteristics, etc., as described by a number of potential experimenters who pro-
vided inputs to the NASA CRM Facility Definition Team (CRM-FDT). This document Source 1.4
complements the more general description of the CRM program (Source 1-3) by including a wide
variety of experiment concepts.

The structure of the magnetosphere and the diverse locations within the magnetosphere of the
many chemical release experiments are illustrated in Figure 1-1, As necessary, further details will be
furnished in the text. Table 1-4 provides a categorization of types of releases and the application of
specific chemical releases to scientific objectives which are described in Table 1-5 and in section 1-2.

16
 Table1-1
TypicalChemicalsUsedin High-AltitudeExperiments

Ba Sr C2H2

Na AI (CH3 )3 NH3

Li AI (C2H5)3 B2 H6

Cs SF6 B (C2H5)3

Eu NO Fe (CO)5

K NO2 Pb (C2H5)4

Ca CS2 Kerosene

A1 CO2 Misc.Explosives

17
 Table 1-2
Initial List of CRM Experiments

Experiment
Identification Experiment Name

BH-1 Light Ion Transport and Acceleration

BH-2 Composition Anomalies
BP-1 Ionospheric Depletion Experiment
DT-1 Exploration of the Double Layer
DT-2 Magnetic Field Line Tracing
DT-3 Auroral Modification Experiment on Pulsating Aurora
ED- 1 Wind Generation
ED-2 Auroral Modifications
ED-3,4,5,6,7 Conductivity Modification
ED-8 Cold Plasma Seeding
HG- 1 Critical Velocity Experiment
HG-2 Creation of an Ionospheric "Bubble"
HG-3 Small Scale Structure of the External Plasma Flow
HG-4 Artificial Comet
HG-5 Tracing Primary Auroral Processes
KM-1,2,3,4 Planetary Electrodynamics
KP-1 Critical Velocity Experiment
L,A&D-1,2,3 Photochemistry and Chemical Reaction Rates
LL- 1 Conductivity Modification
LL-2 Ionospheric Enhancement
LL-3 Ionospheric Depletion
LL-4 Wind Generation
L&R-I Chemical Release on the L=4 Siple-Roberval Field Line
MD-1 Comparison of Auroral Zone Electric Fields
MD-2 Plasma Motions in the Magnetospheric Cleft Region
MJ-1 Ionospheric Depletion
MM-I Active Ionospheric Modification
MR- 1,2,3 Outer Magnetosphere Particle Tracing Studies
PF- 1 Large Atmospheric Perturbations
RB-1 Atmospheric Dynamics
SE-1,2,3 Low Altitude Satellite Studies of Localized Chemical Releases
SR-1 Lidar.Explorations of Chemical Releases
TG- 1 Generation of Acoustic-Gravity Waves
VR-1,2 Conductivity Modification
WJ-1 Determination of the Electrodynamics of the Harang Discontinuity
WJ-2 Electric Field Configuration During a PC-5 Magnetic Pulsation Event

Source: Goddard Space Flight Center, "Developmental and Analysis of Model Mission Profiles for
Chemical Release Experiments to be Conducted with the Space Shuttle Chemical Release Module
Facility," September 30, 1980 in "Chemical Release Module Multi-User Facility for Shuttle Space-
lab," Appendix.

18
 Table 1-3
PayloadandAltitudefor Initial CRM Experiments
Experiment
Identification Payload Altitude (km)
BH-1 Thermite-Lithium - 70 KG 350
BH-2 Thermite-Lithium - 70 KG 180
BP-1 NH3, H20, CO2 - 100 to 200 KG 3000-400
DT-1 Barium Shaped Charge - Five Each total 2 KG of BA 400
DT-2 Barium Shaped Charge - One Each 2 KG of BA 400
DT-3 Thermite Barium - 10 KG 250
ED-1 Xenon or Argon - 4 Canisters 100 KG Each 130
ED-2 Barium Thermite- 1,000 KG 7,000
ED-3,4,5,6,7 1) BA, CS, or LI-Thermite; 2) CS; 3) AR,XE; 4) SF6
5)WF6, CS 100 KG 110-160
ED-8 CS or LI Vaporization, No Set Weight 23,000.40,000
HG-1 Strontium Shaped Charge - Two with 2 KG of SR 350-400
HG-2 Barium Thermite - Two with 10 KG Each 220-250
HG-3 Barium or Europium Thermite - 10 Canisters with
10 KG Each 8-12 RE*
HG-4 Barium Thermite - 1,000 KG 20 RE*
HG-5 Barium Thermite - 10 Each 16 KG 5,000-8,000
KM-1,2,3,4 Lithium, Barium, TMA- Series of Three 10-20 KG
Each 250-300
KP-1 Xenon-10 KG 400-1,000
L,A&D-I,2,3 NH3, CO2, CH4, H20, NO, NO2, CO, FREONS - 20
Releases 10 KG Each 120.400
LL-1 Barium Thermite - 25 Canisters 16 KG Each 150-200
LL-2 Cesium and Tungsten Hexafluoride - 30 Each 30 KG 130-140
LL-3 Sf6 Gas - 2,500 Canisters I KG Each 105-115
LL-4 XE, AR, or WF6 - 64 Canisters 16 KG Each 150-200
L&R-1 BA or CS - 100 KG 3 RE
MD-1 Barium Thermite- 10 Each 20 KG 150-250
MD-2 Barium Thermite- 10 Each 20 KG 300-400
MJ-1 Hydrogen - 100 KG 350
MM-1 Hydrogen- 100 KG 300
MR-I,2,3 Lithium, Barium, Cesium - 100 KG Each 4-20 RE *
PF- 1 Cesium Vapor - 1,000 KG 120-400
RB-1 TMA- 6 KG 140-200
SE-1,2,3 BA, NH3, H2, H20 - 10 to 1,000 KG 150-800
SR-1 Barium or Sodium - 16 KG 180.450
TG-1 Thermite with Small Amount of BA or SR Doping 150-400
VR-1,2 Barium-Thermite, Ha, or HEO - 100 KG Each 100-200
WJ-1 Barium-Thermite - 10 Each 16 KG 240-400
WJ-2 Barium-Thermite- 10 Each 20 KG 350

• RE = Earth Radii
Source: For scientific objectives and experiment scenarios see, Goddard Space Flight Center,
"Chemical Release Module-Multi-User Facility for Shuttle Spacelab," Appendix, September 30,
1980.
19
 NEUTRAL
SHEET
CURRENT
MAGNETOPAUSE

CLEFT

MAGNETOPAUSE
CURRENTS
OUTER LOOP
CLEFT CURRENT

BOUNDARY LAYER

PLASMASPHERE

SECTOR BOUNDARY OR _'_

_)_J PROPAGATING SHOCK "N.,...._,.,.KE

__7 MOON_--

--30 Re _-....._ -- Q = EXPERIMENT LOCAT,ON

- 20 _ 1. ACTIVE BOW SHOCK

2. MULTIPLE DIAGNOSTIC
_ 3. POLAR REGION. NEUTRAL POINTS
\ 4. MAGNETOTAIL
-1 \\ _ 5, LUNAR WAKE
\ 6. INTERPLANETARY DIAGNOSTIC
• (_ ',(_ , , _(_ (_ AND ARTIFICIAL SHOCK
• i [ 7. SECTOR BOUNDARY
110 2() 30 4() Re 8. PROPAGATING SHOCK

_-_Q _-10
(_ ' _) 9. CLOSEDFIELDDIAGNOSTIC
WINDSOLAR
\ _', _ ,/ _ 10. SOLAR WIND DISTANCE VARIANCE

I_'_ 20 MAGN ETOPAUSE

- 30Re

VIEW LOOKING NORMAL TO ECLIPTIC PLANE

SYMMETRY ASSUMED FOR SIMPLICITY

Source: Thiokol, "Chemical Releases from Space Shuttle Payloads," Wasatch Division, Ogden,
Utah, May 1975.

Figure 1-1. Possible Chemical Release Experiments

2O
 Table1-4
Applicationof ChemicalReleaseExperimentsto ScientificObjectives

2. Modificationand 3. Plasmaand
Chemical 1. ChemicalTracer Perturbation Chemistry
Designation a b c d e f g a b c d e f g a b c d e f

A1 X X X
Ba X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
.'= _, Cs
¢_ X X X X X X X X
E .- Eu X X X X X X
_ Li X X X X X X X X X X
Na X X X
Sr X X X X

Ar X X X X X
CO2 X X X X X X X
DB X X X
0
_He X X
_ _NO_ X X X
_" _,0 2 X X X X X X
SF 6 X X X X
,.a SiF4 X X X
TMA X X X
WF6 X X X

!Ba X X X X X X X X X X
"_Eu¢,_ X X X X X
_ Li X X X X X X X X

x x x
o Ba X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
"_ V, Cs X X X X X X X X
€,J
_ Eu X X X X X X
HEX X
Li X X X X X X X X X
Na X X

Source: Thiokol, "Chemical Releases from Space Shuttle Payloads," Wasatch Division, Ogden,
Utah, May 1975, p. 2-7.

21
 Table 1-5
ScientificObjectivesof CRM Experiments(1 of 3)

1. Objectives of Tracer Chemical Releases in the Ambient Environment

a. Provide comprehensive global measurements of the electric field (E±) for general applica-
tion to magnetospheric/ionospheric physics and to support investigations requiring the time
history of the electric field over regions of space.

b. Make neutral wind measurements in a synoptic and comprehensive manner for defining
existing characteristics, dynamics, and possible coupling with ionospheric phenomena.

c. Determine the geometry and distortions of the magnetic field lines between the high lati-
tude ionosphere and the equatorial plane of the magnetosphere or regions near the magne-
tophase to improve the ability to relate phenomena in the distant magnetosphere to phe-
nomena observed at ionospheric altitudes.

d. Map magnetic field lines between conjugate points to confirm or modify field models and
to ascertain conditions under which equipotential conditions are not existent along the field.

e. Follow particle access into the magnetosphere and the transport and energization processes
within the magnetosphere to answer questions on the location and efficiency of solar plasma
transmission into the magnetosphere, to map large scale convection patterns within the
magnetosphere, to map large scale convection patterns within the magnetosphere, and to
estimate, quantitatively, energization and loss processes for particle populations in the
earth's radiation belts.

f. Locate the source of energetic magnetospheric ions to determine whether they may be of
ionospheric origin.

g. Complete measurements of atmospheric density, diffusion coefficients, temperature and

concentration of certain species at high altitude.

Source: Thiokol, "Chemical Releases from Space Shuttle Payloads," Wasatch Division, Ogden,
Utah, May 1975.

22
 Table 1-5
ScientificObjectivesof CRM Experiments(2 of 3)

2. Chemical Releases Modification and Perturbation of Natural Systems

a. Alter ionospheric conductivities locally by increasing ionization, decreasing ionization, or

inducing gross movement of the neutral atmosphere to observe the reaction of the magneto-
sphere/ionosphere system and determine the nature of its circuit/generator characteristics
and perhaps simulate a magnetic substorm.

b. Trigger instabilities to determine the controlling boundary conditions, to study their tem-
poral and spatial development, and to relate their effects to previous ground based observa-
tions.

c. Create a magnetosphefic whistler duct of known enhanced plasma density, extent, and loca-
tion to increase understanding of plasmospheric dynamics and the interaction of whistlers
and ducts.

d. Investigate image effects of conductivity changes in the lower ionosphere to locate the field
conjugate points in the two hemispheres.

e. Generate atmospheric gravity waves to provide basic data on the nature and characteristics
of gravity waves and their relation to traveling ionospheric disturbances.

f. Study wave simulation by introduction of particles to obtain basic information on wave-

particle interactions.

23
 Table1-5
ScientificObjectivesof CRM Experiments(3 of 3)

3. Chemical Releases forPlasma and Chemical Technology Experiments

a. Simulate cometary materials and plasma to observe their interaction with magnetic and
electric fields.

b. Simulate planetary atmospheres to study molecules and radicals found around other planets.

c. Obtain basic data on reaction rates and test atmospheric chemistry hypothesis in support of
attempts to develop a unified model of the atmosphere.

d. Determine atomic and molecular properties of certain metals that cannot be observed in the
laboratory such as radiation and oxidation processes involving metastable states as well as
transisition probabilities, photoionization cross sections, and chemical reactivity of ground
state and excited atoms.

e. Study the interaction of a neutral gas and ambient plasma with critical relative velocities
to investigate the ionization coupling observed in laboratories.

f. Observe moving and stationary plasma interactions with the atmosphere and ionosphere-
magnetosphere to provide basic data on plasma processes.

24
1.2 Objectives

The CRM program has for its primary function scientific objectives. It is designed to facilitate the
use of chemical releases as a scientific tool in the further understanding of our upper atmosphere/
ionosphere/magnetosphere environment: by tracing, modifying and simulating natural phenomena
and testing theories in these regions. Relevance also extends to applied problems such as in simulat-
ing conditions which adversely affect space communications and space operations.

1.2.1 ScientificKnowledge(SeeSource1.3 for moreextendeddiscussion)

The CRM program is relevant to answering key questions of (a) solar plasma entry into the magne-
tosphere, (b) solar wind vs. ionosphere as source of magnetospheric plasma, (c) processes injecting
ionosphereic ions into the magnetosphere, (d) causes of high latitude electric fields and aurora, and
relation to substorms, (e) energy mechanisms in the thermosphere and (f) solar/weather correlations.
Some of the major objectives for chemical release experiments are listed in Table 1-5 which demon-
strate the high degree of relevance and versatility of the CRM system in responding to key out-
standing questions regarding the structure and behavior of the earth's space environment.

Such CRM experiments can also play an important role in elucidating the magnetosphere of other
planets in the solar system; Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Moon, etc., and elsewhere in the universe.

1.2.2 Engineering
Applicationsof KnowledgeGained

The necessity to solve earth-bound problems (e.g. the power shortage) and the inherent advantages
of many space operations (e.g. satellite communications) have initiated large-scale multiple use of
the upper atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere space environment. These domains have become
literally a "common" for many operational and planned systems. As the CRM experiments yield
data, they, as described in Subsection 1.3.1, can further clarify many of the scientific problems
(see Table 1-5). In this manner, limited and controlled CRM experiments can have input into the
engineering design and architecture of massive space systems such as the planned Solar Power
Systems (SPS) which involves the deposition of millions of kilograms in the 2 to 6 earth radii
plasmaspheric region.

The full exploitation of space must rest upon exact knowledge of how the engineering operations
alter space, interact with other space systems, and contaminate themselves and their environment
and thus modify their functional effectiveness. The architectural design of such systems must
include as a basic design element the cited three interactions (Source 1.43).

Table 1-6 summarizes some of the expected input and applications of CRM data in elucidating space
and communications system interactions with the environment. The many inputs indicate a high
degree of relevance, particularly for such massive systems as the SPS. For many space operations
there are needs for models of the low-energy, near-earth plasma as indicated in Table 1-7 from
Garrett (Source 1.44) which identifies the "user" community and its needs. The CRM can serve
the useful function of validating such models.

25
 Table1-6
Applicationsof CRM Datato ElucidatingSpaceand
CommunicationSystemsEnvironmentalInteractions

A. Analysis of Effects of Environment on Communications and Space Systems

1. Communications Systems

a. CRM data applicable to natural ionospheric variations

b. CRM data applicable to transionospheric transmission variations
c. CRM data applicable to magnetic effects

2. Space Systems (These include Space Power System (SPS), Space Laboratory, Space Colony,
Geosynchronous Orbit Operations-communications, meteorology, etc.)

a. spacecraft charging interactions

b. sputtering and chemicalinteractions
c. power transmission effects
d. optical limitations and effects
e. space ion beam storage system

B. Analysis of Effects of Space-Systems on Environment, Other Space Systems and Self

1. Environmental Modification

a. modification of ionosphere by large vehicles

b. contamination of plasmasphere by LEO to GEO transfer
c. upper atmosphere composition change by HLLV (Heavy Launch Lift Vehicle)
d. magnetospheric modifications by gas release from large space structure
e. other

2. Effects on Other Space Systems

a. effect of SPS build-up on GEO communications satellites, etc.

b. effect of space colony on other space systems
c. other bilateralinteractions

3. Self-Contamination Problem for Each Space System

26
 Table 1-7
Applicationsof CRM Datato ValidateNear-EarthPlasmaModels-
Usersof 0-100 KEV NearEarthPlasmaModels

User Needs

1. DOD]NASA A. Cumulative Flux Dosages

Commercial
B. Mission Planning

C. Satellite Design/Operation

D. National Defense

2. NOAA A. Mission Failure Analysis

Air Force Air
Weather Service B. Forecasting

3. DOE]NASA A. Environmental Impact

Assessment

4. Scientific A. Reference Models

Community
B. Ionospheric Models

C. Substorm Modeling

D. Plasma Dynamics

E. Solar/Terrestrial Coupling

Source: Garrett, H.B., "Review of Quantitative Models of the 0-100 KeV Near-Earth Plasma,"
Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, vol. 17 no. 3 (May 3, 1979).

27
1.3 GeophysicalBackground

Material of a general geophysical background to assist the non-expert and explicating the technical
terminology is placed for the most part in Appendix C. This Appendix contains (a) basic geo-
physical data, (b) a brief discussion of the ionosphere, and (c) some data on micrometeorites.

1.4 Related Environmental Assessments(EA) and Impact Statements

Selected related environmental assessments and impact statements having direct and indirect input
into the subject CRM assessment are described briefly and summarized below. Environmental assess-
ment by the Los Alamos Group (Source 1.45), the DNA (Defense Nuclear Agency)group (Source
1.46), the AFGL group (Source 1.47), and the NASA[Wallops Group (Source 1.48) have been
performed for their specific chemical release programs and no environmental impact has been found.
The first two were barium release programs and bear directly on the CRM program as does that of
the AFGL group which used a variety of chemicals. The Los Alamos group Operation BUARO EA
involving a 9.1 kg shaped-charge barium release at 500 km found no deleterious effect. The DNA
Stress program EA involving five 48 kg barium releases at 183 km at Eglin Field, Florida found no
harmful environmental effects. The DNA ICECAP program at the Poker Flats Range, Fairbanks,
Alaska, involved a series of barium releases at 180 to 200 km for a total of 417 kg of barium during
a 2-month period with one release (a cluster of canisters) amounting to 128 kg. No deleterious
environmental effects were found. The AFGL program involved the release at Eglin Field of a
broad range of chemicals (see Table 1-1) at altitudes of 150 to 200 km; this amounted to I00 kg
per year. No measurable adverse effect on man and his environment was found. The Wallops
Environmental Assessment involved the release of 13 kg of barium at five earth radii above lower
latitudes. The Space Science Board of the National Academy-of Science found no environmental
impact.

A correlative environmental assessment, that of the Space Shuttle itself, "The Environmental
Impact Statement, Space Shuttle Program Final, April, 1978" (Source 1.49), regarding upper
atmospheric effects due to exhaust effluents found "significant decrease in the F 2 layer (see Appen-
dix C) will occur and may last for many hours." It concluded "air glow effects would be minor"
but that "radio wave propagation effects may include inability to perform radio astronomical
measurements at low frequencies, enhanced radio scintillations and changes in the efficiency of
radio communications at low frequencies. These effects will be localized along the orbital track
and will not persist for more than a day after the OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) bum." It
further found "no significant effect on communications or radio propagation." It is noted that
the decrease of the F 2 layer by the OMS of the Space Shuttle will be an order of magnitude greater
(or equivalent) than any proposed CRM electron depletion experiments.

An earlier study by Kellogg (Source 1.50) found no detrimental pollution of the atmosphere
by rockets.

28
An important on-going study "Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Satellite Power
System" (Source 1.5 I) has and will have additional inputs for the CRM assessment program in the
area of effluent effect on the ionosphere and magnetosphere. This truly massive program, which
proposes to place in orbit each year two 35 000 to 50 000 ton satellites would deposit annually
140 000 tons of hydrogen, 800 000 tons of oxygen, 25 000 tons of argon and 15 megatons of
high-energy explosive energy equivalent or 6 × 1016 joules of energy. The CRM program itself has
a potentially strong input into the SPS program and chemical releases are being considered for the
extended SPS assessment program.

The related environmental assessments, both past and on-going, described above, have been included
as a matter of completeness and technical requirements. Upon the basis of data available, there
have been no detrimental environmental effects for any of these previous chemical release programs
when they were subsequently performed.

29
 2. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (INCLUDES EFFECT
OF NEUTRAL AND IONIZED MOLECULESAND PARTICULATES)

This section, together with the relevant technical appendixes, constitutes the major portion of the
environmental analysis. Section 2.1 is concerned with the nature of assessment considerations and
the line of argument in performing the present assessment analysis, while the remainder of this
section is concerned with summarizing the technical evaluation. The details, for the most part,
are relegated to the technical appendixes.

2,1 Analysisof AssessmentStrategies

Outlined in this section is the general assessment approach and logic. To assist the overall assess-
ment and to serve as a major line of evaluation, a tabulation of energetics, mass, and time scales
is included.

2.1.1 Logicof Assessment

and Assessment
Criteria

While the scientific analysis of the details of any individual chemical release experiment may be
complex, the overall environmental analysis may be straightforward, e.g. (a) the quantity of chem-
icals added may be insignificant compared to the natural meteoric influx, (b) the energy of the
release may be minuscule compared to natural processes, (c) identical or highly analogous experi-
ments may have been performed before with no environmental effect, etc.

In Table 2-1, there is furnished a list of generalized criteria for the assessment of chemical release
experiment environmental effects which will act as a guide to assessments. The criteria, which
overlap to some extent, move in a rough ranking order from direct comparison with a previous
more-or-less identical experiment to that of a more-or-less theoretical analysis without closely
related experimental data. In Figure 2-1 a schematic of the analysis of the CRM environmental
assessment is presented.

2.1.2 Tabulationof Energetics,

MassandScales

Presented in this subsection, in tabular form, are some scales of geophysical and other phenomena
which can serve to delimit the environmental effects of the CRM experiments and put them in
appropriate perspective. More extensive geophysical data is located in Appendix C. In Table 2-2,
the energy of chemical release is compared to geophysical and other phenomena. On the scale of
geophysical phenomena, substorms, total earth magnetic energy, etc., the energy of the projected
releases is, in general, quite small. In Table 2-3, the tonnage of ambient atmospheric gases around
the earth in shells ten kilometers thick for an assumed molecular weight of 16 is presented for
chemical release comparisons. These numbers can be compared with the release of 0.5 tons from a
typical CRM mission.

3O
 Table2-1
Considerations
Involvedin Assessment
of ChemicalRelease
Experiments:Individualor ClassEnvironmentalEffects

1. Comparison to Experimental Data and/or Theory of Identical or Closely Similar Chemical

Release Experiments

2. Specific Calculation Based Upon Well Founded Theory and Comparable Experimental Data

3. Mass and/or Energetics (or other) Comparison to Similar or Related Natural Phenomena and/or
Processess (Time and Space Scales) thereby Setting Limits

4. Mass and/or Energetics Comparison to Related Anthropogenic Phenomena and/or Processes -

(Time and Space Scales)

5. Considerations Based Upon Theory for the Most Part with Little Data

31
 DESCRIPTIONOF CHEMICAL I
RELEASE MODULE PROGRAM J
I

EXPERIMENTAL

. COMMUNICATION "
NATURAL ATMOSPHERE
i SPACECRAFT
J OTHER
EFFECTS* ON: i

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

I
COST,RENEF,TS
1 OON_IOE.ATIONS
ALTE.NAT,VES ASSESSMENT PLAN_A_OPROGRAMS
ASSES_ENTO_
_ _RMEN_,.ONMENTAL
__O_L,CTS_,THOTHERJ
_ _ES I 1 I NO !
STATEMENT (E I S ) CONTINUING STUDY NO EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT J

l POSSIBL!FUTURE

EIS

*Includes neutral, ion and particulates

Figure 2-1. Schematic of Analysis of Chemical Release

Module (CRM) Environmental Assessment

32
 Table2-2
Comparisonof ChemicalReleaseEnergetics
to that of
VariousGeophysicalandOtherPhenomenaand/or Processes

Phenomena or Process Energy or Power Comments

A. Energetics of Chemical
Releases

1. Non-movingmass con-
verted to high explosive
equivalent

1 kg 4.2 × 106 joules Approximately 4 × 10"12

of auroral energy on
February 11, 1958

100 kg 4.2 X 108 joules 4.2 × 10-4 of geomagnetic

storm input to thermo-
sphere for 1 to 2 seconds,
or approximately 10-1° of
total auroral energy on
February 11, 1958.

2. Kinetic energy for

orbital velocity of
8 km/sec

1 kg 3.2 X 10 7 joules
100 kg 3.2 × 109 joules

B. Some GeophysicalPhenomena/
Processes

1. Very strong earthquake 1011 - 1012 watts

2. Total solar power at

top of atmosphere 1.8 × 1017 watts

3. Total UV solar power

at top of atmosphere 1012 watts absorbed
above 100 km

4 × 1011 watts absorbed

above 120 km

33
 Table2-2 (continued)

Phenomena or Process Energy or Power Comments

4. Energy of earth's dipole,

magnetic field above
earth's surface 9 X 1017 joules

5. Power of solar wind Electric power consumption

over earth's cross section 1013 watts of U.S. X 10

6. Magnetospheric input
to thermosphere through 5 × 1010 to 1011
auroral process watts

During geomagnetic 5 X 1011 to 1012

storms watts

7. Bright aurora of 1014 watts for several

February 11, 1958 hours or 1018 joules
'total energy An extremely strong aurora

8. IBC class I aurora For duration of 30

minutes and area of
106 km 2 corresponds
to energy deposition of Weakest identified class of
1013 joules aurora

C. Some Man Made Processes

1. Total electric power

consumption of U.S. 1012 watts

2. Large power plants

(gigawatts) 109 watts

3. HLLV rocket exhaust 9 × 101° watts HLLV - Heavy Launch Lift

Vehicle projected for the solar
power satellite (SPS)

34
 Table2-3
Tonnageof Materialin a ShellAroundthe Earth,Ten KilometersThick,
for VariousConcentrations

n H p (H) MT
(particle/cm 3) (km) (gm/cm 3) (tons)

105 1,100 2.5 X 10 18 2.5

10 6 900 × 10 -17 2.5 X 101

10 7 700 X 10 -16 2.5 X 10 2

108 500 X 1015 2.5 X 103

109 350 X 1014 2.5 X 104

10I0 250 × 10"13 2.5 × 105

1011 150 X 1012 2.5 X 106

H is the approximate height of the particle concentration n as found in the atmosphere, p(H) is the
density at this altitude, and MT is the tonnage of this number of particles of molecularweight 16
contained in a shell 10 km thick around the earth.

35
2.2 Effects on Orbiting Spacecraftand Their Instruments

2.2.1 Direct Consideration

Any effect on orbiting spacecraft and their instruments due to the CRM program is not considered
significant because of the low probability that any operational spacecraft in the vast expanse of
space would pass through the chemical release cloud while its density (particulates, neutral or ion-
ized) is high enough to impinge detrimentally on the spacecraft nor is it expected that the orbital
environment would be modified significantly. It would be extremely unlikely that another space-
craft would have exactly the same or only slightly different orbital parameters as the CRM and,
thus, follow closely the orbital motion of the chemical release cloud. Hence, at most, a single
traverse through the chemical release cloud is possible during its initial, most dense phase since the
cloud and spacecraft will separate on divergent orbits.

The discussion below illustrates the insignificance of contamination at a distance of 50 km for a

typical release. There is, however, a finite probability that a second spacecraft with ultra-sensitive
instrumentation could pass much closer to the CRM and, in such cases, there could be a risk if a
release was activated near the time of minimum separation. The risk is completely avoided if
releases are not conducted at these rare critical times. Accordingly, there will be a need to establish
operational criteria that prohibit the occurrence of a release at such times. Inasmuch as these
criteria will depend on detailed consideration of separation geometries, instrument susceptibilities,
and errors associated with orbit predicts, their formulation, and the modes of implementation be-
come the functional responsibility of the NASA, which must apply similar considerations to the
firing of upper stage rocket motors. Thus, criteria applicable to orbit intercepts are not considered
in the present analysis.

As an example of the probabilities and numbers involved, presented in Appendix D (source 2.1) are
calculations of the effects of an orbital release of 32 kg of a barium mixture at 900 km impinging
on a spaceship at a distance of 50 km immediately after an explosion. These calculations appertain
to the advance planning conditions for the Cameo experiment which was successfully performed in
October 1979, and had no deleterious effect on other spacecraft including the Nimbus-G spacecraft
which was ejected from the same launch vehicle and thus followed a similar orbit.

The overall conclusion for this specific calculation is that the particle contamination level in orbit
will be less than levels present in factory-to-launchpad environments under the most highly controlled
handling procedures. The predicted level in orbit, in fact, represents a negligible change relative
to accepted micrometeorite levels. The analysis indicates that the particle density at 50 km will be
at least four orders of magnitude less than the class 10 000 cleanroom and that the individual
release particles will have 10"s to 10-6 the energy of micrometeorites of the same mass for the
co-orbital case in which the equivalent micro-meteorite exposure is hours to days. For a counter-
rotating satellite, the situation is different since here the relative velocity can be approximately 14
to 16 km/sec and the equivalent micro-meteorite exposure is approximately 85 to 285 days.
Finally, there are an insufficient number of gaseous molecules at 50 km separation distance (or at
equivalent expansion radius) to form a monolayer (only 10-5 coverage) on spacecraft surfaces even
assuming that all particles contacting the surface adhere to the surface. While a simple isotropic

36
expansion model has been used, more careful orbital considerations in Appendix D support these
results.

Tile level of deposition which is acceptable is determined primarily by the criticality of the space-
craft surface finishes and the types of experiments flown. Highly critical optical devices would be
adversely affected by thicknesses as low as 0.005 micron while solar cells would probably not be
degraded by thicknesses up to 0.05 micron; if adequate solar cell surface is provided, even greater
thicknesses could be tolerated in localized regions.

Consequently for a 50 km and greater "separation" distance, the effect on the spacecraft and space-
craft sensors are not significant for the payload considered. Different size payloads may be scaled
accordingly. It is considered that by locating the point of release with an appropriate "separation"
distance operational satellites will be adequately removed from the "expansion" phase of the chem-
ical release and suffer no detrimental effects from released particles or neutral gas molecules.

With regard to the effect of charged particles for thermal barium (Ba) releases, the maximum inte-
grated "column" content of Ba+ near release points is of the order of 1011 ions/cm 2 for most re-
leases from individual canisters. Many satellites fly across the auroral belts four times each orbit.
Typical ambient field aligned currents associated with average aurora are 10-8 to 1010 amperes/
cm 2. This means 108 to 10"10 coulombs/cm 2 sec or 0.6 × 1011 to 0.6 × 109 charged particles/
cm 2. Thus, the satellite would have to "suck up" nearly all the Ba+ ions contained in the magnetic
flux tubes intersecting its orbit to reach ambient conditions. There is no mechanism for doing this.
The most that could happen is that the Ba+ might reduce the normal negative charge of a few volts
(or less) by a small fraction of a volt for several seconds at the release point if the satellite was very
close to the release point. Where shaped-charge barium releases are ejected up a magnetic field line,
the probabilities of an operational satellite flying along this line and close to the release point are
exceedingly small and again are susceptible to timing and scheduling of the release.

As a corollary since there are no significant effects expected for orbiting spacecraft during the
chemical release expansion phase, because there is a continuous spreading of the particles along the
orbit (See Appendix D), subsequent orbital particle effects on spacecraft are even less significant.
Similar remarks appertain to the neutral molecules which undergo further dilution due to diffusion
as do the ions which also recombine. Due to infrequent and spatially different CRM injections, no
significant buildup in orbit occurs.

2.3 Effectsof ChemicalReleases

on Communications
andComparisonwith OtherEffects

2.3.1 ChemicalReleaseEffectson Communications

It is considered that any significant environmental impact of the CRM program on an operational
communications system is extremely unlikely. This is because of the localized disturbance that is
created (tens of kilometers to, at most, several hundred kilometers in size), to the brief duration of
the disturbance (minutes to hours) resulting from its self-healing nature, and to the general location
of the releases which are, for the most part, planned for equatorial, polar-auroral, and oceanic areas.
Moreover, only a small number of ionospheric modification experiments a year are presently likely

37
from the planning schedules. In general, specifically designed experiments with specialized equip-
ment have been necessary in the past to make requisite experimental electromagnetic measurements.
The lack of environmental effect is evidenced by the fact that of the approximately 350 chemical
releases to date involving space and atmospheric perturbations, there have been none or insignificant
perturbations to commercial and other operational systems on the basis of available evidence.

Moreover, as pointed out below, there are many natural perturbations to communications such as
auroral particle precipitation, ionospheric irregularities (Spread-F), scintillations, geomagnetic
storms, etc., of larger magnitude but comparable nature (see Subsection 2.3.2). (In fact, some
chemical releases are designed to simulate some of these natural phenomena.) Consequently, the
chemical release perturbation on a spatio-temporal basis constitutes, at most, if at all, a potentially
small fraction of this total array of natural communication disturbances.

There have also been other types of man-made disturbances of the ionosphere of a comparable or
much larger size. The ionospheric heater program (Source 2.2) in which high-intensity radio waves
energized the ionosphere at locations in the continental United States (Platteville, Colorado and
Arecibo, Puerto Rico) has also produced ionospheric changes greater than or comparable to those
anticipated in the CRM program. Additionally, these changes have been observed to be rapidly
reversible and not to have had significant effects on regular communications.

The significant reduction and rapid return of the Total Electron Content (TEC) of the ionosphere
by the introduction of H20/H 2 molecules in the F-region by the Skylab event on May 15, 1973,
(Source 2.3) indicates the strong self-healing properties of the ionosphere even under massive chem-
ical releases hundreds of times greater than projected by CRM scenarios. Moreover, a lack of dis-
ruptions in operational communications systems was evidenced by the absence of any significant
outages. This was probably, for the most part, because of location of the trail over water indicating
the effect of geographical locations distant from active communications circuits in minimizing
disruptions.

At present, there exist reasonably well-developed theories of electron enhancement due to the
release of ionizing material (Source 2.4) and of electron diminution due to depleting material
(Sources 2.5 and 2.6) in the ionosphere so that the overall characteristics of the types of electron
enriching and depleting releases are reasonably well established both by observation and theory.
Additional theory has been developed for release from orbit (Sources 2.7 and 2.8). In general,
because of the rapid spread of material higher up in the ionosphere, releases planned beyond 300
km (F-region) will have a less significant communications effect since the electron density changes
will be smaller and more transient and dispersed more rapidly.

Communications disturbances evoked by releases creating changes in momentum and hence winds
and waves are also evaluated as causing short-term and insignificant communications perturba-
tions in the ionosphere at best comparable to natural fluctuations created during the onset of mag-
netic storms. The effect of much greater momentum releases due to missile exhausts have created
no substantial communications alterations. A chemical release in the equatorial ionosphere to simu-
late natural ionospheric perturbations (Spread-F) at most will create one more instance of a natural
scintillation phenomenon, the so-called electron-depletion bubble (Source 2.9).

38
Moreover, the relatively insignificant communications perturbations of the CRM program are many
orders of magnitude less than those of the projected large-scale space engineering programs (Solar
Power Stations, etc.) for which it can provide important environmental data.

2.3.2 Comparisonto Normal Ionospheric Fluctuations

To provide a further perspective on the CRM-induced ionospheric effects, a brief summary of nat-
ural ionospheric short-term fluctuations, some of which have been mentioned in Subsection 2.3.1, is
presented here. The main point is that the ionosphere is not a static but rather a dynamic system
with diurnal, seasonal, and solar cycle variations and with many intermittent phenomena which
present a varied picture to electromagnetic propagation. Moveover, the proposed CRM experiments
present a non-operationally important and small fraction relative to these natural fluctuations.

A summary of the normal ionosphere with the elements of radio propagation is presented in Appen-
dix C, while a more extended description is available in Source 2.10. It is observed that irregular-
ities in ion concentration occur everywhere on the globe, nearly always at high latitudes, often at
night at low latitudes and not often at mid-latitudes. The scale size of variations ranges from
hundreds of kilometers to tens of centimeters with the degrees of variation increasing with scale
size. For example, variations in concentrations as large as a factor of 102 to 103 can occur often
near the equator (Spread-F) and give rise to fading in the gigahertz frequency range. A class of
Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances (TID's) has been observed moving from high latitudes toward
the equator presumably caused by auroral heating events. The polar ionospheric regions ,in general
are subject to considerable perturbation with a whole sequence of effects beginning with Sudden
Ionospheric Disturbances (SID's), an electromagnetic disturbance (ultraviolet and X-rays), followed
by Polar Cap Absorption (PCA) from energetic protons entering the polar ionosphere to the slower
ions and electrons that 20 to 40 hours later cause the magnetic and ionospheric storms and aurora.
See Source 2.10 for a description of the varied ionospheric irregularities and Source 2.11 for a de-
scription of the many varied communications effects, outages, scintillations, anomalous reflections,
etc.

2.4 Effects of Chemical Releaseson Atmospheric Compositions

2.4.1 GeneralConclusions

It is concluded that there will be no significant detrimental chemical release effect of the CRM pro-
gram on the natural abundance of trace constituents including particulates in the upper atmosphere/
ionosphere/magnetosphere regions. The major argument here is that in the CRM experiments, there
are, for most experiments, relatively small masses released (kilograms to at most hundred of kilo-
grams per individual experiment) compared to the existing mass of the upper atmosphere as given in
Table 2-3 and that even for the few 103 kg releases that might be feasible, the relatively rapid dissi-
pation and spread of material in the expanse of outer space will prevent any substantial modifica-
tion of the composition of the upper atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere system. Direct compar-
ison may also be made with the natural input which gives an approximately daily accretion of 50
to 150 tons (Source 2.12) of meteoritic material which is annually equivalent to 104 times the pro-
jected one-ton per annum of materials released in the CRM program.

39
The charged particles created in the releases as indicated in Section 2.3 are limited spatially and
temporally and dissipate at most in hours. Also, past experiments have not produced any signifi-
cant environmental effects. Further, the particulates (see Section 2.2) from any release are of limited
mass, spread out rapidly, and except fora duration of minutes around the CRM, they have no signif-
icant effect on the particulate environment. Suitable logistics, timing, and planning adjustments can
be made for the in-close orbit intercept problem. No significant detrimental effects, other than
short-time, localized experimental perturbations are expected for the magnetosphere because of the
limited mass and energies involved. See Table 2-2 for comparison of the energies, and Subsection
2.4.5 on the scope of the possible magnetic perturbations.

The information gaps identified are those of (a) perturbation of the lithium content in the upper
atmosphere (see Appendix E) for a time scale which is not clearly defined but for which no adverse
consequences are established and (b) lifetime of ions at low latitudes at distances of several earth
radii. The first has no identified operational significance while the second may be substantially
clarified by a chemical release experiment because of its scientific importance.

2.4.2 Changing
the NaturalAbundanceof TraceConstituentsIncludingParticulates

The probability of projected chemical releases changing the natural abundance of trace constituents
in the environment on any basis except on a local and transient time scale is considered insignificant
except for the concentration of lithium in the upper atmosphere in the altitude range 85 to 105 km.
The alkali elements, barium and water vapor are perhaps the only elements of concern because of
their relatively large percentage of use. Because of the extremely fast diffusion in the upper atmo-
sphere and the relatively small CRM injection rate (e.g. 1-2 X 10.3 kg per year), no significant per-
turbation (except on a highly transient and local scale) can be anticipated, except for lithium.
General calculations for water vapor and hydrogen indicate that the product of injection rate and
characteristic residence time when ratioed to the ambient loading give very small, insignificant per-
turbation loadings regardless of the geophysical regime. It is considered that lithium, whose total
mass in the upper atmosphere above 70 km amounts to less than a kilogram, is the only gas in the
upper atmosphere that may be significantly perturbed for more than a few hours, perhaps of the
order of days or weeks as analyzed in Appendix E. However, it is considered that there are no signif-
icant operational consequences for such a change and, moreover, such perturbations should prove
useful to the study of natural lithium behavior.

The subsequent history of metal atoms and ions introduced above the atmosphere is still uncertain.
As they diffuse down through the atmosphere, however, they probably undergo chemical reactions
with atmospheric species that convert them into a variety of metallic compounds. They may be re-
moved either through rainout in the troposphere or through incorporation into aerosol particles in
the lower stratosphere. Some of the metallic species may react with stratospheric ozone, but the
quantities involved in the CRM release experiments are so small by comparison with both the nat-
ural flux of metals of meteoric origin and effluents from combustion sources at the earth's surface
that no significant effects are expected.

The case of barium deserves further considerations since it is a component of many of the chemical
releases and demonstrates the small absolute and percentage changes that will occur. In the chemical

4O
release experiments, elemental barium is introduced at a high altitude either by shock compression
of a thin metallic shell or by chemical reaction. After convection under the influence of electric
forces, the vaporized barium will gravitate toward the earth as very fine particules, oxidizing to BaO
as it enters the denser atmosphere. Much of this may convert to the hydroxide and the carbonate
as it disperses and proceeds downward in the presence of water vapor and carbon dioxide. Its small
particle size should result in long residence times in the atmosphere (perhaps 5 to 10 years) as illus-
trated by strontium 90 fallout measurements.

Throughout the long residence lifetime, the barium will be widely dispersed by air currents and
should mix well with the atmosphere. Complete mixing of 103 kg of vapor produced in a large
experiment with a global volume one kilometer deep will result in incremental concentrations of
about 2 × 10-7 /_g/m 3. This concentration is less than 3 × 10-4 the measured air values (see Appen-
dixes C and F).

2.4.3 ChangingDensitiesof Species

that Havea Key Rolein WeatherandClimate

No significant effects on weather and climate are anticipated. This is because no significant change
in atmospheric composition will occur. Moreover, as of the present time no significant effects on
weather and climate have been consensually identified with composition changes in the upper atmo-
sphere above 100 kin.

2.4.4 IntroducingChemicalsHazardousto Health

No significant effect on health is expected. This is primarily because of the small amounts of chem-
icals introduced at high altitudes are extremely diluted by the extensive mass of the atmosphere
and broadly spread over the world during their long passage (years) into the troposphere and
ground. As an example, a pessimistic estimate of the concentration in man's immediate environ-
ment may be found by assuming that the total yearly amount of all material released is concentrated
in the lowest kilometer of the atmosphere and spread uniformly over the globe. Taking 1000 kg of
material over this volume gives a concentration of 2 X 10"I 3 grams per cubic meter, some 1 million
times below the threshold limit value concentration of the most toxic substances listed by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (see The CRC Handbook of Labora-
too, Safety, the Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 1971). Because of the use of
barium in a high percentage of experiments, additional information on its chemical and toxic
properties is furnished in Appendix F as a matter of general information.

2.4.5 Perturbingthe Magnetospheric

or IonosphericStructure

It is considered that no significant or lasting perturbations will occur to the magnetospheric or ion-
ospheric structure for the range of experiments being considered for the CRM program. This is
based upon the low level of energy created in the chemical releases as displayed in Table 2-2 when
compared to the natural energetics of the magnetosphere/ionosphere system and to other anthropo-
genic perturbations. The high-energy explosive equivalent of the largest chemical release presently
being considered (1000 kg) amounts to less than 1 percent of a geomagnetic storm energy for one

41
second, approximately 10.9 of the total energy of February 11, 1958 aurora, or 10.8 of the energy
of the earth's dipole magnetic field above the earth's surface (or other comparisons from Table 2-2).
No significant magnetospheric or ionospheric perturbation is anticipated.

In somewhat more detail, the proposed chemical release experiments given in Table 1-5 can be
classified as (a) tracer experiments, (b) perturbation and modification experiments, and (c) plasma
and chemical technology experiments. The first and third categories of experiments, because of
their nature and objectives, have been essentially environmentally assessed in the earlier sections of
this report and in the preceding energy scale analysis of this section. While category (b), the pertur-
bation and modification experiments, have been order-of-magnitude circumscribed by energy and
mass considerations above, some further remarks are adduced below directed to the various types of
such experiments.

Those experiments designed for mechanical modification making use of the Space Shuttle's 8 km
orbital velocity are aimed at perturbing the atmosphere to artificially generate wind and wave
motions in the upper atmosphere to test the dynamic effects on electrical properties and to study
wave propagation. Atmospheric winds and waves are generally changing and omnipresent features
of the upper atmosphere and such induced changes as may occur due to chemical releases represent
one more relatively short term variation since the energies involved are relatively small. Upper
atmospheric Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances (TID's) are, it is noted, a common feature of the
upper atmosphere particularly under geomagnetic storm conditions (Ref. 2.13). Previous rocket
ascents such as those of Apollos 15, 16, and 17 in the regions 30 to 150 km (Sources 2.14, 2.15)
created wave phenomena detected at the ground having no detrimental environmental effect. Con-
sequently, the mechanical modification type of experiments will have no detrimental effect.

Another class of modification, an electrical one, proposes changing the conductivity in auroral
regions in order to observe the ionospheric/magnetospheric circuit response. The environmental
changes affected here would involve transient changes in the intensity and form of the aurora which
it is noted is a semi-permanent and highly fluctuating phenomena at high latitudes. Present theory
(Source 2.16) considers that the aurora is an electrical discharge phenomenon which is powered by
the solar wind-magnetosphere dynamo (see Figure C-4, Appendix C). The conductivity of the
auroral zones has great variability because of the marked changes in the energetic ionization fluxes
of the solar electromagnetic and corpuscular radiation (see Subsection 2.3.2). In particular, as a
magnetic substorm develops, major changes in conductivity are caused by the auroral particle bom-
bardments, lasting for 10 to 20 minutes to several hours, of 1011 to 1012W. As a measure of
change in conductivity, the brightness of auroras varies in intensity over a factor of 1000 from
below the visual threshold to that which produces illumination on the ground equivalent to full
moonlight. From another viewpoint, a barium release of 103 kg at 10 percent efficiency could pro-
duce 4 X 1024 ions, only enough to cause a 10 percent change in ion density over a 34 km cube or
equivalent volume having an original 106 ions/cm 3. The change produced by the chemical release
would represent one more fluctuation in a highly fluctuating and frequent phenomenon and con-
ceivably might change the appearance of the aurora over a limited region.

Other proposals to seed with cold lithium the equatorial magnetosphere beyond the plasmasphere
are designed to precipitate electrons and protons creating a localized and short-term patch of
aurora, ionization, and atmospheric heating similar to the aurora itself and similar to the effects

42
achieved at the conjugate points by many shaped-charge barium experiments (Sources 1.33 to 1.39).
A similar proposition involves seeding magnetic flux tubes closer to the earth with again the possi-
bility of creating an analogous luminous phenomenon on a small spatio-temporal scale.

Another type of experiment proposes the creation of an electron depletion "bubble" at the magnetic
equator. This is a "simulation" type experiment of "Spread-F" which produces scintillation effects
and is a frequent phenomenon in equatorial regions. Hence, a short-term scintillation may occur-
one of many naturally occurring such scintillations which occur on the average (depending upon the
fading definition) 7 to 15 percent of the observing period in summer months for Kwajalein and 30
percent for Huancayo.

Finally, one proposed, maximum perturbation experiment involves using boiled off cesium atoms
which are collisionally ionized in the atmosphere (120 to 400 km) by the orbital velocity, and sub-
sequently impinge against magnetic field lines to study ionosphere/magnetosphere coupling. The
kinetic energy of the cesium amounts to some 3 × 1010 joules prior to ionization and other energy
losses involved in the collision process. Such energy assuming 100 percent effectiveness is approx-
imately 3 X 10 -4 of the energy for one second of the bright aurora of 1958. It can be anticipated
to cause fluctuations (the purpose of the experiment) along the relevant field line. It is noted that
the magnetosphere has proved stable to the above cited stronger shocks that accompany impulsive
auroral events.

2.4.6 Changing
the AstronomicalSeeingProblem

No deleterious effect is anticipated that will significantly affect the astronomical "seeing" problem.
The optical effects produced by the CRM program do not differ for the most part from those
created by approximately 350 chemical releases (mostly of a radiating character) in the past two
decades, and which have been performed, on the basis of the information available, without signifi-
cantly affecting astronomical operations.

In Appendix G is given an evaluation of the effects on various branches of astronomy of changes in

night sky brightness per se without inclusion of geometrical or time duration factors of the specific
chemical release experiment. It is noted that all of the proposed luminous experiments create glows
which are transient in nature, due to the limited mass involved and rapid spreading, lasting at most
for tens of minutes, to possibly an hour or two. Also in Appendix G is a table of the brightness
level of various natural phenomena and for mutual comparison, the various brightness levels for dif-
ferent transient chemical release features. There is described below, in order, the various types of
luminescence involved in releases: (a) chemiluminescence, (b) resonance scattering, and (c) both
point and trail releases at various heights.

The type of luminescence produced by one class of experiments utilizing chemical reaction with
atmospheric components (chemiluminescence) is generally restricted to the lower ionosphere (under
250 km) and is restricted in scale (tens of kilometers) and time (tens of minutes). There is available
for chemiluminescent clouds existing and reasonably adequate theory (Source 1.20). Because of the
spatio-temporal factors and the geographical location of the release generally away from observato-
ries, the deterrence to astronomical observations for this type of cloud is considered not significant
as borne out by many such past experiments (Source 1.20).

43
The second class of a chemical release optical affect, that of resonance radiation created by solar
resonance scattering generally from released atoms or ions such as neutral barium, barium ions,
lithium, strontium, etc., has been extensively used in hundreds of experiments. Such releases,
either point releases close in to the earth (500 to 600 km) or shaped charge ejection along magnetic
field lines from high-latitude regions which have gone out to distances of 4 to 5 earth radii, glowed
for periods of time up to an hour and have not constituted a significant deterrent to astronomy.
Adequate theories of the expansion of orbital releases in collision and free expansion regimes are
also currently available (see Appendix B). The recent successful Cameo release of barium in orbit
at 900 km involving the release of 32 kg of barium mixture and 7.6 kg of lithium mixture has had
no detrimental astronomical effect. An illustration of the geographical horizontal distribution of
ions created by the orbital releases is furnished in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 which are Cameo pre-test
calculations.

With regard to magnetospheric ion releases, those conducted along high-latitude magnetic lines
opening to space have been shown to move directly out away from the earth (Source 2.17) and have
had no perturbing effects. There remains a question as to the lifetime of ions and hence of their
resonance luminescence in the equatorial region of the plasmasphere at distances less than 4 to 6
earth radii. This lifetime problem for equatorial releases constitutes an area to resolve. It would
seem, perhaps paradoxically, that a limited and controlled chemical release here might be the opti-
mum procedure for obtaining the desired answer.

Present judgment seems to be that the lifetime near four earth radii may be some 100 hours as caused
by the average duration between large magnetic substorms (Source 1.43). At this particular distance
and latitude the loss-cone angles are a few degrees. Moreover, barium ions are particularly stable
since they do not charge transfer, become neutral, and move out freely from magnetic control.

With regard to the outer magnetosphere, the releases to be used in this regime (beyond 5 to 6 earth
radii) are of the resonance type which emit only spectroscopic lines. The surface brightness of
resonance clouds does not depend on the distance but the angular size does. Because of the rapid
thermal expansion (approximately 1 km/sec) and the orbital velocity, it is considered that for
reasonable masses, under 103 kg, a cloud brightness greater than 10 percent of the night sky for a
limited field of view would not exceed a duration of several hours. As a sample calculation, for a
103 kg mixture, 3.8 x 1026 barium atoms are generated and at an isotropic dispersion (for a sim-
plistic model) of 1 km/sec, a surface brightness of 10s photons/cm 2 sec or 0.1 kilorayleigh (10 per-
cent of the night sky brightness) is reached in some four hours. The angular width at this time for
a distance of 20 earth radii is approximately several degrees and the cloud under its original velocity
and magnetic convection (depending upon its position) is undoubtedly also moving across the sky.
It is considered that because of the short durations, spectral line nature, relatively small angular size,
and angular traverse across the sky, that no significant deterrence to astronomical observations will
occur for this and smaller releases.

The above isotropic expansion model is a gross one certainly, since once the ions have been created
(e.g. approximately 20 seconds for Ba+ and 200 seconds for Eu +) the cloud is more cylindrical.
The physics of the detailed interaction of an ionized cloud with the magnetosphere is exceedingly

44
 400"-1-111IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII II1111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIl 1114.-

200.

__ _ - -- -8__
o O,
- ._____ _-'1 -
--
_: _ _ __ _,-8--

_ _ 7-_
-200. _ _ :-6_

-4oo._111II1111111II1111111IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII II1_

0. 200. 400. 600. 800. 1000. 1200. 1400.

PPARALLEL
(KM)

Figure 2-2. Column densities of Ba ions, (Units: 1O" particles/cm 2) (Cameo Information Memo)
 73 ,73

71 71

69

67

TIME (MIN.) FROM THE DAYSIDE / 57

EQUATORIAL CROSSING(ASC. ['lODE)
IS MARKED ON ORBIT PATH

55
/

00:40_
/ '1
01:00 01:20 01:40
LOCAL MEAN TIME (HR:MIN)

Figure 2-3. Cameo Orbit with Column Densities (P/cm 2) of Ionized Lithium (Li +) 200 Sec.,
Pre-flight Estimates After Initiation of Release (Cameo Information Memo)

46
complex, involving striation formation and differential velocities parallel and perpendicular to the
magnetic field, as elucidated by Scholer (Source 2.18), Pilipp (Source 2.19) and Haerendel and Lust
(Source 2.20). The isotropic model is used to give an order of magnitude estimate only. For com-
parison purposes, in the HEOS experiment two moles of barium (1.2 x 1024 particles) were released
at 12 R e (Source 2.20). After some 25 minutes of observation by a Schmidt telescope, the cloud
measured 2000 by 100 km. With surface brightness scaling as square root of mass, increasing the
observed HEOS data by a factor of 17 for the 103 kg release would not put the estimated hours
limit too far off, at least in terms of the Schmidt observation.

It is emphasized that, at most, a release would only interfere with observations from an observatory
if they were examining that particular area of the sky at the particular time. (And only if the obser-
vatory had clear skies at that particular time for surface observatories.) The probability of inter-
ference per year would be the product of the above probabilities and the chance for even one case
of interference becomes extremely small even for the most active observatories.

2.5 Summaryof EnvironmentalEffectsby ChemicalReleases

in the CRM Program

The major findings of the analysis are summarized here as well as some gaps in our understanding.
Recommendations for research thereto are given in Section 8.

2.5.1 Health Effects

No health effects are anticipated because the relatively small chemical release masses diffuse globally
before reaching the earth's surface, are greatly diluted and their concentrations tie many orders of
magnitudes below even the most stringent toxic standards.

2.5.2 EffectsonOrbitalSpacecraft

No effects on orbiting spacecraft are anticipated because the only phase of the release possibly
affecting the spacecraft is during the expansion of the release when the particulate, neutral, and ion
densities are still high. It is highly improbably that a second orbiting spacecraft will be located
within a relatively small "separation distance" at a release time, where the "separation" is defined
as a safe distance. Moreover, appropriate scheduling and timing of releases can be utilized as neces-
sary to eliminate what is already a small probability. Because of the rapid diffusion of gases and
ions, the spread of particulates, and the loss processes, no significant "orbital contamination" will
occur for the limited mass and relatively infrequent CRM releases.

2.5.3 Effect on Communications

No significant effect on communications is expected because of localized disturbance that is created

(tens of kilometers), the brief duration of the disturbance (minutes to hours) resulting from its
self-heating nature, and the general location of the releases planned which are for the most part in
equatorial, polar-auroral, and ocean areas. The movement of the disturbed area also mitigates the
duration of any specific blockages should they possibly occur.

47
2.5.4 Effecton TraceElementsin the UpperAtmosphere

No significant effect on trace elements in the upper atmosphere is anticipated with the exception of
lithium where a temporarily increased abundance may be observable in twilight for as long as several
weeks. Such an increase has no known operational consequence and is valuable for understanding
the natural lithium sources and sinks.

2.5.5 Effecton Magnetosphere

No significant effect on the magnetosphere is anticipated in terms of the relatively low energies
and masses of the release vis-a-vis the enormous energies involved in the natural systems and their
perturbations (e.g. geomagnetic storms).

2.5.6 Effects on "Astronomical Seeing"

No significant effects on astronomical seeing are anticipated. The chemiluminescent type of cloud is
generally low in the atmosphere, limited in dimension and visible duration (tens of minutes) and can
only locally and transiently effect astronomical observations. Resonance radiation clouds within
the lower atmosphere and high-latitude magnetosphere generally have a duration of tens of minutes
to several hours and may (e.g. in the case of lithium) cover larger areas. Because of the rapid fading
of neutral clouds, the confined nature of ion clouds, the spectral line character of the radiation, and
the movement across the sky, the potential interference with astronomical observations is either
very brief and localized or occupies only a small area of the sky for at most several hours. Releases
in the outer magnetosphere because of their limited mass, duration, angular size and traverse, will
similarly not interfere with astronomical observations. Present relative uncertainties as to ion life-
time and confinement, and thus backgraound luminescence, in the plasmasphere at low latitudes do
not greatly change the duration of "seeing" effects relative to other regions of space. Spreading
along field lines and other dispersive effects limit the duration of optical detection to approximately
one to two hours at the brightest location.

2.5.7 Effecton Weather

No significant effect on weather or climate will occur since no significant change in upper atmo-
sphere composition or processes is expected. Moreover, there is as of this data no commonly agreed
upon relationship between atmospheric composition changes above 100 km and the weather or
climate.

48
 3. CUMULATIVE AND LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

On the basis of the information available, it is believed that there will not be any significant cumu-
lative and/or long-term effects from the types of chemical releases being considered for investi-
gating the upper atmosphere-ionosphere-magnetosphere system.

49
 4. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

The fact that chemical releases, as a technique, have been utilized as an investigative tool for
approximately 20 years emphasizes their applicability in attacking new problems as they arise in
space physics. The ability to trace, simulate and modify conditions and phenomena in space pro-
vides key information that cannot readily be attained by other means.

The need for the general purpose multi-user capability embodied in a chemical release module
(CRM) system on the Space Shuttle is based on the need and demand from the scientific commu-
nity, from the operational requirements and from the cost benefits that accrue. Specifically, the
CRM is responsive to the large number of proposed experiments, to the mass requirements for large
and small releases, to the need for flexible operational modes, and to the cost advantages of modu-
lar design and standardized system design and fabrication.

The CRM program also is unique in that it makes it possible to perform types of chemical release
experiments which could not easily be implemented by other approaches. This includes among
others the utilization of the shuttle high orbital velocity as a parameter in the experimental design.

Major alternatives to the CRM program include (1) not conducting the program and (2) conducting
a less extensive program. Conducting the program at other locations is not possible since each
experiment has unique location requirements. A number of other minor alternatives also exist, such
as using different payload chemicals, deployment techniques, etc. Since the program has been
designed to incorporate the engineering and economic factors which maximize the benefit-cost ratio
and there appears to be no reason to alter the program for environmental reasons; such minor
alternatives are not meaningful.

If the CRM program is not conducted, the objectives cannot be met. These objectives are deemed
sufficiently important in both the scientific and applied space engineering areas to warrant the
program being carried out. The magnitude and pacing of the CRM program has been planned to
ensure that the major scientific objectives of the program will be met. A lesser number of releases
would degrade the overall effectiveness of the program.

Consequently, on a cost-benefit basis and considered an integral part of the total scientific explora-
tion and economic exploitation of space there are no viable alternatives to the proposed action.

50
 5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

The commitment of resources to the CRM programs at this stage involves the preparation of prelim-
inary scientific and engineering, planning, design and organizational documents. At a more ad-
vanced stage, an adaptable module accommodating standard canisters of various sizes, specialized
canisters and tanks, instrumentation submodule, ejection options, electronics, etc., will be fabri-
cated. None of the materials utilized is scarce.

It is considered that the preliminary expenditure of human and material resources at this time is
justified by the need for the proposed program.

51
 6. KNOWNOR POTENTIAL CONFLICTSWITH STATE, REGIONAL, OR LOCAL
PLANSOR PROGRAMS

On the basis of the information available, there has not been identified any known or potential
conflict with any state, regional or local plans or programs.

52
 7. ANTICIPATED BENEFITSVS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTSOF THE
PROPOSEDACTIONS

It is considered that the benefits accruing from the proposed actions will far outweigh any environ-
mental effects. Such effects are not considered significant on the basis of information currently
available. The benefits which accrue are very considerable ones in solving key outstanding ques-
tions of the large-scale behavior of our upper atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere environment
and plasma behavior. The expansion of information due to this CRM program is also applicable to
our exploration of the magnetosphere of other planets. Moreover, the data obtained also has a
high degree of applicability to such applied areas as communications, and the general economic
utilization of space and military needs.

With regard to the economic utilization, there are magnetospheric and ionospheric impacts involved
in large-scale space transportation with chemical and ion engines and in the operation of large-scale
space structures. The overall design of such massive systems as the Solar Power System, military
systems and even possible space colonies must take into account not only their impact on the en-
vironment but also their mutual interaction. The CRM program, as one of limited and controlled
material releases in space, has direct input into their environmental assessment. Military needs
are reflected in the opportunities for improved understanding of atmospheric optical sensing sys-
tems and communication perturbations, etc., as well as the environmental assessment of military
systems themselves. The limited and controlled CRM releases serve as a valuable prelude to the
massive releases projected for large-scale space engineering systems.

The environmental costs of the CRM are regarded as not significant. Some chemicals, e.g. barium,
will be introduced into the upper atmosphere in minuscule amounts having no health consequences.
Perturbations to civilian communications are unlikely and at worst brief and transient. With appro-
priate scheduling and spacing, no effects on other spacecraft or any other space system are foreseen.

53
 8. RECOMMENDATIONSON PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS) OR ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTACTIVITIES

8.1 GeneralRecommendations

It is recommended that no environmental impact statement be prepared since no detrimental

environmental effects are foreseen. There are, however, several not well-understood, potential
impact areas of uncertain and low operational significance in which a continuing effort should be
made. These include (a) lithium lifetime in the upper atmosphere and (b) the lifetime of ions in
the plasmasphere at low-latitude distances of 2 to 5 earth radii. Specific limited chemical releases
are perhaps paradoxically among the best way to obtain information on (a) and (b) and are recom-
mended.

There is a need for establishing operational procedures which will prevent releases from occurring
during the short time intervals when a second spacecraft, susceptible to contamination, is located
within the initial expansion cloud of a chemical release at origin distances less than a defined "safe
distance." A need for establishing "safe-distance" criteria based on both the release characteristics
and contamination thresholds for different spacecraft systems and instruments is implicit in the
need for establishing the operational procedures. Technical studies directed toward establishing the
"safe-distance" criteria and the operational procedures are accordingly recommended.

8.2 ContinuingEfforts

It is recommended that in addition to the two generic recommended chemical release experiments
identified in Section 8.1, as well as correlative theoretical work, that contact be maintained with
the results of other groups performing on-going chemical releases such as the Defense Nuclear
Agency, Department of Energy, etc., in this country and the West Germans, etc., abroad for the
purpose of adding any new relevant information. Further contact should be maintained with the
results of the environmental assessments for the SPS in particular as regards the lifetime of ions
released at low latitudes and distances of 2 to 5 earth radii. The technical analyses directed toward
defining "safe-distance" criteria, recommended in Section 8.1 above, should be closely correlated
with similar studies which are needed for upper stage rocket firings conducted in the proximity of
spacecraft which are susceptible to contamination.

8.3 PublicInformationProgram

The CRM program has a potential for public controversy because of the reaction that might be
generated by the sighting of the luminous clouds involved in many of the chemical releases-if
there is no public preparation. It is considered that any adverse public response can be virtually
eliminated by an active public information program that will reach and inform the population in
the appropriate areas prior to conducting a release. It would also be advantageous to inform certain
specialized groups, such as radio amateurs and the astronomical community. Such a program has
been conducted in the past for specialized chemical release operations and has elicited positive and

54
favorable response. A representative program as an illustration might be constituted of a com-
plete announcement well in advance (approximately a week) and a detailed announcement shortly
(1 to 3 days) before the experiment, emphasizing both the scientific and safety aspects. Following
each visible release experiment, an announcement should be made within several hours providing
the general results of the test and information on any further experiments.

55
 9, SOURCES

1.1 NASA NMI 8800.7D, September 5, 1979 Guideline for Conducting Assessments and Prepar-
ing Environmental Statements Required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
NASA Management Instruction, Federal Register, vol. 44, no. 147, July 1979, Rules and
Regulations under Title 14, chap. 5, part 1204.

1.2 Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, Federal Register 55978,
vol. 43, 1978.

1.3 NASA, "Chemical Release Module-A Multi-User Facility for Shuttle Spacelab," Goddard
Space Flight Center, March 1978. Abbreviated version, available form NASA Headquarters,
Washington, D.C., May 1979.

1.4 "Development and Analysis of Model Mission Profiles for Chemical Release Experiments to
be Conducted with the Space Shuttle Chemical Release Module Facility," Appendix to
"Chemical Release Module-A Multi-User Facility for Shuttle Spacelab," September 30, 1978.

1.5 Pressman, J. et al., "A Synthetic Atmospheric Chemiluminescence Caused by the Release of
NO at 106 km," The Threshold of Space, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 1956.

1.6 Marmo, F.F., J. Pressman et al., "The Formation of an Artificial Electron Cloud," The
Threshold of Space, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 1956.

1.7 Pressman, J., "Artificial Electron Clouds for Communication Purposes," AGARD-NATO,
1957.

1.8 Marmo, F.F., L.M. Aschenbrand, and J. Pressman, "Artificial Electron Clouds I: "Summary
Report on the Creation of Artificial Electron Clouds in the Upper Atmosphere," Planetary
and Space Science, vol. 1, no. 3, 1959, pp. 227-237.

1.9 Marmo, F.F., L.M. Aschenbrand, and J. Pressman, "Artificial Electron Clouds II: General
Considerations," Planetary and Space Science, vol. 1, no. 4, 1959, pp. 291-305.

1.10 Marmo, F.F., L.M. Aschenbrand, and J. Pressman, "Artificial Electron Clouds III: Release
of Atomic Potassium at 121 kin," Planetary and Space Science, vol. 1, no. 4, 1959,
pp. 306-318.

1.11 Marmo, F.F., L.M. Aschenbrand, and J. Pressman, "Artificial Electron Clouds IV: Thermal
Ionization Study, Nighttime Cesium Release at 101 km," Planetary and Space Science,
vol. 2, no. 2/3, 1959, pp. 17-25.

1.12 Marmo, F.F., J. Pressman, L.M. Aschenbrand, and E.R. Manring, "Artificial Electron Clouds
V: Morning Twilight Study, Release of Cesium and Sodium at 128 and 116 km," Planetary
and Space Science, vol. 2, no. 4, 1959, pp. 174-186.

56
1.13 Manring, E.R., J.F. Bedinger, H.B. Pettit, and C.B. Moore, "Some Wind Determination in
the Upper Atmosphere Using Artificially Generated Sodium Clouds," Journal of Geophys-
ical Research, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., vol. 64, no. 6, June 1959,
pp. 587-591.

1.14 Foppl, H., G. Haerendel, J. Loidl, R. Liist, F. Melzner, B. Meyer, H. Neuss, and E. Rieger
(1965), "Preliminary Experiments for the Study of the Interplanetary Medium by the Re-
lease of Metal Vapor in the Upper Atmosphere," Planetary and Space Science, vol. 13,
pp. 95-114.

1.15 Rosenberg, N.W., D. Golomb, and E.F. Allen Jr., "Chemiluminescence of Trimethyl Alumi-
num Release into the Upper Atmosphere,"JournalofGeophysicalResearch, vol. 68, no. 20,
October 15, 1963, p. 5895.

1.16 Rosenberg, N.W., D. Golomb, and E.F. Allen Jr., "Resonance Radiation of AID from Tri-
methyl Aluminum Release into the Upper Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research,
American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., vol. 69, no. 7, April 1, 1964, p. 1451.

1.17 Foppl, H., G. Haerendel, J. Loidl, R. Liist, F. Melzner, B. Meyer, H. Neuss, and E. Rieger,
"Artificial Strontium and Barium Clouds in the Upper Atmosphere," Planetary and Space
Science, vol. 15, 1967, p. 357.

1.18 Haerendel, G., R. Liist, and E. Rieger, "Motion of Artificial Ion Clouds in the Upper Atmo-
sphere," Planetary and Space Science, vol. 15, no. 1, 1967, pp. I- 18.

1.19 Haerendel, G. and R. Liist (1968), "Electric Fields in the Upper Atmosphere," Earth's Parti-
cles and Fields, B.M. McCormack, ed., Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, p. 271.

1.20 Bedinger, J.F., "Thermospheric Motions Measured by Chemical Release," Space Research
XII, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1972, pp. 919-934.

1.21 Rosenberg, N.W., "Chemical Releases in the Upper Atmosphere," A Summary Report,
AFCRL Report, 1961.

1.22 Wescott, E.M., J.D. Stolarik, and J.P. Heppner, "Electric Fields in the Vicinity of Auroral
Forms from Motions of Barium Vapor Releases," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 74,
no. 14, July 1, 1969, pp. 3469-3487.

1.23 Best, G.T., "Daytime Tracking of a High Altitude Vapor Trail," Journal of Atmospheric
Science, vol. 27, September 1970, pp. 979-980.

1.24 Rosenberg, N.W. and G.T. Best, "AFCRL E-Region Barium Releases," RADC-TR-70-216,
vol. 4, September 1970, pp. 97-116.

57
1.25 Cooper, J.W., "Barium Releases and the Formation of Dense Ion Clouds," Proceedings of
Secede Summer Study, R.S. Leonard, ed., RADC-TR-70-216, September 1970.

1.26 Rosenberg, N.W. and G.T. Best, "E-Region Barium Releases," Proceedings of Secede Summer
Study, R.S. Leonard, ed., RADC-TR-70- 216, September 1970.

1.27 Wescott, E.M., E.P. Rieger, H.C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, and T.N. Davis, "L=1.24 Conjugate
Magnetic Field Line Tracing Experiments with Barium Shaped Charges," Journal of Geo-
physiealReseareh, vol. 79 no. 1, January 1, 1974, pp. 159-168.

1.28 Haerendel, G. et al., "Barium Ion Jet Experiments," paper presented at 52nd annual meet-
ing of the American Geophysical Union, Symposium on Barium Releases as an Aeronomical
Tool I, Washington, D.C., April 12-16, 1971, EOS, vol. 52, no. 4, 1971, p. 299.

1.29 Wescott, E.M. and W.B. Murcray, "Experiments with Barium Shaped Charges," paper pre-
sented at 52nd annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Symposium on Barium
Releases as an Aeronomical Tool I, Washington, D.C., April 12-16, 1971, EOS, vol. 52, no.4,
1971, p. 295.

1.30 Wescott, E.M. et al. "Aurora and Related Phenomena: Results of Five Successful Magneto-
sphereic Prolongs with Barium Shaped Charges Generated Plasma Jets," 5th annual meeting
of the American Geophysical Union, April 16-20, 1973, EOS, vol. 54, no. 4, 1973, p. 435.

1.31 Adamson, D., C.L. Fricke, and S.A.T. Long, "Preliminary Analysis of NASA Optical Data
Obtained in Barium Ion Cloud Experiment of September 21, 1971," Journal of Geophys-
icalResearch, vol. 78, no. 25, September 1, 1973, pp. 5769-5784.

1.32 Manring, E.R. and R.R. Patty, "Yield and Ion Distribution for the Barium Cloud at 31,000
kin, September 21, 1971," Journal Of Geosphysical Research, vol. 78, no. 25, September I,
1973, pp. 5745-5750.

1.33 Bedinger, J.F., "Thermospheric Motions Measured by Chemical Releases," Space Research
XII, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1972, pp. 91%934.

1.34 Fu, J.H.M., et al., "A Geomagnetic Field Line Tracing Experiment Operation Oosik," Tech-
nical Report EGG-1183-5020, February 1974. "Chemical Releases From Space Shuttle
Payloads," NAS 5-24052, Thiokol Wasatch Division, Ogden, Utah, May 1975.

1.35 Wescott, E.M., H.M. Peek, H.C.S. Nielsen, W.B.Murcray, R.J. Jensen, and T.N. Davis, "Two
Successful Geomagnetic Field Line Tracing Experiments," Journal of Geophysical Research,
vol. 77, June 1972, pp. 2982-2986.

1.36 Wescott E.M., E.P. Rieger, H.C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, T.N. Davis, H.M. Peek, and P.J. Bottoms,
"L = 1.24 Conjugate Magnetic Field Line Tracing Experiments with Barium Shaped Charges,"
Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 79, January 1974, pp. 159-168.

58
1.37 Wescott, E.M., E.P. Rieger, H.C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, T.N. Davis, H.M. Peek, and P.J. Bottoms,
"The L=6.7 Quiet Time Barium Shaped Charge Injection Experiment 'Chachalaca'," Journal
of Geophysical Research, vol. 80, July 1975, pp. 2738-2744.

1.38 Wescott, E.M.H.C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, T.N. Davis, W.B. Murcray, H.M. Peek, and P.J. Bottoms,
"The L=6.60osik Barium Plasma Injection Experiment and Magnetic Storm of March 7,
1972," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 80, March 1975, pp. 951-967.

1.39 Jeffries, R.A., W.H. Roach, E.W. Hones Jr., E.M. Wescott, H.C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, T.N.
Davis, and J.D. Winningham, "Two Barium Plasma Injections into the Northern Magneto-
spheric Cleft, GeophysicalResearch Letters, vol. 2, July 1975, pp. 285-288.

1.40 "Chemical Releases From Space Shuttle Payloads," Thiokol, Wasatch Division, Ogden,
Utah, NAS 5-24052, May 1975.

1.41 "Engineering Concepts, Chemical Release Payloads for AMPS," Research Report, NAS
5-24052, Publication No. 76534, Thiokol Wasatch Division, Ogden, Utah, December 1976.

1.42 "Chemical Release Module (CRM) Conceptual Engineering Design," NAS 5-23452, Publica-
tions No. 78100A, Thiokol, Wasatch Division, Ogden, Utah, March 1978.

1.43 Chiu, Y.T., J.M. Cornwall, J.G. Juhmann, and M. Schulz, "Argon-Ion Contamination of the
Plasmasphere," Aerospace Corporation, E1 Segundo, California, June 1979.

1.44 Garrett, H.B., "Review of Quantitative Models of the 0-100 keV Near-Earth Plasma,"
Reviews of Geosphysics and Space Physics, vol. 17, no. 3, May 1979, pp. 397-417.

1.45 Phase II, Environmental Assessment, Operation BUARO, Barium Plasma Injection into the
Upper Atmosphere Perpendicular to the Geomagnetic Field, J.A. Wells, R.A. Jeffries, Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory, J-110-4207, March 1976.

1.46a "Project Stress Environmental Assessment," DASIAC, General Electric-TEMPO, Santa

Barbara, Calif., for Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., November 12, 1976.

1.46b "Icecap PROGRAM Environmental Survey for November 1973 and Addendum, DASIAC,
General Electric-TEMPO, Santa Barbara, Calif., for Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,
D.C.

1.47 Environmental Assessment, "The Release of Chemicals into the Upper Atmosphere under
Project 7635, Upper Atmosphere Chemical Processes," AF Cambridge Research Laborato-
ries, December 8, 1972, prepared by Malcolm A. Macleod, avail. AFCRL.

1.48 "Environmental Impact Statement Concerning Activities of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration at Wallops Island, VA.,'" available from NASA, Wallops Island,
February 1972.

59
1.49 "Environmental Impact Statement, Space Shuttle Program," Final, NASA, April 1978.

1.50 Kellogg, W.W., "Pollution of the Upper Atmosphere by Rockets," Space Science Reviews,
vol. 3, 1965, pp. 275-316.

1.51 "Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Satellite Power System (SPS)," U.S.
Department of Energy, October 1978.

2.1 Memo by J. J. Scialdone to NASA Review Team, March 20, 1978.

2.2 Utlaut, W.F., "Ionospheric Modification Induced by High-Power HF Transmitters - A

Potential for Extended Range VHF-UHF Communications and Plasma Physics Research,"
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 63, no. 7, July 1975, pp. 1022-1043.

2.3 Mendillo, M., G.S. Hawkins, and J.A. Klobuchar, "Sudden Vanishing of the Ionospheric F
Region Due to the Launch of Skylab," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 80, 16, 1975,
p. 2217.

2.4 Proceedings of the Stress Data Review Meeting, November 29-30, 1977, SRI International,
June 1978.

2.5 Mendillo, M., J.M. Forbes, "Artificially Created Holes in the Ionosphere," Journal of Geo-
physical Research, vol. 83, no. A-l, January 1978, pp. 15 I-162.

2.6 Anderson, D.N., P.A. Bernhardt, "Modelling the Effects of an H2 Gas Release on the Equa-
torial Ionosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 83, no. A-10, October 1978,
pp. 4777-4790.

2.7 Linson, L.M., and D.C. Baxter, "Gas Release and Conductivity Mortification Studies,"
Science Applications Inc., La Jolla, Calif., Report SAI 02379-713LJ, LAPS-SI, May 1979,
Final Report NAS 5-24127.

2.8 Bernhardt, P.A., "High Altitude Gas Releases-Transition from Collisionless Flow to Diffu-
sive Flow in a Nonuniform Atmosphere," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical
Union, vol. 59, 1978, p. 1162; also Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 84, August 1979,
pp. 4341-4354.

2.9 Anderson, D.N., and G. Haerendel, "The Motion of Depleted Plasma Regions in the Equa-
torial Ionosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 84, no. A-8, August, 1979,
pp. 4251-4354.

2.10 Bauer, S.J., "Physics of Planetary Ionosphere," Physics and Chemistry In Space, vol. 6,
Springer-Verlag, N.Y., Inc., 1973, p. 237.

60
2.11 Mitra, A.P., "Ionospheric Effects of Solar Flares," D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1974,
p. 307.

2.12 Mason, B., "Meteorites," John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1962.

2.13 National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., "The Upper Atmosphere and Magneto-
sphere," from the series "Studies in Geophysics, 1977."

2.14 Arendt, P.R., "Ionospheric Undulations Following Apollo 14 Launching," Nature, vol. 231,
June 1971, pp. 438-439.

2.15 Arendt, P.R., "Ionospheric Shock Fron from Apollo 15 Launching," Nature, vol. 236,
March 1972, pp. 8-10.

2.16 Akasofu, S., "Physics of Magnetospheric Substorms," D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977,
p. 619.

2.17 Heppner, J., Personal Communication.

2.18 Scholer, M., "On the Motion of Artificial Ion Clouds in the Magnetosphere," Planetary and
Space Science, vol. 18, 1970, pp. 977-1004.

2.19 Pilipp, W.G., "Expansion of an Ion Cloud in the Earth's Magnetic Field," Planetary and
Space Science, vol. 19, 1971, pp. 1095-1119.

2.20 Haerendel, G., and Liist, R., "Particles and Fields in the Magnetosphere," edited by B.M.
McCormack, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1970.

2.21 Fechtig, H., E. Gruen, and G. Morrill, "Micrometeoroids Within Ten Earth Radii," Planetary
and Space Science, vol. 27, 1979, pp. 511-531.

2.22 Naumann, R.J., "Dynamics and Column Densities of Small Particles Ejected from Space-
craft," NASA TN D-7590 M-460, February, 1974.

2.23 Barber, D.R., "Origin of Upper-Atmosphere Lithium Atoms Responsble for the New
Twilight Airglow at 6708 A.,"Nature, vol. 183, 1959, pp. 384-385.

2.24 Hunten, D.M., "Spectroscopic Studies of the Twilight Airglow," Kitt Peak National Obser-
vatory, Tucson, Arizona, Contribution No. 215, 1967, reprinted from Space Science
Reviews, vol. 6, Holland, 1967.

61
 APPENDIX A

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE CHEMICAL RELEASEMODULE PROGRAM

Reprintedfrom "ChemicalReleaseModule-A Multi-UserFacilityfor ShuttleSpacelab,"

NASA GoddardSpaceFlightCenter,Greenbelt,Maryland,May 1979
Figure A-1. Artist conception of a horizontal red lithium trail (right side) and magnetic field aligned Ba+ streamers from a
sequence of four barium releases (left side) over south-central Canada.
 APPENDIX A

CHEMICAL RELEASE MODULE

(A MULTI-USER FACI LITY FOR SHUTTLE SPACELAB)

PROGRAM CATEGORY

Solar Terrestrial Multi-User Facility Active Experiments Multiple Missions.

PLANNED LAUNCH TIMES

One or two times each year (1982-1988).

MISSION LIFETIMES

One to six months (each mission).

MISSION FUNCTIONS

Uniquely diagnostic, chemical release experiments are directed toward problems in atmospheric/
magnetospheric coupling, space plasma physics, atmospheric dynamics and chemistry, gas dynamics,
auroral phenomena, ionospheric communication disturbances, solar wind-magnetosphere inter-
actions, the physics of comets, etc. Chemical releases are a versatile tool for tracing, simulating, and
modifying conditions and phenomena in space, and often provide key, breakthrough information
that is not attained by other means. The multi-user, multi-mission approach is essential for the
many worthy and feasible experiments embracing diverse interests and space locations.

MISSION ELEMENTS

The basic CRM is an expendable Shuttle-launched spacecraft which is reproduced at a low cost for
each mission. It interchangeably accomodates a large number of chemical canisters of various types
and sizes in response to the specific needs of each experiment. It accommodates propulsion for
orbit change in near earth missions.

Standard canisters are provided for the release of a variety of chemicals over a range of release
masses. Specialized newly developed canisters, PI instrument packages, etc., are also accommodated.

A reusable, pallet-mounted ejection system is used for near earth missions. SSUS systems are used
for missions with distant apogees.

Releases are conducted by command to a flexible decoding system for canister and release time
selection in response to near-realtime PI instructions.

A-3
Observing stations and networks include surface sites, airborne units, existing spacecraft, and Space-
lab instruments. Optical networks are to be organized for mutual support of various experiments
and missions.

TYPICAL MISSION ORBITS

A conceptual 12-mission sequence (1982-1988) suggests three "most characteristic" orbits:

(1) perigee >200 km, apogee <1200 kin, directed toward atmospheric/magnetospheric coupling,
field-aligned particle acceleration, and atmospheric experiments, (2) perigee/>150 kin, apogee 3 R e,
keyed to ionospheric conductivity modifications and perturbing the accelerating electric fields in
the 2 to 3 R c range on auroral shells, and (3) apogee at 15 to 25 R e, keyed to outer magnetosphere,
cometary, and solar wind entry experiments but including cold plasma seedings in the middle mag-
netosphere. An orbit similar to (1), above, is likely for the first mission.

STATUS

Studies by the AMPS Chemical Release Facility Definition Team, with inputs from more than 50
scientists, have been completed. Conceptual design studies have been completed. Category 1 status
was received in peer review. A draft of an RFP for final design, fabrication, testing, and integration
of the CRM has been prepared. Essential next steps are as follows: the issuance of the RFP and an
AO solicitation of experiments.

Science Rationale

Key outstanding questions on the large-scale behavior of our upper atmosphere/ionosphere/magne-

tosphere environment include the following:

• How and where does solar plasma enter the earth's magnetosphere?

• What fraction of the magnetospheric plasma (a) comes from the solar wind, (b) comes from
the ionosphere?

• At what rates and energies and by what processes are ionospheric ions injected into the
magnetosphere?

• What are the basic, causative mechanisms producing high-latitude electric fields and auroral
phenomena, and will understanding the auroral substorm process automatically yield an
understanding of the origin of the radiation belts?

• Is global transport and energy deposition in the thermosphere dominated by high-latitude

ion-drag, joule heating, and particle precipitation or by solar photon heating?

• Do solar-weather correlations involve a link via plasma-field processes?

A-4
Many of the chemical release experiments proposed address these and similar questions. Release
experiments also provide unique approaches to the sub-elements of these questions. This stems
from the capabilities for measuring ion and neutral transport, defining the spatial characteristics of
regions where charged particles are energized, and the capabilities to simulate natural processes.

The suggested experiments are not, however, confined to large-scale questions. For example, some
bear directly on plasma behaviors in our space environment that are important for understanding
plasma dynamics. Modeling has been advocated as a means of approaching the complex dynamics
which is evident both in the neutral atmosphere and in space plasmas. Chemical releases provide a
means for testing model predictions. Relevance also extends to applied problems. An example is
the extensive interest in simulating conditions which adversely affect space communications and in
testing effects on R-F transmissions under controlled conditions.

ScienceObjectivesand Experiments

The character of chemical release experiments is such that there are one or several specific and
definitive objectives in performing each release. Combinations of releases and repetition under
different conditions lead to fulfillment of generalized objectives or goals. In select cases a single
release operation may be sufficient for testing a concept. The numerous inter- and multi-disciplinary
objectives lead to a diversity of usage and modes of approach. For brevity, typical objectives and
experiments have been grouped into the six categories below.

Upper Atmosphere Dynamics

Motions of the neutral atmosphere at thermospheric altitudes are caused by electric field ion drag,
Joule heating, solar EUV heating, heating by precipitating particles, and tidal forces. They are
highly variable on both local and global scales in response to complex combinations of these sources
which are both continuous and impulsive. They also exhibit both wave and convective character-
istics, and the dissipation of these winds and waves produces a feedback into the causative heating
and electromechanical force elements. Historically, vertical wind profiles obtained from rocket
releases producing luminous trails have provided most of the information on winds, and because of
the indisputable nature of the observations they have been the standard for evaluating other
approaches for deducing winds.

The CRM capability for producing luminous tracer trails over any chosen length along its orbital
path has opened the possibility of determining the horizontal variability of winds, particularly in
the various zones where the driving forces exhibit steep gradients. As trails are observed as a func-
tion of time as well as position, wave distortions can also be observed. Wavelengths and both vertical
and horizontal amplitudes can be measured. This means that the heretofore elusive gravity wave
characteristics can be uniquely determined.

The ambient wind and wave objectives noted above utilize the tracer approach. Simulation and
modification approaches appear in experiments designed to create gravity waves and winds and

A-5
to experimentally measure parameters such as ion-neutral coupling. The generation of acoustic
gravity waves from a point source has received particular attention as a means of definitively deter-
mining their propagation characteristics.

Ionospheric Modifications

The objectives motivating various experiments based on either decreasing or increasing the ambient
plasma density by means of a chemical release include: (a) obtaining measurements of the rate of
refilling after creation of a plasma depletion "hole" as a means of studying ambient ionization proc-
esses, (b) studying the magnetic field aligned propagation of VLF waves by creating a propagation
duct, (c) simulating the formation and movement of the natural depletion "bubbles" which occur
over the magnetic equator, (d) investigations of reaction rates, recombination coefficients, airglow
production, etc., and (e) creating the conditions for inducing selected plasma instabilities to
produce ionospheric irregularities and spread-F conditions. The science objectives in these experi-
ments have a direct bearing on communication problems. Other forms of ionospheric modification
are directed toward studying ionospheric/magnetospheric coupling and testing plasma theories.

Exploratory PlasmaPhysics

Chemical releases make it possible to study complex magnetospheric plasma processes by introduc-
ing controlled perturbations under well-defined initial conditions, and measuring the resulting
system response. An example which has been the subject of extensive theoretical modeling is the
seeding of the equatorial magnetosphere with cold lithium plasma to reduce the resonant energy
required to drive electron and proton cyclotron instabilities. The anticipated result is wave amplifi-
cation and precipitation of trapped electrons and ring current protons. Recently, the interest in
seeding has been extended to the 2 to 3 Re altitude range along shells where auroral particle accel-
eration processes are now known to exist. The effective process, or mechanism, is, however, unre-
solved and theories are controversial. Perturbing this region by overseeding with ions represents an
exploratory experiment in which one seeks to learn by disrupting the potential distribution in the
field-aligned circuit. This approach is complementary to the tracer experiments noted below.

The exploratory objectives are not confined to ionospheric and magnetospheric phenomena. For
example, the creation of an artificial comet in the solar wind would permit study of the trapping
of the interplanetary magnetic field, the formation of cometary rays, their dragging into the tail
axes, and the gradual erosion of the cometary ions. This involves a large-scale release at a large dis-
tance. Another example, performable near the earth with a modest release, is the testing of the crit-
ical velocity hypothesis introduced by Alfven in his theory of origin of the solar system. This hy-
pothesis states that when the relative bulk velocity of a plasma and a neutral gas exceeds a critical
value in flow transverse to the magnetic field, the plasma will decelerate and the neutral gas will
rapidly ionize. Using high mass neutral particles having a low ionization potential one can test this
hypothesis with releases at orbital velocity.

A-6
Ionosphere/Magnetosphere
Coupling

Recognition that the upper atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere behave as a single, strongly
coupled system with complex internal feedback relationships has closely paralleled advances in our
knowledge of space electric fields and their associated electric current systems. Electric field-driven
ion drag is, for example, the strongest force driving upper atmosphere winds. Coupling studies thus
center on electric field studies, and the use of visible ion tracers is unique for obtaining the
3-dimensional distribution of electric fields as a function of time. Individual objectives using ion
tracers are thus as numerous as the regions and conditions of special interest, many of which are
at auroral latitudes where the energy exchange is maximum. Particular emphasis is directed toward
obtaining the distribution of electric fields along magnetic field lines which intersect aurora. Con-
flicting evidence and theories exist as to whether these fields are weakly distributed over many
thousands of kilometers or concentrated in narrow altitude zones, or both. One can address this
question definitively by "painting" field lines with visible ions and observing the changes in the dis-
tribution of the ions with time. Because of the dispersing effect of the/_ v B "mirror force" the
initial "painting" or distribution can extend over many thousands of kilometers from isotropic re-
leases at any altitude above 900 km. The relevance of the E-parallel distribution applies two ways:
(a) it determines the precipitation causing aurora, and (b) it injects ionospheric ions, such as O+,
into the magnetosphere where they then become a major constituent in the trapped population that
produces the ring current encircling the earth. Ionosphere/magnetosphere exchange is not, however,
confined to auroral regions. Although the cause is not clear it is known that fight ions are also
depleted in a trough region adjacent to the auroral belt and that there is an inter-hemispherical
exchange of ionization along magnetic field lines at much lower latitudes. The sensitive tracer ap-
proach applies to these problems as well and to related objectives in which the cause of composition
anomalies is sought.

The principal impedance to the flow of the l0 4 to 106 amperes flowing in the high-latitude,
ionospheric/magnetospheric circuit occurs within the ionosphere. It is a load on the magneto-
spheric generator, but there is uncertainty as to whether this generator is primarily a voltage
generator or a current generator. As in any power circuit changing the electric load becomes a
diagnostic approach to determining the generator characteristics. With this objective a number of
conductivity modification experiments have been proposed in which the release locally alters the
electrical state of the plasma in order to observe the effects of the change. Approaches range from
both ion density increases and decreases to mechanical (i.e., "dynamo") movement of the ioniza-
tion by momentum transfer.

SolarPlasma-Entry,Flow,and Energization

Finding answers to the basic questions "where and how does solar wind plasma enter the magneto-
sphere," "what is its subsequent flow," and "where and how is it energized in the magnetosphere"
has been an elusive goal in space physics. The release of tracer ions outside the magnetosphere with
optical tracking and the subsequent detection and energy analysis of the tracer elements within the
magnetosphere provides one of the few, if not only, methods of obtaining unambiguous answers to
some of these questions. Releases in the high-latitude magnetosheath near the cusp and at low-
latitude locations along the flanks of the magnetotail appear most promising for obtaining entry

A-7
but the generality of the entry question also needs to be examined with releases near the sub-solar
point. Tracer releases at selected locations within the outer magnetosphere will identify the subse-
quent transport and energization. As fast convection (i.e., transport transverse to the magnetic
field) is known to exist in the plasma mantle, adjacent to the magnetopause, and in the magnetotail
plasma sheet, these become logical choices for initial release investigations.

Photochemistry and Chemical Reactions

The objectives motivating specific experiments stem from questions related to the following: (1)
the photochemical fragmentation of cometary molecules, (2) the solar photolysis and cross-sections
for molecular reactions of particular interest in mesosphefic-stratosphefic regions, (3) the atmo-
spheric chemistry of other planets, and (4) the optimum performance of ionospheric modification
experiments. Important factors are the use of the actual, rather than laboratory simulated, sun and
the absence of wall collisions for reactions involving metastable and pre-excited States. Photodisso-
ciation studies in which a selected gas is released from the CRM and measurements of the solar ab-
sorption spectra are made from the shuttle have been most frequently noted. Several gases (CO2,
CO, and H20) are of interest to both cometary and planetary atmosphere studies and also find
application in ionospheric modification experiments. Other interests include the following: the
derivatives of C2H 2 and HCN (comet studies), the products of chlorine and nitrogen compounds
(stratospheric studies), and simulations of atomic oxygen beams at orbital velocities.

Approach

The need for a large-scale, general purpose, multi-user, modular chemical release facility to accom-
plish the numerous and multi-disciplinary objectives typified above comes from the following
factors:

1. The number of experiments defined or suggested is both large and growing.

2. Maximum mass carrying capacity is desirable to support the demands for both large numbers of
small releases and requirements for large releases.

3. Costs per experiment, and costs per unit mass released, decrease greatly with increasing canister
and mass carrying capacity. Stemming from the relatively low cost of canister fabrication large
chemical-release payloads are inherently low in cost per unit mass. This characteristic is partic-
ularly well matched to shuttle capabilities.

4. Canister design and fabrication is, in general, a specialized industrial, rather than PI capability;
thus, canisters in most cases must be furnished. Standardized canisters will satisfy a large frac-
tion of the requirements. The use of standard canisters minimizes qualification and integration
costs.

5. An adaptable modular design is required: (a) to accommodate standard canisters of various

sizes, specialized canisters and tanks, instrumented submodules, ejection options, etc., (b) to

A-8
 make these accommodations interchangeable, and (c) to meet the requirements for a diversity
of missions and use of different propulsion motors.

6. Flexible operational modes and lifetimes are required for selecting release types and masses and
the scheduling of releases relative to the required observations and diagnostics.

These factors influence the design (described later) and limit PI participation in pre-flight payload
activities to that of specifying requirements, except for special needs as noted in Table A-I. Just as
it is clear that releases must be provided for the Principal Investigator, it is equally clear that per-
formance of a release for a particular experiment must be controlled by the Principal Investigator.

TableA-1
PrincipalInvestigatorFunctions

1. Proposes experiment

a. Specifies the type of release (chemical, mass, duration, sequence, etc.).

b. Specifies the release location and conditions.

c. Provides payload hardware only for special, nonstandard needs.

2. Is responsible for conducting or negotiating arrangements for the required observations.

3. Is responsible for designating release times and making GO/NO-GO decisions.

4. Is responsible for data analysis and interpretation.

Item 2, Table A-l, does not imply that each experiment will require an independent set of observing
instruments. Coordination of PI observing needs and capabilities should result in common usage of
observing instruments and facilities.

Conceptual MissionSequence

Mission and experiment selections, numbers and sequences of missions, and launch schedules have
not been determined and are subject to program reviews and approvals. Planning exercises oriented
toward accommodating known potential experiments and their different mission/orbit requirements
have, however, been conducted. Tables A-2 and A-3 represent the skeleton of one plan which illus-
trates a step-by-step progression in meeting general requirements without going into specific experi-
ment assignments. A large number of important experiments can be performed which do not re-
quire any new release technology or specialized supporting equipment. The first mission is directed
toward accommodating as many of these experiments as possible for maximum results on the short-
est schedule. A 1982 launch would also permit experiments coordinated with DE-A, B satellite
measurements. A second, more arbitrary, aspect of this particular plan is that it places launches re-
quiting large (i.e., >100 kg, each) modification/perturbation releases on missions separate from

A-9
those which require a multiplicity of small (i.e., _<20 kg) releases. This split is not essential in terms
of CRM design; it is introduced from cost and schedule considerations.

Table A-2
Conceptual MissionEvolution

Mission Technical/Operational Sequence

1 (1) Use proven canisters and chemicals.

(2) Select well defined objectives and approaches.

2 and 3 (1) Include new release chemicals and canister designs.

(2) Include more exploratory experiments.

4 and 5 (1) Utilize SSUS-A vehicle.

(2) Include ejectable instrumented submodules.

6 and 7 (1) Use WTR launch for:

(a) polar cap experiments.

(b) auroral experiments in Alaska and Scandinavia sectors.

8 and 9 (1) Large-scale solar wind entry (OPEN).

(2) Comet simulation.

10,11, and 12 Follow-on missions: New developments and repeats.

CRM Characteristics

The CRM (Flight) facility embraces the CRM bus, chemical release canisters (payload), small-scale
propulsion motors, a pallet mount and ejection system, adapter units for mating with SSUS vehicles,
and shuttle and ground support equipment and software. The CRM bus accommodates all payload
elements and provides the basic R-F and electrical systems for commands, telemetry, tracking, com-
mand decoding, data handling, power, attitude determination, status and housekeeping sensing, and
system controls. R-F systems are based on TDRSS compatibility. Compatibility with shuttle pay-
load accommodation requirements, interfaces, and safety policies has been established in conceptual
design studies.

A-IO
 TableA-3
ConceptualMissionSchedule

(A) Primarily Small/Medium Scale Release Experiments

Mission Launch Approximate Orbit

Number Site Incl. Perigee (km) Apogee (km) Shuttle Mount Launch Date

1 ETR 57° 1>200 <1200 Pallet 1982

3 ETR 57° />200 <1200 Pallet 1983

5 ETR Low >200 15 Re SSUS-A 1984

6 ETR Polar I>200 <1200 Pallet 1985

10-12 Follow-On 1987-1988

(B) Primarily Large Release Perturbation/Modification Experiments

2 ETR />32° >200 <500 Pallet 1983

4 ETR 57° _>150 >2 Re SSUS-A 1984

7 WTR Polar 1>200 <1200 Pallet 1985

8-9 ETR Low >200 >15 Re SSUS-A 1986

Payload accommodations provide the capability to conduct: (a) a large number of small thermite
releases and/or a smaller number of large thermite releases of both short (point) and long (trail)
duration types, (b) tank releases of liquids or gases, (c) shaped charge releases from ejected sub-
modules, (d) releases from ejected thermite canisters, (e) diagnostic measurements with PI instru-
ments on board, and (f) diagnostic measurements from ejected PI instrumented sub-modules. The
payload mass carrying capability is indicated by Table A-4, which takes into account all interface
structure and CRM bus weights, but does not include propulsion motors, in arriving at the weight
available for experiment installation. Two CRM's are stacked in the case quoted using the SSUS-A
cradle.

The numbers in Table A-4 assume installation of relatively dense solid thermite release hardware.
With diverse experiment packages having different shapes and volumes the numbers decrease. As a
general guideline it is anticipated that payload weights />1000 kg will be accommodated on all
missions.

A-11
 TableA4
PayloadWeightAllowance(DirectEjection)

Weight Experiment Weight

Installed On Limit (kg) Capacity (kg)

Pallet 3000 2000

SSUS-D Cradle 3400 2300
SSUS-A Cradle 6270 4360

As conceptually designed, flexibility in the CRM accomodations is achieved using either: (a) a hex-
agonal array of eight rectangular and triangular experiment bays (sub-module boxes or open areas),
or (b) a single "doughnut" sub-module which is modularized into eight experiment bays (Note: a
choice between these options has not been made). These sub-modules fit peripherally around a
cylindrical center module which accommodates all electrical systems and serves as the main load-
carrying structure. This center structure is hollow, with a clear diameter of 1.01 meters. For kick
motor installation this accommodates all presently qualified solid propellant motors smaller than
the SSUS motors.

There are also provisions for axial experiment sub-modules opposite the kick motor or along both
the + and - spin axes when a kick motor is not used. Annular solar cell rings mounted off the ends
of the center structure provide power for an indefinitely long lifetime. The 3-meter diameter of the
CRM provides "flywheel" spin stability and fits within the envelope of one pallet.

ObservingOperations

The observations required by the various experiments are both diverse and similar. The observa-
tional matrix, indicated without cross-referencing in Table A-5, is thus complex.

TableA-5
ObservingModesand Techniques

Modes Techniques

Permanent observatories (a) Optical

Temporary surface stations (b) R-F
Aircraft (c) Mass spectrometers
Sounding rockets (d) Field and plasma diagnostic instruments
Explorer satellites
Shuttle sub-satellites
On-board shuttle instruments
CRM ejected sub-modules
CRM instruments

A-12
A high percent of potential experiments require surface and/or aircraft optical imaging (film, video,
etc.) as either prime or supporting data and a significant, but lesser, fraction require or benefit from
surface photometeric or R-F observations. Operational planning, prior to experiment selection, has
thus been directed primarily toward the commonality of these forms of surface observations. The
goal is to achieve maximum utilization of existing instruments and/or facilities and thus avoid a
proliferation of instrument procurements and observing networks with duplicate functions. Con-
ceptually, temporary but reoccupied networks could be established in several key areas to support a
large fraction of the low-altitude release experiments. Suggested examples include areas centered on
Arecibo, Puerto Rico and Jicamarca, Peru for experiments at low latitudes and at the magnetic
equator, respectively. Prior to WTR launches, the region south of the Churchill, Canada Rocket
Range is the logical choice for auroral belt experiments. Experiments which produce visible tracers
along magnetic field lines from that region can also be supported by optical observing sites in the
southwest U.S. Key areas centered on observing capabilities in Alaska and the EISCAT facility in
northern Europe appear likely for WTR launches. When integrated with the use of Spacelab and
aircraft observing facilities, these concepts suggest that an extensive data base could be provided as a
service to PI's. They also reduce the potential costs of the observing effort.

ProgramSchedule

A first mission launch in 1982, as conceptually shown in Table A-3, would make it possible to use
instruments on the DE satellites as tracer particle detectors and provide other correlations for
selected objectives. Achievement of a 1982 launch is dependent on initiating CRM development in
the first half of 1980 and using proven canister designs for the first mission. The modular design is
such that the experiment selections do not have to occur prior to initiating the development. It is
anticipated that the conceptual 12 mission sequence, outlined above, will not be adequate to
support all worthy and feasible experiments. Organization into experiment teams following selec-
tions appears desirable.

ChemicalReleaseFacilityDefinitionTeam

Members of the "Chemical Release Facility Definition Team" of the "AMPS Science Definition
Working Group" are listed below.

Leader: J.P. Heppner Goddard Space Flight Center

Co-Leader: R.W. McEntire JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory
T. N. Davis University of Alaska
G. Haerendel Max Planck Institut fur Extraterrestrial Physiks
L. M. Linson Science Applications Inc.
H. A. Taylor/H. C. Brinton Goddard Space Flight Center
G. D. Thome Raytheon Co.
D. J. Williams/D. S. Evans NOAA Environmental Research Laboratory

Their detailed study report entitled "Chemical Release Module: A Multi-User Facility for Shuttle
Spacelab" was completed in March 1978.

A-13
Figure A-2. Artist conception of gravity wave distortion of a neutral lithium trail as seen over the Chicago skyline.
Figure A-3. 35 mm photo sequence of Ba+ streamers from a Project Cameo releases at latitude 74 ° to 79 ° as observed from
Richland, Washington (lat. 46°). Releases were below the horizon (lower left) at an altitude of 960 km. The
Ba+ streamers reached lengths of 10000 km and were last seen from Hawaii at distances >6 R e .
Figure A-4. Exposure from Pt. Barrow, Alaska at time of fourth Cameo barium release. Showing (from left to right) field
aligned ion clouds from second and third release, spherically expanding neutral clouds, and the plume of the
fourth release.
Figure A-5. Television scan of Ba+ streamers from Cameo releases taken from a NASA Lear jet.
Figure A-6. Model CRM mounted in shuttle bay.
Figure A-7. Model CRM leaving kick motor.
 OCTAGONALCHEMICALRELEASEMODULE

AXIALLY-MOUNTED TDRSSBEACON SOLIDPROPELLANT

KICKSTAGE
CANISTERS

LIQUID
GAS TANK

ANTENNA
EJECTABLE
SHAPED
CHARGECANISTERS
RADIALLY-MOUNTED
CANISTERS

Figure A-8. Conceptual octagonal CRM configuration, diameter = 3 meters.

 CIRCULAR CHEMICAL RELEASEMODULE

AXIALLY-MOUNTED TDRSSBEACON SOLIDPROPELLANT

KICKSTAGE
CANISTERS
SOLARPANEL
ASSEMBLY
LIQUIDGASTANK

[_] EJECTABLE
CHARGECANISTERS
SHAPED
RADIALLY-MOUNTED
CANISTERS ANTENNA

Figure A-9. Conceptual circular CRM configuration, diameter = 3 meters.

 GO/NO-GO
COMMUNICATIONS
FORTYPICAL
CRMEXPERIMENT

% SHUTTLE
OR
/
|

CONTROL GROUND
EXPERIMENT CENTER TERMINAL
OBSERVATORIES _ _ OPERATIONS
_ MANAGER TELEMETRY
_-- NASCOM

CENTER
ORBIT _ SATELLITE

I I +
------ ALTERNATE
MODE

AMATEUROBSERVERS
J+O JHO
t++
REMOTE
TERMINALS
ETAL. I

Figure A-10. Communication links for a typical CRM releases decision.

 APPENDIX B

CHEMICAL RELEASEHISTORY AND BACKGROUND

This Appendix briefly summarizes some of the record of chemical releases into the atmosphere.
Section 1 gives a partial log of some of the many chemical releases, particularly ionic, together with
a recapitulation of launch location for previous chemical release payloads and approximate altitude
distribution. The art and practice of manufacturing payloads is given in a series of Thiokol docu-
ments (Sources 1.40 to 1.42) and summarized in Source 1.3 and is not discussed here. Section 2
furnishes a recapitulation of the present theory of the initial dispersion and notes its general appli-
cability. Specific theories of the individual phenomenology, e.g., electron depletion etc., are
discussed briefly and/or referenced in the main text and not in the appendix.

CHEMICAL RELEASE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Since the original chemical releases of Marmo, Pressman, et al. in the late 1950's (Sources 1.5 to
1.12) over 350 chemical releases have been performed with a large variety of compounds (See
Tables B-1 to B-3, Figures B-1 and B-2) at heights from 80 km to 12 earth radii and at weights up to
320 kg. The objectives have included wind, diffusion, and turbulence measurements, electron
enhancement of depletion, communication and airglow studies, auroral studies, etc. In particular
many barium releases from rockets have been conducted in the ionosphere, worldwide, primarily to
measure ambient electric fields using small releases (< 4 kg) at high altitude (> 200 km) and to
produce enhancements in the ionospheric electron concentration using large releases (16 kg to 320
kg) at lower altitudes (< 200 km). The properties of the larger releases have been studied exten-
sively using a variety of radar, optical, propagation path, and rocket probe techniques. As a result,
many characteristics of these releases, such as the time development of the scale size of the neutral
clouds, peak electron concentration, and distribution of barium ions perpendicular and parallel to
the magnetic field are well documented and the behavior is understood. In the following table lists
are given of selected and representative chemical release experiments: Table B-l-Summary of
Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Chemical Releases; Table B-2-List of Barium and Other Ion
Chemical Releases (1968-1979); and Table B-3-List of Ion Cloud Releases with Experimental
Parameters (1968-1971 ).

Additionally in Figures B-1 and B-2 respectively the launch locations for past chemical release pay-
loads and the approximate altitude distribution for chemical releases (previous experiments) amount-
ing conservatively to more than 4000 kg of chemicals are given. Involved in this effort in the
United States have been such organizations as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Naval Research
Laboratory, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and university groups such as the University of
Alaska. Abroad, the contributions of the Max Planck Institute in Germany have been extensive.
Contributions from other countries include: England (University College, London), France (Uni-
versity of Paris), Canada, Denmark, Italy, Holland, USSR, Norway, Sweden and India, with no
attempt at exhaustiveness in this list.

B-1
 Table B-1
Summary of GSFC Chemical Releases

Number of
Launch Site Number of Barium Other
Year or Location Rocket Rockets Releases Releases

1967 Wallops Island, VA Nike-Tomahawk 1 3

1967 Andennes, Norway Nike-Tomahawk 3 12

1968 Andennes, Norway Nike-Tomahawk 3 12

1969 Cape Perry, Canada Nike-Tomahawk 3 12

1970 Barter Island, AK Nike-Tomahawk 3 12

1970 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 3 12

1971 Hall Beach, Canada Nike-Tomahawk 4 16

1972 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 3 12 4 TMA/TEA trails

1973 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 5 10

1974 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 3 12 3 TMA/TEA trails

1975 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 3 12 3 TMA/TEA trails

1976 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 4 12 2 TMA/TEA trails

2 Lithium trails
1978 74-80 °, 110-140°W Delta 2nd Stage 1 4

1978 Scandinavia Delta 2nd Stage 1 1 Lithium

1979 Poker Flats, AK Terrier-Malemute 1 3 4 Lithium trails

1979 Poker Flats, AK Nike-Tomahawk 1 2 2 Lithium trails

NOTE: Barium releases usually include 1-2% strontium, several include sodium or lithium doping.
Lithium trails sometimes include sodium.
 Table B-2
Listof BariumandOther Ion CloudReleases
(1968-1979)

Operation Event Date Location Purpose

Secede Apple 4 May 1968, AM Puerto Rico Barium Thermite Release Yes
Birch 7 May 1968, AM Puerto Rico Barium Thermite Release Yes
Cherry 2 May 1968, AM Puerto Rico Barium Thermite Release Rocket Failure
Dogwood 13 May 1968, AM Puerto Rico Barium Thermite Release Yes
Secede III Juniper 5 March 1969 PM Alaska Barium Thermite Release* Yes
Elm 6 March 1969 PM Alaska Barium Thermite Release* Yes
Ironwood 11 March 1969 AM Alaska Barium Thermite Release* Yes
Fir 15 March 1969 PM Alaska Barium Thermite Release Yes
Gum 19 March 1969 PM Alaska Barium Thermite Release Yes
Hemlock 20 March 1969 PM Alaska Barium Thermite Release Yes
Birdseed I Roadrunner 16 May 1970, PM Hawaii Barium Thermite Release Yes
Sapsucker 26 May 1970, PM Hawaii Barium Thermite Release Yes
d, Duck 26 May 1970, PM Hawaii Neon Plasma Gun Yes
Titmouse 6 June 1970, PM Hawaii Barium Thermite Release Yes
Egret 6 June 1970, PM Hawaii Neon Plasma Gun Yes
Secede II Nutmeg 16 January 1971, PM Florida Barium Thermite Release Yes
Plum 20 January 1971, PM Florida Barium Thermite Release Yes
Redwood 26 January 1971, PM Florida Barium Thermite Release Yes
0live 29 January 1971, PM Florida Barium Thermite Release* Yes
Spruce 1 February 1971, PM Florida Barium Thermite Release Yes
Barbizon Alco 18 October 1971, AM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
I Bubia 19 October 197 I, AM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
NASA 23 October 1971, AM Hawaii Electron Gun Power Supply Failure
Canuto 24 October 1971, PM Hawaii Barium Thermite Release* Yes
J-16 EMP 30 October 1971, AM Hawaii EMP No
Espatula 5 November 1971, AM Hawaii Ferrocene Release Rocket Failure
Dardabasi 8 November 1971, PM Hawaii Barium Thermite Release* Yes
Buitre 8 November 1971, PM Hawaii Neon Plasma Gun Yes

*Multiple release
 TableB-2 (continued)
Listof BariumandOther IonCloud Releases
(1968-1979)

Operation Event Date Location Purpose

Febe 3 February 1972, PM Nevada Ferrocene Release Yes

Oosik 7 March 1972, PM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing No
Picaposte Chachalaca 9 October 1972, AM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
Faison 11 October 1972, AM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Rocket Failure
NASA 15 October 1972, AM Hawaii Electron Gun Yes
Loro 18 October 1972, AM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
Halcon 20 October 1972, AM Hawaii Lithium Deposition Rocket Failure
Gayo 27 October 1972, PM Hawaii Ferrocene Release Yes
Tirano Hawaii EMP Scrubbed
Rctv 30 October 1972, PM Hawaii Re-Entry Vehicle Yes
Skylab Skylab I 27 November 1973, AM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
Skylab II 4 December 1973, AM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
Cotinga Ispida 16 March 1974, AM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Yes
Oca 23 March 1974, PM Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Rocket Failure
Acanta Alaska Barium Field Line Tracing Damaged on Pad
 TableB-2 (continued)
Listof Bariumand OtherIon CloudReleases
(1968-1979)

Operation Event Date Location Purpose

Tordo Tordo-I 6 January 75 PM Cape Perry Barium Field Line Tracing

Tordo-II 16 January 75 PM Cape Perry Barium Field Line Tracing
Loxia Loxia 14 May 75 PM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing
Perquito Perquito Uno 25 November 75 PM Cape Perry Barium Field Line Tracing
Perquito Dos 28 November 75 PM Cape Perry Barium Field Line Tracing
Buaro Buaro 7 June 76 PM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing
Stress Stress - Betty 26 February 77 AM Florida Barium Thermite Release
Lagopedo Lagopedo I 2 September 77 AM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing
Lagopedo II 12 September 77 AM Hawaii Barium Field Line Tracing
Stress Stress - Carolyn 2 March 77 AM Florida Barium Thermite Release
Stress - Dianne 7 March 77 AM Florida Barium Thermite Release
W Stress - Esther 13 March 77 AM Florida Barium Thermite Release
Stress - Fern 14 March 77 AM Florida Barium Thermite Release
Avefria Avefria I 8 May 78 AM Nevada Barium Field Line Tracing
Avefria II 18 May 78 AM Nevada Barium Field Line Tracing
Camio Camio 29 October 78 AM Alaska
Colimbo Colimbo 22 February 79 AM Hawaii To Produce Barium from
Baritol - No Good
 TableB-3
Listof IonCloudReleases
with ExperimentalParameters(1968-1971)

Name Date Time Latitude Longitude Altitude Size

Apple May 2, 1968 0917:16UT 16.650°N 66.793°W 196.0 km 12 kg

Birch May 7, 1968 0902:50UT 18.571 °N 66.697°W 207.0 km 2.0 kg
Cherry May 12, 1968 no release
Dogwood May 13, 1968 0910:44UT 18.750°N 66.971°W 191.0 km 48 kg
Elm March 6, 1969 0432:02UT 65.48°N 147.13°W 140/170 km 12/12 kg
0431:47UT 65.16°N 147.00°W
Fir March 15, 1969 0508:15UT 55.34°N 147.52°W 165.0 km 48 kg
Gum March 19, 1969 0519:15UT 65.34°N 147.34°W 168.0 km 48 kg
Hemlock March 20, 1969 0539:11UT 65.40°N 147.21°W 175.8 km 96 kg
Ironwood March 11, 1969 1409:41UT 65.40°N 147.18°W 128/168 km 12112 kg
1410:47UT 65.43 °N 147.03°W
& Juniper March 5, 1969 0431:48UT 65.39°N 147.35°W 140]170 km 6/2.4 kg
0432:24UT 65.53°N 146.97°W
Kumquat September 5, 1969 0157:36UT 32.850°N 105.833°W 191.0 km 16 kg
Lime September 6, 1969 0155:36UT 32.850°N 106.550°W 201.5 km 16 kg
Mulberry September 13, 1969 0145:34UT 32.783°N I06.533°W 195.8 km 16 kg
Nutmeg January 16, 1971 2334:40UT 29.903°N 86.422°W 150.9 km 48 kg
Olive January 29, 1971 2353:57UT 29.790°N 86.690°W 193.4/185 km 320116 kg
2353:59UT 29.816°N 86.69 l°W
Plum January 20, 1971 2347:05UT 29.875°N 86.349°W 185.7 km 48 kg
Quince February 2, 1971 1634:06UT 29.8962°N 86.3363°W 180.7 km 48 kg
Redwood January 26, 1971 2332:09UT 39.703°N 86.634°W 255.6 km 48 kg
Spruce February 1, 1971 2352:04UT 29.740°N 86.575°W 187.3 km 48 kg
Tango October 21, 1971 2313:42UT 201.0 km 2 kg
 Source: "Chemical Releases from Space Shuttle Payloads," Thiokol
Wasatch Division May 1975, Ogden, Utah, NAS 5-24052, p. 3-3.

Figure B-1. Launch Locations for Chemical Release Payloads

10,

t,-

,,a 4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENTAGEOF TOTAL CHEMICALS RELEASED

Source: "Chemical Releases from Space Shuttle Payloads," Thiokol

Wasatch Division May 1975, Ogden, Utah, NAS 5-24052, p. 3-3.

Figure B-2. Approximate Altitude Distribution for Chemical Releases

B-7
THEORY OF INITIAL DISPERSION AND SPREAD

A brief summary of the initial dispersion and expansion is given below. Most past experiments
involved releases in the lower regions of the atmosphere from vehicles with velocities substantially
lower than the orbital velocities which will apply for releases from the shuttle. At very high alti-
tudes and low density, the velocity of the vehicle imparted to the released chemical cloud must be
considered in experiment planning (Source 2.7). For releases from high-velocity vehicles at lower
altitudes, the ambient atmosphere will stop the vapor or gaseous cloud relatively quickly by colli-
sions (Source 2.5). In either altitude regime liquid and solid particulate material will tend to con-
tinue in orbit. These high-velocity effects have to be considered for the Space Shuttle program.
The expansion of a gas of vapor cloud in near-vacuum has been treated in several studies (Source
2.8) and the theoretical "snowplow" model provides a generally accepted approach to estimating
early-time cloud expansion characteristics. A two-phase expansion is utilized. The first phase is
characterized by a decreasing velocity as the mass of ambient gas entrained becomes significant
relative to the released mass. At about the time these masses are equal, the initial expansion ends
and diffusion processes dominate.

Atmospheric releases have shown general agreement with this theory. Knowing the altitude, plus
the mass and temperature of vapor or gas released in an experiment, allows estimation of the size of
the expanded cloud at early times.

Expansion due to diffusion, movement due to gravitational fields and winds, and electric field and
magnetic field influences determine the time-history of chemical cloud development after its initial
expansion. The cloud dimensions may extend to the order of several kilometers for small, low-
altitude releases but may be, depending upon the definition, of the order of a 100 km or more for
larger releases at collision-free altitudes. In Figure B-3 from Source 1.40 some illustrative graphs are
given depicting in quantitative fashion the foregoing descriptive material.

Recently two detailed studied of high-altitude releases from the rocket or Space Shuttle have been
made. That of Linson and Baxter (Source 2.7) deals with the behavior of gas clouds provided by
releases possessing orbital velocity in either a point release or venting mode in an intermediate alti-
tude regime in the transition from self-continuum to diffusive flow. Included are calculations of the
time dependence of the radius of the cloud, average internal energy, translational velocity and dis-
tance traveled. Figure B-4 is a typical calculation. Bernhardt (Source 2.8) has extended the range
of calculations to a non-uniform atmosphere. See Figure B-5 as a typical calculation. From these
developments the releases from the Space Shuttle may be effectively calculated for experimental
assessment purposes.

B-8
 I O0 I I ,1.0

A 280
V Z
10 -- 0.1 >
260

n" k-

1.0 0.01 UO _ 240

300

D ,,, LU 220
_ > O
O
< I-200
w o1 -- 0.001 I-I-
< 180

160
0.01 I l { 0.0001
0.1 1.0 10 100 1,000 140
TIME (T/TN) 0.1 1 10 100 400
Stuart's Snowplow Model for Initial Expansion. Normalized PAYLOAD (KG)
radius RN =1 when mass of air swept up = mass of released
gas. Normalized velocity VN = 1 for released gas at release Equal Mass Radius for Barium asa Function
temperature. Normalized time= RN/VN when equal mass of Altitude and Payload (Assumes Vapor
would be swept up if velocity remained constant. Mass = 0.2 P) (After L. Linson)

300,

280 -- ! I [ I { I I 1 I
>" 60 - o_

260
Z o

,,, _ 40 --
a
D 220 _.

-- v)
200 LU
< Z
v 20
180 U
"1"
I-
160 (3
D
o o I I I I 1 I I I I
140 j ,
0.1 1 10 100 400 L) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

PAYLOAD (KG) TIME AFTER RELEASE (MIN)

Scale Size of Ba Ion Cloud Transverse to Mag-
netic Field as a Function of Altitude and Payload Extent of Large 8a Ion Cloud Along Magnetic Field Line at Late Time

t _ 1 minute (Assumes Vapor Mass= 0.2P) (After L. Linson and G. Meltz)

(After L. Linson)

Source: Linson, L.M. and D.C. Baxter, "Gas Release and Conductivity Mortification Studies,"
Science Applications Inc., Final Report. NAS-5-24127.

Figure B-3. Some Representative Calculations for Initial Cloud Growth

B-9
 M° = RELEASE MASS _.'/s = SATELLITE VELOCITY
H = ALTITUDE Ro = INITIAL EXPANSION VELOCITY
a° = EQUAL-MASS RADIUS 7 = RATIO OF SPECIFIC HEATS
L = DISTANCE TRAVELED, TAKEN FROM (2.8)

Figure B-4. Temperature, Radius, and Distance Traveled vs. Time for a 100kg Gas
Release at Orbital Velocity and at 200km Altitude

B-10
 .J
-a <1:
o k-
k- n-
n- uJ
uJ >
>

160.0 km CUBE CENTERED AT 400.0 km ALTITUDE 160.0 km CUBE CENTERED AT 400.0 km ALTITUDE
TIME AFTER RELEASE: 8.8sec
TIME AFTER RELEASE: 2.5sec
CO 2 CONCENTRATION AT SURFACE:9.2[8] cm "3 CO2 CONCENTRATION AT SURFACE: 2.1 [7] cm "3

CO2 CONCENTRATION 3
LOG10 (Number Density, cm" )

480 , ! _ _ ' _ '

I
460

,-I
<_ 440

uJ 420
iJJ

)°
D 400

j-
,_ 3_

_4sr _0.._' 360

340

(c) 320
160.0 km CUBE CENTERED AT 400.0 km ALTITUDE i -140 -120 -100 -80 _0 -40 -20 0 20
TIME AFTER RELEASE: 12.3 sec -3 S-N DISTANCE (KM)
CO2 CONCENTRATION AT SURFACE: 9.3[6] cm
(d)

Source: Bernhardt, P.A., "High Altitude Gas Releases-Transitions from Collisionless to Diffusive
Flow in a Nonuniform Atmosphere," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, vol. 59
(1978), p. 1162; also Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 84 (August 1, 1978), p. 4341.

Figure B-5. Formation of a Cometlike Tail on a High-Velocity Point Release, Moving

Horizontally. Scattering of Injected Molecules Cause the Elongation of the Originally
Spherical Vapor Cloud.

B-11
 APPENDIXC

SOMEDATA ON THE GEOPHYSICALENVIRONMENT

In this appendix a limited collection of geophysical data and information restricted to and relevant
to the CRM assessments is presented. For additional data and material the following is recommended
to the reader:

1. The Upper Atmosphere and Magnetosphere, National Academy of Sciences, 1977.

2. Physics of Magnetic Substorms, S. Akasofu, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977.

3. Physics of Planetary Ionosphere, S. J. Bauer, Springer-Verlag, 1973.

This appendix is divided into three Parts: Part 1-Basic Geophysical Data contained in Figures C-1
to C-4; Part 2-A Brief Discussion of the Ionosphere; and Part 3-Some Data on Micrometeorites.

SUMMARY OF GENERAL IONOSPHERIC PROPERTIES AND RADIO PROPAGATION (FROM

SOURCE 2.27)

The ionosphere is that region of the earth's upper atmosphere where the constituent gases are slightly
(up to 1 percent) ionized, mainly by solar radiation. The ionosphere, then, can be identified as a
plasma. It is macroscopically an electrically neutral region with equal numbers of positive and nega-
tive particles, but the negatively charged electrons, being much less massive than the positive ions,
are the particles that interact most strongly with radio waves. One aspect of this interaction has
been exploited for many years to provide relatively inexpensive long-distance HF communications,
by virtue of the ionospheric bending or refraction of radio waves back toward the earth at appropri-
ate frequencies.

Ionization, in amounts large enough to have significant effects on radio waves, begins in the D-region
at an altitude of about 60 km, and the density of ionized particles tend to increase with height
through the D- and E-regions as shown in Figure C-5. Above these regions is the F-region, where the
rare atmosphere contains a total of about 109 particles/cm 3. Most of the particles are neutral gases,
consisting largely of O2, O, N2, and He. However, some of the particles are ionized, and at a height
of about 300 km, peak electron and ion densities in the neighborhood of 106 particles/cm 3 occur.
Above and below that altitude, fewer ionized particles are created, and their density-height profile,
as in Figure C-5, is approximately the shape of a parabola. In addition to particle density, another
characterization of the various constituents in the ionospheric plasma is their temperature or energy
equivalent, derived from the kinetic theory of gases. Typical daytime values of electron, ion, and
neutral temperatures near 300 km altitude at Boulder, Colorado are, respectively, 2000 K, 1000 K,
and 950 K (0.175, 0.088, and 0.083 eV). Particle temperature is a function of altitude, and a rep-
resentative profile is also shown in Figure C-5. The ionosphereis a very dynamic medium and ion-
ization density-height and temperature-height profiles and other characteristics vary diurnally, sea-
sonally, with solar activity, and with latitude and longitude.

C-1
 100,000

GEOSYNCHRONOUS
ORBIT
(GEO) PLASMAPAUSE

10,0o0

PLASMASHERE

MAGN ETOSPHERE

1,000 EXOSPH ER E

LOW 1

ORBIT
EARTH _ l
'" (LEO) F2 - REGION
r_ THERMOSPHERE IONOSPHERE
F1 - REGION
I-
--I TROPOPAUSE
100 E - REGION
MESOPAUSE A
MESOSPHERE I D- REGION
STRATOPAUSE T

STRATOSPHERE IONIZED ATMOSPHERIC REGIONS

TURBOPAUSE 1

10

TROPOSPHERE

Source: NASA, "Environmental Impact Statement Concerning Activities of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration at Wallops Island, Virginia."

Figure C-1. Regions of the Atmosphere

C-2
 (m)

1 10 102 103 i04 105

500 i I ' o
450 \ \
% \ 20000

400 \ \
\ \ 1200° \

350 _ \

Tex = 7000 X \ \
300
\
- \
E
= \ \
,,,
a 26o \ \
=
I.- \
.d
< \
200 X X \
\
\ ,q

150

100 n
10 13 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018
NUMBER DENSITY (m"3)

I ' , I I , I , I I , I I , I I I n I
1013 10"12 10-11 10-10 10-9 10-8 10-7

MASS DENSITY (kg/m3)

Source: Linson, L.M. and D.C. Baxter, "Gas Release and Conductivity Mortification Studies,"
Science Applications Inc., La Jolla, Calif., Final Report, SAI 02379-713L J, LAPS-S 1, May 1979,
NAS 5-24127.

Figure C-2. Number Density, n, Mass Density, Pa, and Mean-Free-Path, X, as a Function of
Altitude Based on the CIRA 1972 Model Atmosphere. (Note the logarithmic
altitude scale. The solid curves correspond to an exospheric temperature
Tex = 1200°;the dashed curves correspond to Tex = 700 ° and 2000°.)

C-3
 J MAGN ETOSHEATH

J !'::".:!i PLASMA MANTLE

• . . .....
. '. " .....
• . , •

SOLAR WIND

MASPHERE

"PLASMASHEET

RADIATION BELT AND

RING CURRENT

POLAR WIND

" 2 :... .... • -.............. _. ..

_POLAR i :':'.-i'::
:'."'"'):_.:':'i.__'",i'.';:':,'i:::_-;'.':::':::.:':
' ',':,.

Source: NASA, "Chemical Release Module-A Multi-User Facility for Shuttle Spacelab," Goddard
Space Flight Center, May 1979.

Figure C-3. Geophysical Regimes

C-4
 (a) | _ FIELD LINE
_ SOLAR WIND

MAGN ETOPAUSE Bn
B

(b) _ _ PLASMA

1 /'" _ MAGNETOTAI L

L _ CIRCUIT

A UR0 RA _---"__-OLIkS _ r'" --AU RgRculOVA L

® _ POSITIVE PARTICLE

Q _ NEGATIVE PARTICLE

_ PLASMA MOTION
ELECTRIC CURRENT
(c)
_SOLAR WIND - MAGNETOSPHERE

//_ DYNAMO
AURORAL 1 l
CURRENT
_ /____..,_ _ _ MAGNETOTAIL

y_ CURRENT

POLAR IONSOPHERE

Source: Akasofu, S., "Physics of MagTzetosphericSubstorms,'" D. Reidel Publishing Company,

1977, p. 619.

Figure C-4. Processes Associated with the Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Dynamo. The location
where the dynamo action takes place is schematically shown in (a). The basic
processes associated with the dynamo and the connected circuits are shown in (b)
and (c).

C-5
 LOG Ne (cm"3) Tn (°K)

Figure C-5. Representative Electron Density Profile for Daytime (Solid Line) and Nighttime
(Dashed Line) Ionosphere, Showing Strata Known as D, E, F I , and F 2 layers
(A). Representative Daytime Ionospheric Temperature Profile (B).

C-6
[m.2 sec"1] 0 -- HEOS-2

MICRO-METEORITE EQUIVALENT ,"

TO CHEMICALRELEASE PARTICLES

-2 m

-3 -- _ PR-RANDOM

-4 O PR-TOTAL

-6
-5 _-- IR- GROUP-FLuxO

I I I I I I I I
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 re[g]

Source: Fechtig, H., E. Gruen, and G. Manfil, "Micrometeoroids within Ten Earth Radii," Plane-
tary and Space Science, Vol. 27, pp. 511-531, 1979.

Figure C-6. Interplanetary Dust Fluxes below 60.000 km (PR region) IR-random: Sporadic dust
flux of deep space a 1 AU. PR-random: sporadic dust flux in PR-region. Group-
flux: Fluxes of lunar ejecta. PR-totah Total flux in PR-region. PR is perigree
region near 10 earth radii.

C-7
With the preceding brief descriptions of the ionosphere and plasmas in mind, we turn now to con-
sideration of the consequences of a radio wave traveling into a plasma region.

A quantity of fundamental importance in considering radio wave propagation in a plasma, is the

plasma frequency. The plasma frequency fN is given by

Ne 2
f_ - (1)
4n 2e o m

where N, e, and m are, respectively, the number density, charge, and mass of the particles, and eo is
the permitivity of free space. Ion plasma frequencies are very low in comparison with electron
plasma frequencies because of the high mass of the ion particles, which are primarily O+ ions in the
F-region. The plasma frequency is the characteristic oscillation rate for electrostatic disturbances in
a plasma, and electrons and ions naturally oscillate back and forth weakly at their respective plasma
frequencies. For the discussion that follows, the electron plasma frequency is of greater importance
and when the term "plasma frequency" is used, it pertains to electrons. As a reference point, we
note that an electron density of 106 electrons/cm 3 corresponds to a plasma frequency of 9 MHz.
This is representative of maximum plasma frequencies in the ionosphere.

Under the influence of a passing electromagnetic wave, an oscillatory motion at the frequency of
the wave is imparted to ions and electrons in a plasma; consequently, some energy from the wave is
absorbed, because of collisions, and some is reradiated. As far as the effect on the electromagnetic
wave is concerned, the plasma appears as an imperfect dielectric, having an effective dielectric con-
stant and an effective conductivity that differ from those of free space. The effective dielectric
constant is reduced below that of free space, while the conductivity is increased. Both the dielectric
constant and conductivity depend upon the local plasma frequency and the collision frequencies
between particles, principally between electrons and ions. They are also strongly dependent upon
the frequency of the incident radio wave so that the ionosphere is a dispersive medium, but different
from what one is used to in optics. The region is in the realm of anomalous dispersion; the iono-
sphere is a "rarer" medium for radio waves. One consequence of the dependence of the dielectric
constant upon plasma frequency is that as a radio wave enters the ionosphere from below, it moves
from a region where the refractive index is united into one where the index decreases as the wave
encounters increasing electron density. The index of refraction for a radio wave having a frequency
equal to the local plasma frequency is zero. At that point, the group velocity of the wave also be-
comes zero and the wave is reflected. The maximum ionospheric plasma frequency at a given time
is called the "critical" or "pentration" frequency of the F layer. It is the lowest frequency radio
wave that would pass through the ionosphere, and typically it ranges from about 3 to 10 MHz.

INPUT OF MICROMETEORITESINTO THE EARTH'S UPPERATMOSPHERE

MassInput of BariumandOther Species

The annual addition of cosmic dust in the earth's upper atmosphere has been estimated as between
1.6 × I07 kg/year (Hughes, 1975) and 5 × 107 kg/year (Cosby and Lyle, 1965). Consequently, the

C-8
proposed CRM annual mass injection rate of 103 kg is approximately 10.4 times the meteoritic rate,
although for some specific species such as Ba or Li, it can be much greater. For Ba with a meteoritic
abundance of 3 × 10.6 (Mason, 1971), the meteoritic injection amounts to 50 to 200 kg Ba/year.

Enhancement
of AmbientBariumdueto CRM Releases
1

Let us assume a maximum plausible CRM input into the upper atmosphere of 1000 kg Ba/year.
This larger than the presumed meteoritic input of 3 × 10-6 (Mason, 1971) times (1.6-5) X 107 kg/
year (see above), or 50 to 200 kg Ba/year.

Of concern to the biosphere would be the resultant enhancement in the atmosphere's planetary
boundary layer (and spread uniformly over a depth of 1 km in the globe, this would give an en-
hancement of 2 × 10-7 pg/m 3-year) or in the upper ocean (spread uniformly over a depth of 50 m
in the global ocean, this would give an enhancement of 6 X 10-17 gm/gm seawater-year, or 6 × 10s
pg/m 3-year).

A mean turnover time in the atmospheric boundary layer is 1 to 10 days (see, e.g. Reiter and
Bauer, 1975) and in the upper ocean, 100 to 1000 years (Broecker, 1963). Thus, with measured air
values of .006 pg/m 3 in the atmosphere and 10-s gm/gm seawater 2 (see also Appendix F, for refer-
ences and ranges), fractional enhancements of barium are of order 3 × 10-7 in the atmosphere, or
2 X 10 -9 in the ocean. These values may fluctuate by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude;note, however,
that some of the added material in the atmosphere will tend to be BaSO4 which is insoluble, inert,
and nontoxic.

Evidently most of the barium in the biosphere must be due to terrestrial sources such as wind-blown
dust, sea spray, and the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels (see Appendix F).

MeteoriticFlux in Space

The flux of micro-meteorites in space (Source 2.21) is based on the latest experimental measure-
ments from the HEOS micro-meteorite measurements of H. Fechtig and associates during 1972 to
1974. See Figure C-6.

IBauer, E., "Report of the Review Panel on Environmental Assessment of the CRM Program," 1980 (Part I of this technical paper).
2Goldberg, E. D., "The Oceans as a Chemical System," Ch. 1 in M. N. Hill, Ed., The Sea- Vol. 2, Wiley-Interscience, 1963.

C-9
 REFERENCES

1. Broecker, W. S., "Radioisotopes and Oceanic Mixing," Technical Progress Report No. COO-
3180-2, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Palisades, N.Y., May 1974.

2. Cosby, W. A. and R. G. Lyle, "The Meteoroid Environment and Its Effect on Materials and
Equipment," NASA, SP-78, 1965.

3. Hughes, D. W., "Cosmic Dust Influx to the Earth," Space Research, 15, 1975, p. 531.

4. Mason, B., "Handbook of Elemental Abundances in Meteorites," Gordon and Breach, Science
Publishers Inc., 1971, p. 530.

5. Reiter, E. R. and E. Bauer, "Residence Times of Atmospheric Pollutants," The National

Stratosphere of 1974, CIAP Monograph, Department of Transportation Report DOT-TST-
75-51, Institute for Defense Analysis, Science and Technology Division, Final Report,
September 1975, pp. 2-134.

C-10
 APPENDIX D

SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS ON THE EFFECT OF CHEMICAL RELEASE

EXPERIMENTS ON SPACECRAFT

The function of this appendix is to provide some quantitative estimates for the degree of probabil-
ity or improbability that a chemical release experiment might affect spacecraft or spacecraft sensors.
The appendix is divided into two parts. In Section 1 (excerpt from memo J. J. Scialdone) an
exemplar calculation is utilized that has been carried out for a co-orbital satellite 50 km away from
a 32 kg barium release which was an initial planning condition for the Cameo experiment. The cal-
culation is for a simple isotropic expansion and finds no significant effects by five order of magni-
tude (105) to form a monolayer because of the gases released impinging on the spacecraft. In
Section 2, the isotropic model for particulate expansion is justified relative to the actual spreading
along the orbit.

The effect of the particles released for the model adopted is the equivalent, in terms of micro-
meteorite cratering, of an exposure in orbit of 3 hours to 1 day. It is noted that the time equivalent
for a micro-meteorite mass flux is calculated in Section 1 but to get the equivalent cratering effect
the masses for the two particle sizes quoted (4 X 10-9 and 2 X 106g) must be converted to micro-
meteorite masses of 2 X 10q3g and 3 X 10"lZg. The frequency from Figure C-6 then gives the
quoted equivalent time for micro-meteorite exposure of 3 hours and 1 day approximately. It is
noted that an impact velocity of only 25 m/sec is, however, generally nondamaging as it is below
the elastic limit. For a counter-rotating satellite, the situation is different since here the relative
velocity can be approximately 14 to 16 km/sec and the equivalent micro-meteorite exposure is
approximately 85 to 285 days. If all the particles impinging simply stick on the exposed surface, it
can be seen that the surface coverage amounts to approximately 108 to 10-9 of the surface area
which is not enough to affect a spacecraft or sensors.

The calculations further indicate that the contamination concentrations in orbit will be less than
levels normally present in carefully controlled factory-to-launchpad environments.

Because of the direct relationship to mass, for a 103 kg release at a 50 km distance the possible
mono-layer fraction increases by a factor of 30 and becomes 3 X 10-4 and the equivalent micro-
meteorite exposure time for cratering becomes of the order of days to weeks relative to the 32 kg
release for the co-orbital case.

D-1
1. Exemplar Calculation (For Cameo Experiment) On Chemical Release Effect on Spacecraft
Sensors (from memo by J.J. Scialdone, 3/20/78 to NASA Review Team)

DATA

Mixture release: 32 kg

Consist of,

Barium yapor (10 percent) ........................................... 3.2 kg

Velocity approximately 1.0 km/s

Particulates:

1. _<20 × 10.4 cm dia particles (32 percent) ............................. 10.24 kg

11 × 10.4 cm dia avg. particles
4 × 10.9 g particles
150 m/s speed particles

2. _>20 × 10.4 cm dia particles (58 percent) ............................. 18.56 kg

80 × 10-4 cm dia avg. particles
1.6 × 10-6 g avg. particles
25 m/s speed particles

From U.S. Standard Atmosphere,

• Density @900 km alt. (He, 0) 7.87 × 10s cm3

• Mean Free Path 2.1 × 10a m

• Pressure 8.15 × 10-1a torr

From NASA TM78119, Rev. 1977, "Space and Planet Environment Criteria" document
(Marshall),

• Meteoroid Environment (p. 233) Avg. Annual Meteor. Flux Model for particle
meteorite 10-12 _<m _< 10.6 g
log Na- = -14.339-1.584 log m -.063(log m)2
hence: m =4.10 -9 g NT = 3.31 × 106p/m2/s = 2.85 × 10-s P/cm2/day
m = 1.6× 10.9 NT = 5.31 × 10SP/m2/s=4.58× 10.7 P/cm2/day

Meteorites Avg. V = 20 km/s

D-2
 From Standards for Clean Rooms, NHB 5340.2 (NASA STD for Clean Rooms), p. 5.1.I,

Class10000(diameter)

11 X 10.4 cm particle <3.5 X 10 "1 part/liter (10 ft3)

80 X 10-4 cm particle < 3.5 × 10-3 part/liter (.2p/ft 3)

Class 100

11 X 10.4 cm <3.5 X 103 p/1

80 × 10-4 cm < 3.5 X 104 p/1

CALCULATION

Assumptions The spacecraft is 50 km from the vapor and particulate release.

Vapor and dust move out radially and uniformly from the point of release.

-- The expansion is "free," there is no collision with ambient atoms.

The spacecraft and Cameo are moving at the same velocity

V _ 8 km/s
'_/¢i;_ f / _ "" _

8_s Vapor is approaching spacecraft at v = 1 kin/s, particulates at 150 m/s and 25 m/s.

Flux Densities

1. For particles with an averagemass = 4 X 109 g and an average diameter = 11 X 10.4 cm

Time to _each spacecraft"

50km × 10"3m/kin
t- = 333 sec _ 5.5 min
150m/s

The number of particles of this size released,

10.24 g X 103
= 2.56 X 1012 particle/release
4 X 10-9 g/part

D-3
For conservation of mass within an expanding sphere, the flux density p(particle/cm2) when
these particles reach the spacecraft 50 km away, will be

R= 50km

-- P _ surface
no. of particles
of sphere - 4rr(50X
2.56 X 10_2
10s)2

= 8.14 X 10 -3 part./cm 2

This flux density can be compared to the meteorite flux of the same size (m = 4 X 10 -9 g) given
by the equation in the references above.

logN T = -14.339-1.584 log 4 X 10 -9 - .063(log 4 X 10"9) 2

= 5.4796 NT = 3.31 X 10.6 p/m2/s (-10-4m---2./

\ cm2 !

3.6 X 103s X 24h

h d

= 2.85 X 10-Sp/cm2/day

Therefore, the flux density O = 8.14 X 10.3 p/cm2 is equivalent to

8.14 X 10.3 p/cm2

= 285 days
2.85 X 10s p/cm2/day

of the meteorites of the same mass.

The energy of these particles will be E = Emeteors = 5.6 X 10s times the energy
(2150m/s)
X 104m/s 2
of a meteorite of the same mass.

2. For particles with an average mass = 1.6 N 10.6g and an average diameter = 80 X 10.4cm

Time to reach spacecraft,

50 X 103m
2000s -_ 33min.
25m/s

The number of particles released of this size

18.56 X 103 g
-- 1.16 X 10x° particle.
1.6X 10.6 g/p

D-4
 Again, for conservation of mass at 50 km, the flux density is

1.16X lOl°p
p = = 3.69 × 10.5 p/cm 2.
4_r(50 × 105) 2

The meteorites of the same size m = 1.6 × 10.6 g, using the recommended equation, have a flux

NT = 5.31 X 108p/m2/s= 4.59 × 10Tp/cm2/day.

Therefore, the flux density O = 3.69 × 10.5 p/cm 2 is equivalent to

3.69 X lOSp/cm 2
= 84.48 days
4.59 X lOTp/cm2/day

of the meteorites of same mass.

The energy of these particles will be

E= ( 25_m_/s ]z Emeteorite = 1.56 X 10 .6

\2 X 104m/s !

times the energy of a meteorite of the same mass.

ParticulateDensities

1. Conservatively, apply to the stream tube 1,2,3,4, the conservation of

2 mass, and assume the tube is about £ = 3m wide (approximately a s/c
dimension).
3

Am
- = nv (p/cm 2. s)
AAt A
_-._3m

Am Am
n- =_ (p/cm 3)
AvAt A£

Am

Particle ma = 4.10 .9 g,'-_--" =p = 8.14× 10-3p/cm 2 (as per above).

8.14 X 10-3p/cm 2
n= = 2.71 X 10Sp/cm 3
3 × 102cm

D-5
 Am 2
Particle m = 1.6 × 10 -6 g, - p = 3.69 × 10-Sp/cm
a A

3.69 × 10Sp/cm 2
n= = 1.23 X l(rTp/cm 3
3 X 102 cm

2. Assume particles are uniformly distributed in the 50 km sphere

ma = 4X 10-9 g(11 × 10-4 cm dia); particle released = 2.56 × 1012

2.56 × 1012 2.56 × 1012p/rel

n = - = 4.9 × l#9p]cm 3
4/3 rr R 3 5.23 × 102°cm 3

m a = 1.6× 10-6 g(80× 10.4 cmdia);particlerelease = 1.16× 101°

1.16 × 101°
n= = 2.21 × 10-1Xp/cm3
5.23 × 1020

These particle densities can be compared to Clean Room Std. for Class 100 and 10 000:

Class 10000:n<3.5 X 10"4p/cm 3 for 11 X 10-4# diaand

n <3.5 X 10-6p/cm a for 80 X 104/2 dia

Class 100 • n <3.5 X 106p/cm 3 for 11 × 10-4/2 dia and

n <3.5 X 10Sp/cm 3 for 80 X 10"4/2 dia

BARIUM DEPOSIT AND ENVIRONMENT

Mass 3.2 kg/release

m = 137.34 kg/mole
o

diamol or atom * 1.2A, o=Trd 2 =4.52 X 10"16cm2

1 cm 2
atoms/monolayer - - 2.21 × 101s atoms/cm 2/monolayer
o

D-6
 3.2 kg × 6.02 × 1026atom/kg mole
Atoms ejected = = 1.402 × 10z s
137.34 kg mole
Flux density at 50 km radius

atoms ejected 1.402 × 102s

= -- 4.45 × 101° atoms/cm z
4zr(50 × 10s) 2 314.16 × 1012

This density is 5 orders of magnitude less than required for a monolayer (2.2 × 101 s atoms/cm 2).

A monolayer could be obtained, assuming a very improbable sticking and accommodation coeffi-
cient of 1, if the spacecraft surface was at a radial distance of

R(atoms*cted)'
(14X102s
.............
)
4rr • p monolayer 4zr.• 2.21 × I01 s
224.5 m

Density of Ba vapor

Assume: stream tube, density

Am 4.45 X 101°
n .... O/1 = = 1.48 × 108 atoms/cm 3
i-" AAt'v 3 × 102

for a uniform dispersed density in 50 km sphere

atoms eject 1.402 × 102s 1.4 × 10z s

n .... 2.68 × 104cm "3
volume 4/3rrR3 5.23 × 1020

These densities compare to the ambient density of 7.86 × l0 scm3 at 900 km altitude.

D-7
 Table D-1
CameoSummaryof Calculations
and Comparisons

Released Particles Parameters Calculated at 50 km Released Particle

Diam. (cm) Mass (g) Number Time To S/C (sec.) Flux Dens. (cm -2) No Density (liter-I) Velocities (m/s)

11 X10 4 4 X 10.9 2.56 X 1012 333 8.14 X I0 3 2.7 × 10"2/5 × 106 ] 150
80 X 10-4 1.6 × 10-6 1.16 X 101° 2000 3.69 X I0 "5 1.23 X 104/2.2 X 10-8 25
I

Clean Room Comparison Barium Vapor Release

Particle Clean Room Part. Dist. Ejected, 1.4 × 1025 atmos/molec.

Size (part./liter) Density @ 50 km Velocity, _ 1 km/s
(cm) Class 100 Class 10000 (Part./Liter) Time to 50 km, * 50 sec
Flux@ 50km, 4.45 × 10 l° cm-2
11 × 10-4 3.5 × 10-3 3.5 X 101 2.7 X 102/5 × 10-6 Density @ 50 kin, 1.4 × 108/2.7 × 104c
80 X 10-4 3.5 X 10-5 3.5 X 10-3 1.23 X 104/2.2 X 10-8

Meteorites Energy Comparison Comparison:

Released Particles Meteorites Density @ 900 km, 7.86 X 10s cm"3

Energy Rel. Part. E
Velocity
Mass (g) (m/s) Mass (g) Velocity m/s Energy Meteor. EM: ,M°n°layer2.21
× 10lsFluxatom/cm2@
225 m.
Mean Speed of Particle * 2 km/s
4 X 10.9 150 4 X 10.9 20 X 103 avg 5.6 × 10-s @ 900 km
1.6 X 10"6 25 1.6 X 10.6 20 X 103 avg 1.56 X 10"6
JUSTIFICATION OF THE ISOTROPICEXPANSIONMODEL FOR THE INITIAL PHASE

The effect of orbital dynamics and drag on small particles released from spacecraft or chemical
releases in circular orbits has been calculated. It has been shown that
"7-
such particles will become
distributed along the orbital path and that the net separation rate, S, between the particle and the
spacecraft (Source 2.22) is givenby

--• 3 6v 16v\2 2C D APa v_t

S =_2 vG 2_v® cos 3, + _"_-..G) m

where v® is orbital velocity, 6v is ejectionvelocity, 3'is the angleof ejection relativeto the orbital
velocity vector, CD is the drag coefficient, A/m is the area to mass ratio of the particle, Pa is the
atmospheric density, and t is the time after ejection. Particlesejected randomly will be conf'medby
orbital dynamics to a tube of cross-sectionalarea given approximately by rr_2 where _ = re {ivv9
and r ® is the orbit radius vector. An illustration of the separation rate is given in Figure D-1.

With regard to the confinement tube, for v = 8 km/sec, 8v= 150/sec and r = 6878 km, _ is 129km.
Consequently the assumption of isotropic expansion to 50 km isnot inconsistent with a more com-
plex picture. Moreover, as time increases,the particle density and flux decreaseto levelslessthan
that calculatedin Section I becauseof the particle separation along the tube.

D-9
 0.10

0°

0.08
/j
F

F
_
0.06

_ 4 60o

oo
0.02 /_
F¢ / ' 8°° "_

0 3 4 6 7

T(ORBITS)

Source: Naumann, R.J., "Dynamics and Column Densities of Small Particles

Ejected from Spacecraft," NASA TN D-7590, February 1974.

Figure D-1. Separation distance between particle and spacecraft. (Initially the particles
leave at their given separation velocity, but after ",, 0.1 orbit the orbital
dynamics may either accelerate or retard the separation rate, depending
on the ejection angle.) For 6v = 0.0005V and no drag.

D-10
 APPENDIX E

CONSIDERATION OF LITHIUM CHANGES IN THE UPPERATMOSPHERE

One of the chemical species in the upper atmosphere above 70 km, which will undoubtedly be
affected by "large-scale" chemical releases, is lithium. As can be seen from Table E-l, the total
amount of Li in the upper atmosphere above 70 km amounts to less than a kilogram in comparison
with the multi-kilogram releases of lithium which are projected in the CRM program. Applying
meteoritic input and lifetime considerations, the total atmospheric mass of lithium is of the order
of 70 kg.

It is now well established that some high intensities reported for the Li line were caused by arti-
ficial injection of Li atoms into the atmosphere by bomb explosions, (source 2.24 and Refs. Table
E-l). Several observations have shown that the Li intensity increases abruptly 2 to 3 days after a
major nuclear bomb is exploded in the atmosphere. There is then a steady decrease of the intensity
during the following month or more, indicating a slow fallout of the Li atoms. This artificial in-
jection certainly makes it difficult to determine the atmospheric content of natural Li atoms.

Similar remarks appertain with a shorter time scale relative to the smaller and nonradioactive
chemical releases of lithium. For example, following the Cameo release at 960 km in November
1978, lithium enhancements near 90 km were observed within less than one day using sensitive
Lidar equipment but within two weeks the enhancement dropped below the background level of
ambient lithium. In addition to recent Lidar techniques, the previously used twilight methods of
observation are extraordinarily sensitive to resonant line trace elements, expecially the alkalis, Li,
Na, K and the alkali4ike ions Ca+ and Ba.. All but Ba+ have been routinely observed in twilight
studies at altitudes near 90 km in detectable amounts (alkalis are given in Table E-l). Hunten
(source 2.24) states "enduring effect of Li injections have certainly been observed and may well
have hidden any natural effect ever since the first observations in 1957." The only societal effect
established for a lithium perturbation to our knowledge is the aeronomic scientific one in which
the natural source is covered over. The lithium releases have a positive result in that in their long
term perturbation, they undoubtedly will further increase our knowledge of lithium lifetime, sinks
and sources, etc., and perhaps further discriminate between suggested natural sources such as
meteors, the ocean, etc.

E-1
 Table E-1
Massof UpperAtmosphericAlkaliSpecies
for Comparisons
withChemicalReleaseModulePayloads*

Extimated
Max. Concen- Natural Total
Altitude tration (cm"3) Flux Particle per Total Global
Species Regime (km) and ALT. (km) (cm"2 sec-1) Column (cm"2) Mass (kg)

1. Lithium 70-95 1.1 (80) 1.2 × 101 1.6 × 106 (1) .08

Total Lithium
(Li + Li + H20) 2.3 × 106 (2) .12

2. Sodium* 85-95 1000 (91) 1.3 × 104 1.6 N 109 304

3. Potassium* 92-100 11 (95) 2.9 × 102 1.6 × 107 5.2

b,3

*Ratio of Li :Sodium :Potassium = 1 : 1000" 10 Data synthesized from Refs. ( 1,2,3) below.

References

Mitra, V., "Deposition of Twilight Lithium by a High Altitude Thermonuclear Explosion,"

Annales de Geophysique, t. 30, fasc. 4, 1974, pp. 497-502.

Ibid., "Origin of Alkali Metals in the Earth's Atmosphere," fasc. 3, pp. 421-427.

Kvifte, G., Atmospheric Emissions, B. McCorrnack, G. A. Omholt, 1968.

 APPENDIX F

TOXICITY OF BARIUM (ADAPTED FROM SOURCE1,45)

There is little known about barium in the earth's atmosphere. Barium is the sixteenth most abun-
dant element in the earth's crust, occurring at concentrations of 250 to 450 ppm as compared with
300 ppm for strontium and 36 000 ppm for calcium; seawater barium concentrations are 0.03 to
0.05 ppm. 1,2

It is considered to be moderately toxic with a hazard potential directly related to the solubility of
its compounds. Barium sulfate, a very insoluble compound, is considered to be nontoxic, and large
quantities are routinely administered by mouth to patients undergoing X-rays of the GI tract. Two
soluble compounds, barium carbonate and barium chloride, are considered to be quite toxic; the
carbonate has been used as a rat poison. Soluble barium in the organism causes excitability of mus-
cles and effects on the hematopoietic and nervous systems 2,3. Inhalation of insoluble barium com-
pounds, e.g. the sulfate, has produced "baritosis," a benign condition visible on X-ray examination
of the lungs.

Sources for natural barium input into the upper atmosphere include meteors and micro-meteors.
An estimate of the magnitude of these sources suggests an input of 50 to 200 kg/yr (Appendix C,
Section 3). Barium enters the lower atmosphere by precipitation from higher altitudes, wind-
blown dust, dehydration of seawater, combustion of fossil fuels, and many other processes. Trace
quantities of barium are found in coal ash ranging from 0.05 to 0.8 percent for various continental
American and Alaskan coals.4

The limit recommended for industrial exposure of 0.5 /_g/m 3 in air, and the present OSHA stan-
dard, was based on experience at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory with the explosive con-
stituent barium nitrate. 3 There is at present no ambient air quality standard for barium, but if
there were, it could be expected to be much lower than 0.5/ag/m 3-perhaps 5/_g/m 3. Few studies
have been made of ambient levels of barium in the atmosphere; it is not one of the elements pres-
ently measured by the various air sampling networks. A recent study, however, reported concen-
trations of 0.08/ag/m 3 in Denver and 0.09 #g/m 3 in St. Louis. s A 1956 study of two years' data
collected by the U.S. Public Health Service Air Sampling Network which measured barium showed a
median concentration of 0.006 tag/m 3 but included individual samples ranging up to 1.5/_g/m 3.
This study included 754 samples from 20 cities and suburban sites. 6 While the strontium content
of food has been studied extensively, there is only one known report of a barium measurement-an
average of 0.35 ppm in a hospital diet. 2

Both the absolute and relative enhancements of barium from projected CRM releases are many or-
ders of magnitude below levels that might be of concern because of health effect (See Appendix C).

F-1
 FOOTNOTESTO APPENDIX F

l. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 50th Edition, Chemical Rubber Co., 1970, p. F-144.

2. H.A. Schroeder, I.H. Tipton, and A.P. Nason, "Trace Metals in Man: Strontium and Barium,"
J. Chronic Dis. 25, 491 (1972).

3. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values, Amer. Conf. of Govt. Ind. Hygienists, p. 21
(1971).

4. "Air Pollution Aspects of Barium and Its Compounds," Litton Industries, Bethesda, Md.,
September, 1967.

5. R.E. Lee Jr., S.A. Goranson, R.F. Enrione, and G.B. Morgan, "National Air Surveillance Cascade
Impactor Network II. Size Distribution Measurements of Trace Metal Components," Env. Sci.
and Tech. 6, 1025 (1972).

6. E.C. Tabor and W.V. Warren, "Distribution of Certain Metals in the Atmosphere of Some
American Cities," Arch. Ind. Health 1 7, 145 (1958).

F-2
 APPENDIX G

THE IMPACT OF CHEMICAL RELEASE EXPERIMENTS

ON OPTICAL ASTRONOMY

This appendix includes material which is relevant to, and is utilized in, the main text for the assess-
ment of the impact of chemical release experiments on optical astronomy. Its substance is an evalu-
ation for this program by K. Janes and M. Mendillo of the overall problem of the effects of an in-
crease in sky brightness. As stated by them, it does not directly assess any chemical release program
or the CRM program in particular, as is done in the main text. Its function is to set limits-in par-
ticular for the impact on optical astronomy of frequent or steady-state changes in night sky brightness.

Following this report is a table providing a brightness comparison between chemical release and
night sky feature brightnesses.

THE IMPACT OF CHEMICAL RELEASE EXPERIMENTS ON OPTICAL ASTRONOMY

(K. Janesand M. Mendillo, Boston University, Department of Astronomy)

In recent years, optical astronomers have become increasingly concerned with "light pollution"-
the high level of illumination of the night sky by cities. The reasons for this concern are two-fold:
first, many of the most interesting astrophysical problems require observations of exceedingly
distant and faint objects; and second, the amount of artificial illumination is growing rapidly.
Several recent studies (Hoag et al., 1973; Walker, 1973, 1977) have shown that city lights are be-
coming troublesome at several of the major western observatories and that there are few, if any,
sites in the U.S. with a dark enough sky to justify the expense of a new observatory.

Although city lights have received most of the attention, there are other sources of artificial illumi-
nation that could affect astronomical observations. These include reflections from the proposed
Solar Power Satellite system and airglow from large-scale Ionospheric and Magnetospheric modifi-
cation experiments. Before proceeding with such projects, it is appropriate to consider what effects
they may have on astronomical observations.

Astronomical measurements can be affected either by light scattered into the line of sight or by
light emitted along the line of sight. Examples of the former are moonlight, zodiacal light or city
lights; sources of emission include airglow, aurorae, faint stars, and galaxies. From the various
natural sources, the typical brightness of the night sky (Bs) is, in astronomical terms, equivalent to
290 10th visual magnitude (my) stars per square degree. 1 This is equivalent to a sky "surface
brightness" of 2.09 X 10-8 stilb near 5500/_ (Allen, 1973), where 1 stilb = 1 lumen/cm2/ster. At
5500 /_, 1 lumen = 1.47 × 10-3 Watt (W). Thus, the sky brightness Bs = 0.03 nW/cmZ/steror, in
aeronomical terms, approximately 1 kilorayleigh, since 1R (106 photons emitted in all directions

1Allen, C.W., Astrophysical Quantities, The Athlone Press, University of London, 1973.

G-1
per cm 2 vertical column per second) equals 0.1581/;k(._) nW/cm2/ster. In terms of its spectrum,
the night sky is a combination of continuous radiation and emission lines being mostly airglow, but
including (increasingly) lines of mercury and sodium reflected from streetlights.

The importance of the background sky brightness also depends on the nature of the observation
being made. The astronomer's ability to study the faintest objects in the night sky (quasars, distant
galaxies, faint stars and clusters in our own galaxy) is limited almost entirely by the background
sky brightness and the steadiness of the atmosphere ("seeing"). In such observations, a doubling
of the sky brightness requires almost a doubling of the observing time to make the same measure-
ment. In such areas as stellar astrophysics (high resolution spectroscopy, many variable star mea-
surements) or astrometry (stellar positions and motions) observations are generally less sensitive to
the brightness of the sky. In the case of I.R. Astronomy, the thermal emission of the atmosphere
itself (as well as the telescope) overwhelms all other possible sources of interference. Since astro-
nomical measurements in the ultraviolet region are made from instruments carried above the Earth's
atmosphere, artificial light sources contribute to sky brightness only if located beyond the altitude
of the UV satellite or rocketborne probe.

The importance of the sky brightness to various fields of astronomy is shown in Table G-1. Table
G-1 is necessarily qualitative and perhaps oversimplifies the sub-disciplines of astronomy, but it
does show how various increases in the sky brightness will affect the various fields.

TableG-1
Effectsof an Increasein Sky Brightness

Field 10% 100% 10 Times 100 Times

Extragalactic Noticeable Serious Prohibitive Prohibitive

Astronomy

Galactic Noticeable Serious Prohibitive Prohibitive

Astronomy

Stellar None None Noticeable Serious

Astrophysics

Astrometry None None Noticeable Serious

I.R. Astronomy None None None None

G-2
Table G-1 presumes that any increase in sky brightness has a continuous spectrum; if the emission
is instead in a few spectral lines, spectroscopic studies will be less seriously affected within each
category, although broad band observations (such as photography) will be seriously affected. When
considering line emissions, however, two additional points should be noted. First, the night sky
emissions could coincide in wavelength with astrophysically important spectral lines. For example,
the sodium emission in airglow and in streetlights obscures the important sodium absorption in
galaxies, and the emission lines in atmospheric barium release experiments could interfere with a
group of interesting red giant stars which show barium in their spectra. The second problem arises
from the concern that if the emission lines were sufficiently intense, some of the modem sensitive
detectors could be overwhelmed. For example, 1000 kR emission would obliterate the spectrum of
a faint quasar on a vidicon camera.
o

Typical numbers to be expected in a barium release experiment are, for example, 4554Aemissions
in the 1 to 30 nW/cm2/ster range. 2 If these values are compared with the typical night sky bright-
ness of 0.03 nW/cm 2/ster enhancement factors of 30 to 1000 times Bs may occur. For comparison,
the sky brightness near 5000 A resulting from a full moon is approximately 20 times the moonless
sky brightness (Bs). As shown in Table G-2, a 20-fold increase in Bs has a dramatic effect on astro-
nomical observation. For that very reason, telescopes at most observatories are routinely scheduled
for such "dark runs" or "bright runs".

The duration of emission from a barium cloud depends on many geophysical factors, and thus each
proposed modification experiment would have to be evaluated separately for its potential impact
to astronomy. Fitzgerald et al. (1978) have shown that electron column densities near 10 l°' to
1011/cm 2 produce radiance levels of 0.1 to 2.0 nW/cmZ/ster-factors of 3 to 60 times higher than
the night sky brightness. Such levels of "light pollution"-if frequent, long-lived, or large-scale in
in scope, would have a serious impact on optical astronomy.

A possible mitigating approach might be to conduct such chemical release experiments near the
time of full moon. The effects of the moonlight on observations of the artificially created emissions
could be reduced greatly by isolating the emission lines with interference filters.

2Fitzgerald, T.J., T.E. Eastman, J.J. Childers, L.A. Rauber, D.J. Simons, and J.H. Wolcott, "Operation Stress: Analysis of Image
Intensified Photographic Data," EG&G Technical Report 1183-5100, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544, September 1978.

G-3
 TableG-2
Brightness
Comparison(Approximate)

Brightness Wavelength
in
*Kilo-Rayleighs _ Source

> 5000/_ visible range Day sky continuum (scatter)

20000 12700 (band) 02 day airglow

< 6400 6708 (line) Li release: < 2 minutes, viewed along orbit path
horizontally from orbit altitude

4500 28000 (band) OH day airglow

1100 3914, 5577, etc. Aurora: brief brilliant stages

< 1000 4554, 4607, etc. Ba release: < 10 sec., initial spot

300 7619 (band) Oz day airglow

100 visible range Moonlit clouds

100 3914, 5577, etc. Aurora: typical fairly bright

< 100 4554 (line) Ba+ from release: in selected viewing directions

100 4607 (line) Sr from "doped" release: < 60 sec.

< 100 6708 (line) Li release: < 4 minutes

*1 kR-- 109 photons/cm2sec.column

Source: GSFC.
 REFERENCES

1. Broadfoot, A.L. and K.R. Kendall, "The Airglow Spectrum, 3100-10,000 A," Journal Geo-
physicalResearch, Vol. 73, 1968, pp. 426-428.

2. Hoag, A.A., W.E. Schoening, and M. Coucke, "City Sky Glow Monitoring at Kitt Peak," Pub.
Astron. Soc. Pacific, Vol. 85, 1973, pp. 503-507.

3. Walker, M.F., "Light Pollution in California and Arizona," Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific, Vol. 85,
1973, pp. 508-519.

4. Walker, M.F., "The Effect of Urban Lighting on the Brightness of the Night Sky," Pub. Astron.
Soc. Pacific, Vol. 89, 1977, pp. 405-409.

G-5
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA TP-1750
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
November 1980
Environmental Analysis of the Chemical Release Module
6. f;eriorming Organization Code
696
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

James P. Heppner and Maurice Dubin 80 F 5120

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
696-356-36-01
Goddard Space Flight Center 11. Contractor GrantNo.
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Technical Paper
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington,D.C. 20546
15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

NASA has initiated a program to develop and operate a Chemical Release Module Facility as
part of the Solar Terrestrial Spacelab Program. This program is to function as a multi-user facil-
ity to perform chemical release experiments selected from proposals submitted by Principal
Investigators in response to NASA's "Announcement of Opportunity." The Chemical Release
Module (CRM) is an expendable, free-flying spacecraft which is deployed from the Space Shuttle
with an attached "kick motor" which is subsequently fired to place the CRM into the orbit
required. This report documents studies and contains two parts: (1) the report of a review panel,
and (2) a reprinting of the environmental analysis. The task of the review panel was twofold: (a)
to bring forth any new environmental considerations, and (b) to review a draft version of the
report. The review panel supported the conclusion that "no deleterious environmental effects of
widespread or long-lasting nature are anticipated from chemical releases in the upper atmosphere
of the type indicated for the CRM program."

17. Key Words (Selected by Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

Chemical Release Module Subject Category - STAR 92
Upper Atmosphere Unclassified - Unlimited
Space Shuttle
Release of Barium
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 136 A07

For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
NASA-Langley, 1980
National Aeronauticsand THIRD-CLASS BULK RATE Postage and Fees Paid
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Space
Administration
NASA-451
Washington, D.C.
20546
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300

NASA POSTMASTER: Postal Manual) Do

If Undeliverable Not Return
(Section 158