Earth Orbiter test site programs in relation to US mineral need

Carter, W. D.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

General Disclaimer 
One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document 
 
 This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the 
organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as 
much information as possible. 
 
 This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was 
furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy 
available. 
 
 This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, 
which have been reproduced in black and white. 
 
 This document is paginated as submitted by the original source. 
 
 Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some 
of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original 
submission. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI) 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700031796 2020-03-11T22:41:17+00:00Z
0r
I ACCE I S) O'N.NL.	 h r, U;
Gisl
' R DR 17-'.x 0,:
HNICAL A.
Mailable to NASA Offic9s and
Research Centers O"'Y'
IPA
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
	 Technical Letter
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242
	
	 NASA-59
August 1966
Dr. Peter C. Badgley
Chief, Natural Resources Progr&-n
Office of Space Science and Applications
Code SARs NASA Headquarters
Washington, D. C. 20546
Dear Peter:
Transmitted herewith are 2 copies of:
--A
TECHNICAL LETTER NASA-59
ANALYSIS OF EARTH ORBITER
TEST SITE PROGRAM IN
RELATION TO U.S. MINERAL NEEDS*
I	 oy
W. D. Carter**I
Sincerely yours?
William A. Fischer
Research Coordinator
Earth Orbiter Program
Rork performed under NASA Contract No. R-09-020-013
ii	 **U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Available to NASA Offices and
y
4 r
	 r.	 "»i f	 S	 Y	 -	 -y
t
Ir
>-,.-	 .fat	 ^.	 -,r,	 -
its .=_. •`,..- tz	 . 3'c3. ^	 ss rt.	 -._ ; '	 _ :, du
	
*. ..	 • - i	
-	
-	
_	
-	 -
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
-	 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
-	 TECHNICAL LETTER NASA-59
ANALYSIS OF EARTH ORBITER
TEST SITE PROGRAM IN
RELATION TL, U.S. MINERAL NEEDS*
by
W. D. Carter**
August 1966
rR	 _
These data are preliminary and should
a	 not be grjoted without permissione
:.:
	
	
Prepared by the Geological Survey
for the National Aeronautics and
 Space Adtininistration (NASA)
f
t
'
	
	 *Work performed under NASA Contract No. R-09-020^013
*-*U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Y +^ Fill
tit•
h Y
';a
4	 f
.^a.._.c-.._..-..1+. r	 _ 	
-.......:,._a..sw.. u...!
	 .r^ .S a-	 Da•'>.^..-a^wt_... c.-aaia.co•wt-^_.u•+r_..	 ._. _._ _1... -...... __.
	 _
CONTENTS
PPg.
,	 s
Introduction
of	 ,-tives
1
Summary	 Obje
Test Site Program 2`
Analysis of Present Studies
Recommendations 3
i
INTRODUCTION
4 An anal.- ►sis of the objectives, scope, and results of the current NASA
Earth Resources Program and specifically its Test Site Feasibility Program
is timely and necessary to determine its relation to the Mation's needs for
mineral resources. It is hoped that such an analysis will help formulate
a better, more complete program, for it is mainly thiough this program that
we will determine the criteria and develop an a gility to recognize geologic
features by remote sensing. Through this analysis we hope to find areas
of weakness that will "lead to recommendations as to where and on what mineral
comiodi-'ies to focus such portions of the Natural Resources Program as the
aircraft test site feasibility studies and, thereby, do a more effective job.
Heretof . )re, most geologic test sites have been selected by proposals
submitted ,:. a voluntary basis by individuals specifically interested in
remote sensing and actively working in the areas listed (See Test Site List
Appendix 1).
	
Although most of these sites cover a wide variety of geological
problems and many include mineral deposits or commodities of national Impor-
tance, it is believed that certain mineral commodities currently in short
supply and great demand, may have been overlooked.	 I	 is for this reason,
that the following analysis is made.
A list of the mineral commod ties in critical shortage has bc—..eveioped
(Table 1) and is compared with a list of sites presently under investigation.
Such a comparison suggests areas where aircraft feasibility studies might be
conducted in addition to those areas already scheduled. 	 Competant scientists
who could analyze data from areas known to contain critical mineral commodi-
ties are proposed.
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES:
f
^s
The general objectives of the Natural Resources Program are summarized
as follows:
Feasibility and Research Phase:
a)	 To determine the type of geologic, mineral aesources, hydrologic,
geographic and cartographic investigations most amenable to
solution by remote sensor data,
b)	 To ascertain which remote senior data are most useful to perform
these investigations,
c)	 To determine what resolutions, areal and tamporal coverage, and
other parameters will provide the most meaningful data for those
investigations,
d)	 To define and develop spacecraft experiments to acquire the
necessary data,
To develop a community of scientists capable of productive use of
remote sensor data.
r
#	 Operational Phase:
To gather natural and cultural resource data with spaceborne instruments
in.an operational, repetitive manner for the benefit of mankind.
TEST SITE PROGRAM
The aircraft overflight feasibility program is specifically designed to
test the use of the various remote sensing instruments over sites where ground
information on what the instruments are recording. The study is designed not
only to test the instruments but to determine the way geologic features react
and are recorded by a given instrument. The reactions recorded by the instru-
ments are referred to as "signatures" and are used for identification just as
fingerprints are used to identify people. Experience in recognizing signa-
tures of specific mineral commodities is needed if we are to take full advan-
tage of earth orbiting space vehicles equipped with remote sensors.
ANALYSIS OF PRESENT STUDIES:
Figure 1 shows that economic growth of the nation is paralleled by an
ever increased consumption of minerals and fuels. Part A is from the U.S.
Geological Survey Long Range Plan, published in 1964. Part B is merely a
straight line projection of trends based on the data presented in Part A.
This type of projection shows that the Gross National Product will probably
more than double by 1990 as will fuel consumption. Mineral consumption,
on the other hand, will also increase, but at a somewhat slower rate. Most
easy to locate high grade deposits have already been found. Lower grade
concealed deposits are the object of most exploration projects today and
new tools are required to find them. Remote sensing tools borne by air and
spacecroft can help provide some of the data needed to improve our ability
and rate of resource discovery.
There is considerable concern about our current balance of payments
and the outflow of gold from the United States. Much of this problem stems
from the fact that we have become largely a consumer nation, importing +*_rre
than we export. Much of what we import is raw materials, principally
mineral and fuel commodities. Ther6 are two reasons for this: 1) certain
raw materials either do not occur within the conterminous United States or
they tan be obtained more cheaply elsewhere due to better grade of ores or
lower production costs conditions; ani 2) certain other raw materials are
consumed at a faster rate than we are able to discover, develop and exploit
them.
Figure 2 shows the estimated reserve life of certain basic mineral
commodities. Special attention is called to those that have iess than
100 years reserve life„
This list is cornared with twenty of the geological test sites that
include and are oriented primarily toward mineral resource studies (Table 1).
This comparison shows the present test sites of interest, their principal
commodities and by-products as well as the responsible investigators. Table 2
is a ma+-ix diagram listing the mineral commodities considered to be in short
supply and remote sensor instruments. The x I s indicate the instrument or
-2-
_instruments most likely to be of use in search for the corresponding commodity
and those for which data signatures should be determined or developed.
	 The
numbers at the base of the table indicate the total numbers of current pro-
jects - that contain deposits of these commodities. 	 It is readily seen. that
'' areas containing silver ( 10) 9 gold ( 9) and copper(7) are receiving greatest
emphasis.	 Iron i , •• included in five project areas, as are zinc and lead.
Mercury has been mined from two sites within the program while antimony, man-
'' gave se, liquid hydrocarbons, natural gas and molybdenum are reported from or
have been produced from single areas.
The most important feature of this chart, however, is the indication of
those commodities where little or no work is presently contemplated; namely,
chromite, bauxite, cobalt, tungsten, bismuth, sulfur; fluorspar and titanium.
.` RECOMMENDATIONS:
F:
It is recommended that sites knowr, to contain those commodities listed
above that 3.7e not included in the present program be selected as soon as
_	 = possitle to test airborne remote sensing equipment. 	 Furthermore, selection
_ of additional areas known to contain. antimony, manganese, petroleum, natural
F _} gas and molybdenum is recommended to strengthen the program.
A list of potential sites is offered in Table 3. 	 Competent geologists
to study the suggested areas can be found within the Geological Survey or
in the geological community. 	 Perhaps, they or others can offer more appro-
priate sites on which to focus remote sensor studies.
i..
F'
.	 t	 .
—3—
•	 i-
a	 ^
1200 N
M
a
1080.J
0
0
LL9600
^h
z
o_840 J
_J
to
720 z
V
600 0
O
480 ,j
4
z
360
a
z
240 N
0
120
N 44
m
a
J 40
n
U.
0 36
U)
z
0
32
J
m
z 28
NJ
MW24
0
a 20
(n
J
Q
W 16
z
LL 120
z
0 8
f=
CL
4U)
z
0
0
PART 8
a,	
40
 
ti~
•	 O ^
4
ex ^J
PART A	 ' /
. • •	 CiA^S V m^
Nl^^eco^
1320
0
1920	 1940	 1960	 1980
Econo .nic growth depends on increased consumption of
minerals and fuels.
Figure 1.
1r
3
r-
	
RESERVE LI7F IN YEARS OF
	 RFSERVE LIFE IN YEARS OF
	
PRODUCT IO'd AT 1960 RATES
	 CONSU,': PT I0N AT 1960 RATES
100	 75.	 50	 25	 0	 CO.".MODITY	 0	 25	 50	 75	 1CO
127	 _ _	 Borates	 190
152	 Potash	 100
228 4	 _	 Arsenic*
	
44F—
	
Molybdenum
gl	 Titanium ores	 58
62	 4_	 Iron ore
	
51
	
28
	
Copper	 27
58 
	
Zinc	 26
	
5 —' ^	 Fluorspar	 23
	
19	 Sulfur	 21
	
20	 Natural gas	 21
	30 L	 Gold	 20
	
60 ^_	 _	 Bismuth*	 19I
	31 	 _	 Lead	 13
	
21	 Tungsten	 12
	13 	 Liquid hydrocarbons	 ill
50	 Cobalt*	 11
	10 	 Cadmium	 A 1
	
24	 Silver*	 7
24	 Bauxite	 6
	
9	 Mercury	 6
84	 Antimony*	 4
	
12	 Manganese	 0
	
4	 Chromite	 0
* Obtained chiefly as byproducts
Figure 2. Known minable U.S. reserves of many minerals constitute only a few
years supply; potential resources are substantial but must be developed.
r
Element(s) or
Commodity present
Fe
Pb,Zn,Ag,Au
Cu (Bingham) Au,Mo
Ag,Pb,Zn,Cu
Au,Ag,Fe,Hg
Ag
Cu
Cu
Pb,Zn,Cu,Au,Ag,Sb
Au, Ag,
Au,Ag Tellurides
Au,Mn,U-V,Ag,Cu,Se,
Oil, gas, K
Responsible
Lowell S. Hilpert
H. Morris/T. Lovering
I M. Crittenden/R. Roberts
Lowell S. Hilpert
D. White/G. Thompson.
Recessed
J. Cooper
J. Cooper/F. Simons/
F. Canney
M. Crittenden/R. Roberts
H. Cornwall/P. Theobold
L. Schmitt
D. R. Shawe/R. Brokaw
z
Mining Districts
Presently Included
Cedar City (Iron
Springs) Utah
Eureka (Tintic Dist.)
Utah
Sant Lake Dist., Utah
San Francisco, Dist.,
Carson City (Comstock
Dist.) Nevada
Silver City (Central
Dist.) N. Mexico
Little Dragoon Mtns, Ariz.
Twin Buttes (Pima Dist.)
Arizona
Battle hitn. , Nevada
Tonapa5, Nevada
Ouray, Silverton
Creede Districts, Colorado
Great Sage Plain, Utah
Colorado
m
i-
4J
N
mH
1)
5)
6)
9)
10)
13)
14)
15)
21)
22)
37)
38)
Z4 ^1
Mining Districts
N Presently Included Element(c) or
^-: in Test Site Program ComanoditY Rresent
42) Gogebic Flange, Mich. Fe
73) Lynn Dist., Nevada Au,Ag,Hg
- 75) Goldfield, Nevada Au,Ag,Pb,Zn,Cu
.> 78) Cleveland Co., N.C. Th (Monazite placers)
79 Matewan	 Kentucky^	 Y Coal
83) Ironton(s), Missouri Fe
F 88) Mississippi Valley Pb,Zu
F	 f
b_= 89) Blackbird Dist. Co
3
Idaho
} 94) NE Pennsylvania Peat
'F
^s:S
i
t
s
Y
Responsible
W. Prinz
R. Roberts
3. Albers
W. C. Overstreet
D. C. Alvord
P. W, Guild
D'Agostino/Heyl
F. Canney
C. C. Cameron
i
Y
Cl)
tli
d
w
a
O NO
W -^
E..8
v. u^
M CC
Q
H
a o
0
F ` ,
^ V
tos.
:3 O
wU3
ors	 U.
H
r -3
ujs
H ^
LU
t~ zn
am
`.I•.	 CC
F
to
^_ x
a z
z
a mO N
z
ca F- z
U) v O
f,
Lt3	 CA	 r
F Lu
LU H U)
a: Q z
Q 0 cO5w
crn
LO
8 a :^
^^w1
7_ H
N Q O
a o a.
ttu	 ft.
!+ z O
^itSOSt{^ >' X X 0
asaue6uel x ^
AUOWTIUV x ^+
A-Sn0aaw x x x tV
a^zxnes
 ix 1 X I X
x a
SanjjS X x x
am?a4)eo X x x in
v ?,T egooR
x x x
uegae3oin,(3 ptnbtl X x x x x x xix -^
Ua4s6un, TT• x Ux
0 -
^+	 pealEn x x •^
ml
L)	 tanw zs x -, x ofU.1Q
z	
P109 x x x ^ o,
H
t 3	 se6 iear4ey x ' X z x x 1 xN
F
^^^-ca	 (aAE eu) Snfjr.S x x x x 0
0
aedsaonjj x x x o
MF
ouiz x x c^ x j x
'o•LIC
LU
H	 Sadder x Cl. X x x x x ^c
aao uoaj x x :t X 1 0- :n
sajo urncue:^Ll x x o
wivapg4Toet x x x x x -^
N
Fi a,
J wi
cE7 U
.^t
Fs +^ C: F E NL U 0v rj +o3 F0i ct
Ec3 . C) CL N E G +3 .--^ WFi U) a) O E 0 4- F• • l OX 0 0 0 CJ ., •r+ O C+ C d o U
is E 0 C F; a 14 (U it •+i CC 4-3 HFi C3 G N 0 3 C) E 0 0._4
ar U J= tO 0 +' E -P r-i Cr 0 M +3 E to
E a -P H 0 +1 F• C 0 vi V S-1
.. + a C E U 'a 0>> E ri l L+ G ri d CE •r+ M f-i U) V - eG C + , U. Q 4	 1
.i Fi ca •ri k F: to fa o 0 v • + Fi 0 v Fi
Pi 0 P +•1 r  -i CC k k L 0 •ri Li ^J Ci LT
+^ C + U w U iJ is Li Z ' + ) L7 CO M .-4 7 S r ^ G. •r{ •.-i C3 Fi •0 RS ^.• ca -^...,..^
W;E CL _0 :E z u C i 0 Fi
F v
vU)
• • • • • • • _: n i C :np O
Mineral Commodi jX
1) Chromite
2) Manganese
3) Antimony
4) Mercury
5) Bauxite and
Attapulgite
6) Cadmium
f = 7) Cobalt
8) Liquid Hydrocarbons
r
Oil Shale
9) Tungsten
10) Bismuth
11) Natural gas
12) Sulfur
13) Fluorspar
14) Titanium Ore
TABLE 3 - List of-needed-mineral coi nodities not presently included
in the current test site program; and suggested areas
recommended for study.
15) Molybdenum
Recommended Area to be Studied
John Day area, Oregon, Great
Serpentine Diku, California
Stillwater Complex, and Alaskan
Ultranatics
Cuyuna Range, Brainerd, Minn.
Boston Hill Dist., N. Mexico
National Mine, Nevada
Kern County, California
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
Calistoga, California
Terlinqua Dist., West Texas
Steamboat Springs, Nevada
Georgia-Alabama
a by-product of zinc ores
Joplin District, Missouri
LaMotte & Fredricktown brines,
Missouri - Duluth Gabbro, tiinn.
Los Angeles Basin-California
Region, Rocky Mountain -
Texas Region - Appalachian
Region
Colorado, Utah (Uinta Basin:
San Francisco Mine
a by-product of lead ores
SE New Mexico for oil, gas,
potash studies; Pt. Barrow
Gulf Coast area - Texas, La.
Illinois - Colorado
Lake Sanford, N.Y,, Iron "Itn.,
Viyoming, Cumberland, Rhode
Island
Climax, Colorado
APPENDIX I
Geology Test Sites
Test Site
Ident. 'ho.	 Area Names Responsible Scientists
1. Cedar City (Iran Springs, Utah) L. Hilpert
4. Carrizo Plains, Calif-. P.E. Vial lace/R.M.t:oxham
5. Eureka(Tintic District, Utah) H. Morris/T.Lovering
6. Salt Lake (Salt Lake Dist.) Utah M. Crittenden/R.Roberts
7. Coast Range, Oregon/Washington P. Snavely
8. South Oregon Strip, Oregon G. W. Walker
9. San Francisco Dist., U-Lah L. Hilpert
10. Carson City (Comstock Dist.) Nevada D.White/G.Thompson
11. Yellowstone Nat'l Park,Wyo%iontana/Idaho A.	 ,apbell,et al
12. Cramer Lake, Oregon G.W.Walker/R.M.Moxham
14. Lithe Dragoon Mtns., Arizona J. Cooper
15. Twin Buttes(Pima Dist.) Arizona J.Cooper/F.Simons/F.Canney
M. Solitario,Texas S.J. Gawarecki
17. Baitimore(Harford-York,6id/Pa.) D.L. Southwick
18. Hagerstown(Central Appalachian Piedmont,
D.U.Wi se(Frar:kli n&.1arshal l )
J.C. Reed, Jr.
Md./Pa./Va.)
21. Battle Mtn.(Rye Patch Res.-Ruby titns,Nev.) M.Ciittenden/R.Roberts
22. Tonopah, Nevada H.Cornwall/P. Theobold
-5 23. Inyo Nat'l Forest(Nard h;tn-Crater Mtn. site) P. Bateman
24. San Andreas Fault, Calif. R.E. Wallace
28. Winslow(Meteor Crater) Ariz. G.G. Schaber
37. Ouray(Silverton/Creed Dist.&San Juan 2 0 Quad.) T. Steven
38. Great Sage Plain(Lisbon Valley Dist.)Utah/Colo. D. Shawe/A.Broka.,J
r. 41. Mesabi Range P.K. Sims (U. Minn)
R.G.Reeves
42. Ottawa Nat'l Forest(Gcgebic Range) W.Prinz/R.G.Reeves
52. Nevada AEC R.H. Morris
53. Spanish-Peaks,Colo Cedar Citv,Utah T.Steven/D.''dyant
= 54. Smoke Creek Dsert/Heber, Utah M. Crittenden/R.Roberts
56. tit. Lassen, Calif. R.M.Moxham
f - 57. Hawaii R.G.Reeves
R. J. P. Lyon( Stan ford U)
58. Valles Caldera, N.'.'. R.M. Moxham
61. The Geysers, Calif. R.M. Moxharr,
62. Mt. Shasta, Calif. R.M. Moxham
63. Newberry Craters, Oregon G.W. Walker/D.A. Swanson/
R.M. Moxham
64. Central Cascade Range G.W. Walker/D.A.Swanson
65. Mt. Hood, Oregon G.W. Walker/D.A. Swanson/
R.M. Moxham
66. Mt. Adams, Washington G.W.?Ialker/D.A. Swanson/
R.M. Moxham
67. Mt. St. Helens, Washington
68. Mt. Rainier, Washington
69. Mt. Baiter, Washington
70. !iopkinton-Milford/Templeton/Orane Alines
71. Hopi Buttes, N.M.
72. Coso-Hot Springs, Calif.
73. Lynn District, Nevada
75. Goldfield, Nevada
78. Cleveland Co., N.C.
79. Matewan, Ky.
82. Alvord Valley, Oregon
83. Ironton, Mo.
88. Mississippi Valley
- 89. Blackbird District, Idaho
90. Alberton, Montana
92. Puerto Rico
94. NE Pennsylvania (Peat Bogs)
96. Dixie/Fish Lake Nat'l Forest, Utah
101. San Francisco Volcanic Fields, Ariz.
102. Statenville/Lake City, Fla. Phosphate
103. Crystal River	 of
104. Wauchula/Tampa	 it	 to
109. Sierra Madera, Texas
110. Clark Fork, Idaho
ill. Wet Mountain, Colo.
112. Northeast Range, Colorado
113. Fayettville,N.C./Newport, Tenn.
G.W. Walker/D.A. Swanson/
R.M. Moxham
G.W. Walker/D.A. Swanson/
R.M. Moxham
G.W. Walker/D.A. Swanson/
R.M. Moxham
R.N. Oldale/L. Page
G.G. Schaber
H.H. Wa ldron
R. Roberts/R. Erickson/
K. Ketner
J. Albers
W.C. Overstreet
D.C. Alvord
G.V. Walker
P.W. Guild
J.P.D'Agostino/A. Heyl
F.C. Canney
J. D. Wells
R. P. Briggs
C.C.Cameron
P. Williams/R.J. Hackman
G.G. Schaber
J.B. Cathcart
J.B. Cattycart
J.B. Cathcart
H.G. Wilshire (USGS)
J.E. Harrison
Q.D. Singewald
W.A. Braddock(U.Colorado)
L.C. Rowan


Analysis of Earth Orbiter test site program in relation to US mineral needs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server