CC: Okay. One more comment on the Gamma-ray spectro- meter. It says that regional differences have been observed in the quick-look data. But details will require computer analysis for conformation. So they're beginning to see some point-to-point differences there, also. On the alpha particle spectrometer, we say the alpha particle spectro- meter has continued to operate satisfactorily, for 92/31 Tape the most part. One of the 10 detectors does show, at certain times, au increased number of counts that are probably detector noise. The internal calibration sources indicate that the gain of the instrument is stable. And - yesterday we heard words to the effect that some radon was being detected, but they're being cautious about saying anything very difinite yet - about, exactly what is coming out. Mass spectrometer: it says that mass spectrometer data from the first two periods of operation indicates several constituents which may be native to the lunar atmosphere. In par- tieular, I think we have definite confirmation of - native argon; both mass 40 and mass 36. And the reason that we feel reasonably positive about this, is that there is a jump by a factor of three from the night side to the daylight side, as you would expect for a residual atmosphere, about the Moon. And, there is a final caution here saying identification of argon as a native gas is tenta- tive pending positive determination of contRmiua- tion levels during the Plus X data collection period. So, we've still got a contaminate - we've - we've still got to calibrate their instru- ment before they will be completely sure of this data. Photo - photo report says the mapping camera operation is nominal and the laser data - laser data up till now has been very good. I understand that the laser is beginning to drop an occasional pulse that gives them some concern, so that we'11 probably not be using the - the laser as extensively as we have in the Flight Plan. There'11 be some cutback, I think, to conserve its - its health and energy. Although, the data we're getting is still very good. Data from revs - This is going back to the pan camera. Data from revs 15 and 16 indicate that we're still getting, as we said before, about 80 percent of the photographs good. And we have some estimates here the - of - of what we expect the quality to be on the bad frames; whereas, on the good frames we're expecting a res- olution on the order of 2 meters. The bad frames, or the smeared frames, will be giving us about a resolution of 6 meters; about three times degrada- tion of about three in the - in the resolution there. Still be useful data. It says there's no final resolution yet of the problem with the V over H sensor. Because of the V over H malfunction, photos of the landing site on rev 16 were - were not the best, and we may attempt running the camera in STEREO SELF-TEST MODE on rev 50 over the landing site. And, on the V over H sensor, Al. One of the _-_ possible reasons for that malfunction is the poss - is the - is the possibility of a piece of Mylar, or something, flapping in front of the light- sensing aperture; and, when we rendezvous, we may have a chance to inspect that and see if that would be the source of our problem. I don't know what we could do about it, but at least it would be nice to understand it.