qm
.
16 dJenvary 1957
I don't think that we know the arsver to your question.
Well, I don't know.
I think if you ask the weather guy they would sey that the information they had
in existence is not adequate to wake & really good estimate, but they're
analysing the available data to try and determine what the flow at verious
levels is at Taongi.
observations there.
This is an interpolation business.
They don't heve any
So there are several sources of error.
First, there
would be error, in the observations they do have, but more important than ths%
is thn error in analysis, the uncertainty in aralysis when they meke up the
weathor map.
They will get som-thing ovt of it, but I think they would easy
thet it isn't very good.
On the other hand, it may be adequate, I don't kmoy
vbat «heir intentions weuld be on thet and I don't think anyone else écee.
I
know that if they covld, tney would like to get on-site date as another observation point.
During this coming year, sect up & weather stetion there and
probably reectivete mary of the other weather etetion during the test operations
in order to make the analysis.
I don't expect they will have that out there.
but i4, mey be enough to evaluacc.the firing frequency.
I think it is quite
unlikely thet they will diccover thet the firing frequency up there is
appreciebly lower than it is at Bikini.
clusion that it is about the sane.
I think they will erd up with 4 con-
If it is, then that is probebly good enough.
That's just speculation.
GIBBINS: It sheuld be better.
FELT:
Maybe, mayte not.
It will be hnrd to demonstrate that it is better, it wiil
be eary to demonstrate that it is just es good, but it would not be of eny
great adventage if it's a Lot better, tecause the firing freouency at Bikini
isn't dDacG.
Even under the restrictionz thet we imposed on REDWING.
provatiy then you could make oa an cperational basis.
“ter
Of course, having it
better than that is to your advamvase waich means you don't hit the valleys.
Cop,1,
- id -
ai