(footnote cont.)
The corresponding HE
data from Nevada taken from Tables A.4 and A.6
giveapvalue for R,/W1/3 of about 0.8.
If one uses the suggested form
of the: equation and hence assumes that the effect of soil is indepen-
dent of: the effect of charge size, then one might say that craters in
the Marshalls should be expected to be 1.8 to 2.0 times as large (in
radius) as ‘craters from identical charge sizes and depths in Nevada.
In aiatmilar manner it is found that the value for R,/wi/3
WE for
megaton surface shots in the Marshalis is about 1.0, while that for the
kiloton surface.‘shot in Nevada is 0.34, which implies that Marshall
craters will dé ‘some three times larger than Nevada craters. Actually,
if the amall butfinite value of De/w2/3
1/3 is taken into account, particularly for the JANGLE surface shot, the analysis suggsts that scaled
crater radii for nuclear charges in the Marshalls are twice as large as
for those in Nevada, Since this is the same figure that was obtained
for HE craters, it is tempting and not implausible to say that all scaled crater radii in the Marshalls will be very close to twice those in
Nevada.
While the precise asta. quoted from the AFSWP memorandum were not
at hand during the development of the extrapolation method described
in section 4.2, some prior discussion of them was held with Dr. Stephenson by telephone. At that timeit was Dr. Stephenson's feeling that
the data themselves were somewhat! unreliable because all the craters
were water-washed before measurenient.. In addition it seems improper
to assume that the characteristics, «for cratering purposes, of the
water-saturated coral sand involved-th the HE tests are identical with
the characteristics of the more coherent+water-saturated coral rock
involved in the nuclear shots.
rmia
i
;
59