Planning and implementation of astronaut observations and photography from lunar orbit during the Apollo program were based on two expectations: (1) orbiting astronauts would be able to add to our knowledge by describing lunar features from their unique vantage point, and, (2) as illustrated by the Gemini Earth-orbital missions, expertly obtained photographs would allow us to place detailed information from field exploration into a regional context. To achieve these goals, the astronauts had to be thoroughly familiar with concepts of lunar geology and intellectually prepared to note and document the unexpected. This required mission-specific training to add to their store of knowledge about the Moon. Because the activity was not part of the original program objectives, the training was conducted at the behest of the astronauts. The training time grew from occasional briefings on the early flights to extensive classroom sessions and flyover exercises for a formal “experiment” on the last three missions. This chapter summarizes the historical development and salient results of training the Moon-bound astronauts for these tasks. The astronaut-derived orbital observations and photographs increased our knowledge of the Moon beyond that possible from robotic sensors. Outstanding results include: realization of the limitations of photographic film to depict natural lunar surface colors; description and documentation of unknown features on the lunar farside; observation by Apollo 15 of dark-haloed craters that helped in the selection of the Apollo 17 landing site; and real-time confirmation that the “orange soil” discovered at the Apollo 17 site occurs elsewhere on the Moon.

Sketches made by G. K. Gilbert and based on telescopic observations of the Moon look amazingly similar to photographs obtained 75 yr later by spacecraft. He was very successful in correlating lunar surface features with counterparts on Earth. His observations and experiments led him to the conclusion that most lunar craters are the product of impact. After establishing this, he studied the Coon (Meteor) Crater of Arizona. He did not have as much success applying what he had learned from the Moon to the terrestrial case. He conducted a topographic study of the crater to check whether there was an added volume due to the incoming projectile. An overestimation of the size of the meteorite and neglect of the possibility of its fusion, evaporation, and ejection forced him to rule out an impact origin for this crater. In his observations on lunar features, Gilbert had expressed the basic elements of a lunar stratigraphic system. His discussion of crater rays, and particularly of the “sculpture” that surrounds the Imbrium basin, greatly influenced the thinking of lunar geologists of our day. Coupled with his recognition of the importance of crater density and overlap relationships, he can be easily considered the father of lunar stratigraphy. Today there is a crater on the Moon bearing the name of Gilbert in commemoration of his many contributions to geology.

Coprolites, or fossilized animal excrements, have received a considerable amount of attention since their nature became known to scientists. The present study has grown out of the 1958 paper by G. C. Amstutz on Coprolites: A review of the literature and a study of specimens from southern Washington. The response to this review was so great that it appeared worthwhile to elaborate it and to cover the subject by a review as complete as possible. W. Häntzschel provided most of the European entries; F. El-Baz and W. Häntzschel abstracted the non-European literature. The work was co-ordinated by G. C. Amstutz. In the introductory part of this work we discuss briefly some general questions about coprolites — their occurrences in the geologic column, their preservation and their chances of becoming fossilized, their importance for stratigraphy, sedimentology and paleoecology, the problem of their nomenclature and classification, the difficulty of ascribing them to specific animals, their size, shape, and composition. The Annotated Bibliography includes abstracts of all works consulted by the authors. The attempt to review all available studies on fossil and recent coprolites necessitated incorporation of works that do not deal exclusively with coprolites, but that refer to them in the course of description of other fossils. Probably several of these papers have been overlooked. References which have no special interest, in other words, those which mention occurrences of coprolites only very briefly were not included. Textbooks and similar works containing only short definitions of the term coprolite have also been omitted. Appendix. . .

Coprolites: Definition and Recognition Webster’s “New International Dictionary of the English Language” defines Coprolite as “fossil dung or excrement.” Its etymology stems from Greek “kopros,” meaning dung or excrement, and “litos” which signifies stone or rock. In French, the term is coprolithe, in German, Koprolith, and in Spanish, coprolito. The term coprolites was first assigned to bodies found in the Lias of Lyme Regis, England, by W. Buckland (1829). These bodies were described as fossil fir cones before Buckland recognized their true nature. The same author also is probably the first scientist to correctly interpret the origin of these bodies. The nature of animal excrements, however, was known much before his time. In the 17th century M. Lister mentioned excrements in his Historia animalium Angliae tractatus (1768), relating their forms to the intestinal tracts of the animal: “Praeterea, ex excrementarum differentia, certum est intestinorum figuram aliam atque aliam esse in diversis speciebus.” The term coprolite has been defined in different ways. Some of the more important definitions have been listed by Amstutz (1958, p. 498-500) and, therefore, it is not necessary to repeat them here. The shortest definition — fossilized excrements of animals — seems to be the best. It is independent of the size and chemical composition of the “fossils” in question. There is no advantage in restricting the term only to larger excrements (some authors excluded the small faecal pellets) or in using it exclusively for nodular phosphatic masses or impure calcium phosphate, as proposed by some geologists and paleontologists.