Dec 18 1967
From The Space Library
USNS Mercury, third Apollo insertion-injection tracking ship, left General Dynamics Corp.'s Quincy, Mass., shipyard after successfully completing final contractor instrumentation systems tests. Ship docked in Hoboken, N.J., where it would undergo inspection and instrumentation adjustments before range testing and final preparations in Florida for Apollo 503 mission. Mercury, her two sister ships Vanguard and Redstone, and reentry ships Huntsville and Watertown were part of National Range Instrumentation Ship pool. They would be equipped with special antennas for communications between Apollo astronauts and mission control via Atlantic and Pacific satellites. For Apollo missions they would be operated as part of GSFC-operated MSFN, which supported Apollo with tracking, command, and voice and telemetry communications via land lines, microwave, submarine cables, and comsats. Operation of Apollo ships was assigned to WTR; crew was provided by Military Sea Transport Service, and technical instrumentation crew by USAF. (NASA Release 67-305)
Rep. William F. Ryan (D-N.Y.) charged that the House Committee on Science and Astronautics and the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences had defaulted on their responsibility to report to the American public about the Congressional hearings which had been held on the Jan. 27 Apollo accident. In a statement inserted in the Congressional Record, Rep. Ryan said that since Congress seemed reluctant "to face some unpleasant truths and to ask some hard questions that need to be asked," he had prepared his own report based on the hearings and on the hundreds of letters, documents, and personal commentaries he had received. Much of this correspondence, he said, which cited deficiencies and negligence which were both intentionally ignored and unintentionally overlooked, was made in confidence for fear of reprisals by NASA or NASA-contractor employers. Rep. Ryan concluded that Congress over funded and underexamined the validity of major technological programs and the success and integrity of their administration. Having an excellent space program, he said, "is essential both to our pride and to our progress . . . [but] it is essential as well that we throw off the shackles of the space race and declare our intention to make rational plans designed to meet the needs of America not distorted by the conceptions and value judgments of another nation. It is essential that we examine our national priorities with the utmost care and make certain that the space program is neither made a handy villain by its critics nor a handy saviour by its spokesmen. We must establish reliability and make a sober and objective appraisal of the space program's role in our society." Congress, he asserted, ought to :. (1) demand that NASA adopt new standards of candor, present regular status reports, and clarify its budget presentations, and that a panel of independent experts be created to provide objective technical evaluation of NASA management and planning procedures; (2) relinquish romanticism and evaluate each program in terms of specific objectives and social value; (3) revise its attitudes about hearings on the space program, being sure to call both friendly and hostile witnesses; and (4) establish a realistic view so that the space program could be assigned its proper place in national priorities and receive whatever funds necessary. (CR, 12/18/67, A6320-9; Ryan's Off)
ELDO Technical Director Dr. W. H. Stephens announced that ELDO would develop Europa III following development of Europa II. Europa III booster would have Europa I 1st stage (Blue Streak) and liquid hydrogen-oxygen 2nd stage with two 14,000-lb-thrust rocket engines. Configuration would be able to boost 6,000-lb payload into low earth orbit. Using high-energy 3rd stage, new launch vehicle would be able to place 1,200 lbs into synchronous orbit; adding two strap-on solid rocket motors rated at 420,000 lbs thrust each, launch vehicle could place 4,000 lbs into synchronous orbit. Low-thrust, very-high-specific-impulse systems were being considered, Stephens said, for use in transferring payloads from low to high orbits, and for accelerating to escape speeds. Using Dragon reactor technology, a small reactor could also be employed in such a system. (S/P, 12/18/67, 150)
Several Latin American nations, including Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, were interested in making extensive use of Kourou space research base, French Guiana, according to Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) sources. New equatorial range would be fully operational in 1969, with first segment handling sounding rocket firings early in 1968. Initial plans for Kourou facility had included three launch pads, but CNES was already making plans to expand the facility. One new pad would handle Scout and Thor-Able vehicles, subject to agreement with US. (Space Pro, 12/18/67,150)
Paul E. Cotton, Director of Management Operations, in NASA's OMSF, was appointed director of OART's Programs and Resources Div. Cotton would replace William E. Hanna, Jr., who had been named Director of the Bureau of Data Processing and Accounts in the Social Security Administration. (NASA Release 67-304)
New York Times editorial on space rescue treaty approved by U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Dec. 16: "[Treaty] . . . is a substantial advance, but what must remain worrisome is the attitude toward such mishaps that will be shown [by] countries refusing to approve the pact. The largest of the abstainers, of course, is likely to be China. Even without this gap, the treaty has limitations. The suspicious will note that . . . the launching nation has no right to join in the search until and unless requested to do so by the authorities governing the area where the ship has landed. Nor does the treaty define with precision how long the latter authorities may hold a space vehicle and its crew before returning them . . . [or specify] payment for damages caused by errant spacecraft. "The important fact, however, is not that the rescue treaty has deficiencies. Most treaties do. Far more significant is the demonstration it has provided of intimate and fruitful Soviet-American cooperation for achievement of a common end. . . ." (NYT, 12/18/67)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
