Feb 4 1966
From The Space Library
Space News for this day. (2MB PDF)
Vice President Hubert Humphrey attended ceremony at NASA Hq. celebrating successful launch of ESSA I, ESSA’s first operational meteorological satellite. During ceremony, first pictures taken by ESSA I, launched by NASA from ETR Feb. 3, were released; NASA Administrator James E. Webb administered the oath of office to NASA Deputy Administrator Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.; and the Vice President presented NASA Exceptional Service medals to Dr. Morris Tepper, NASA Director of Meteorological Programs; Herbert I. Butler, NASA Chief of Operational Satellites, GSFC; and David S. Johnson, ESSA Environmental Satellite Center Director. Vice President Humphrey praised the spirit of cooperation between NASA and Dept. of Commerce, noting that ‘‘science leaves no room for jurisdictional disputes.” He said of NASA’s Administrator and Deputy Administrator: “I know of no two men who are more dedicated to our space program than Jim Webb and Bob Seamans. Their devotion is almost sacrificial.” ‘‘(NASA Release 66-29)’’
NASA Administrator James E. Webb and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing Manned Space Flight Policy Committee, joint NASA-DOD committee which would meet regularly to determine top-level policy, ensure coordinated planning, and resolve matters concerning mutual participation in and support of manned spaceflight programs which could not be resolved at lower levels. Co-chairmen of the committee would be Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Deputy Administrator, and Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., DOD Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Memorandum superseded Jan. 21,1963, agreement between the two agencies on Gemini program. ‘‘(NASA Release 66-26)’’
Reorganization of NASA Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) to involve its operating offices more deeply in planning the use of manned spaceflight capabilities for scientific exploration of space” was announced by Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Dr. Homer E. Newell. Several individual programs were reassigned: Pioneer interplanetary probe program from Lunar and Planetary Programs to Physics and Astronomy Programs; geodetic satellite program, including GEOS and PAGEOS, from Physics and Astronomy Programs to Space Applications; management of programs leading to acquisition of scientific data through remote sensing from Manned Space Science Programs to Space Applications; Manned Space Science Programs office was renamed Manned Flight Experiments Office/OSSA, to supervise all OSSA manned flight support. Dr. John R. Clark, who had been Director of OSSA (Sciences) , was named Deputy Associate Administrator for SSA (Sciences). Robert F. Garbarini, who had been Director of OSSA (Engineering), was named Deputy Associate Administrator for SSA Staff would report to Dr. Clark. Acting director of that staff would be Dr. John E. Naugle. ‘‘(NASA Release 66-27)’’
Soviet officials acknowledged that LUNA IX photos were being received in U.S.S.R. and said first LUNA IX photo would appear in Feb. 5 edition of Izvestia. ‘‘(Wash. Post, 2/5/66, A6)’’
Two photographs of the moon produced at Jodrell Bank Experimental Station by feeding radio transmissions from LUNA IX into newspaper telephoto machine were shown on British television. Each picture took eight minutes to receive and was recorded at 100 lines to one inch for finished 10-by 11-in. photo. Sir Bernard Lovell, station director, said in a television interview that photos “seem to destroy the theory that the moon’s surface is covered with dust several feet thick. There may be a few inches of dust, but the pictures tend to confirm the view of the moon’s surface as hard, sponge-like pumice stone substance. “It would be perfectly satisfactory for landing not only heavy vehicles but also men.” Lovell pointed out rock-like pinnacles estimated to be 10-to 20-ft. tall; small stones, some less than one inch in diameter; the curved horizon of the moon; and sharp shadows which indicated the sun was casting the shadow. He emphasized, however, necessity of knowing the proper scale before photos could be meaningfully interpreted. Lovell 14 days, thereby permitting solar power to replenish its batteries. ‘‘(Wash. Post, 2/5/66, A1, A6; Sullivan, NYT, 2/5/66, 1, 10)’’
Dr. Gerard P. Kuiper, director of Univ. of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, told the New York Times in a telephone interview that he thought from photos released by Jodrell Bank Experimental Station LUNA IX was resting in a shallow crater and the 10-to 20-ft.-high rocks described by Sir Bernard Lovell were the result of distorted foreshortening of the most distant rocks and features. ‘‘(Sullivan, NYT, 2/5/66, 1, 10)
U.S. space officials did not feel that LUNA IX’s successful soft-landing on the moon indicated US. was behind U.S.S.R. in the “moon race,” reported John Wilford in the New York Times. Vice President Humphrey, NASC Chairman, told Wilford in an interview that ‘(so many systems and programs are involved that it is very difficult to say who’s ahead and who’s behind.” Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Deputy Administrator, admired the Soviets’ “solid, aggressive and expanding” space program (Engineering). All OSSA advance study efforts under Advanced Missions said LUNA IX had landed in a location which would receive sunlight for and conceded that although US. program was broader-based “the Russians are awfully good at picking goals and going after them.” Wilford said US. space officials were unwilling to speculate on who would make first manned lunar landing, but foresaw no significant changes in U.S. program because of LUNA IX’s success. Dr. Seamans said Surveyor project would not be curtailed and could not be speeded up: “We’ve got to gather our own data because we can’t count on the Russians to release their own data. Besides, we want to land in other places on the moon. Hopefully, we can exchange data with the Russians.” (Wilford, NYT, 2/5/66, 11)
International scientific community commented on LUNA IX’s soft-landing on the moon. Dr. William Pickering, Director of JPL, offered congratulations and said: “The difficulty of the task is attested to by the number of previous attempts to accomplish a soft landing on the moon. The success of this mission has already added to our knowledge of the lunar surface. We now await with interest the scientific data which will be received in the next few days.” Heinz Kaminski, chief of Bochum Observatory, West Germany: “American space flight technology is on a high level of perfection which the Russians just can’t match.” Dr. L. R. Shepherd, president of British Interplanetary Society: [Soft-landing on the moon is] much more difficult than the orbit rendezvous achieved by the Americans.” Dr. Shotaro Miyamoto, chief of Kyoto Univ. astronomical observatory, Japan: “Soviet landing means men and materials will now be sent to the moon and its development accelerated.” ‘‘(NYT, 2/5/66, 11; 2/6/66, E 11 )’’
International press commented on LUNA IX’s soft-landing on the moon. New York Times: “Two facts indicate the magnitude of the advance that has now been made. One is the known failure of four earlier Soviet rockets to make the soft landing finally achieved by Luna 9. The second is the unhappy history of efforts in this country to build the Surveyor vehicle, which is intended to perform moon reconnaissance of the type in which the Soviet ship is pioneering. The Surveyor project is currently far behind schedule. The first fight is not planned until later this year, and it is impossible even to forecast when a Surveyor will duplicate the soft landing of Luna 9. “The whole process demonstrates again the wastefulness of the Soviet-American moon race. Were the United States and Russia cooperating fully, rather than competing, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Surveyor would have been applied to progress in fields still inadequately explored by either country.” Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo: “It is possible to say that the Soviet Union is considerably ahead of the US. in the moon development program. It is regrettable that the two nations have failed to exchange information and technology for the development of outer space.” La Nazione, Florence: “If the Russians already know how to land on the moon, they still don’t know how to effect a rendezvous’ in orbit. The inverse holds, naturally, for the Americans. This means that both are still faced by formidable problems and that the great contest is still open.” Times of India, Bombay: “At this rate it is not unreasonable to presume that a Russian-manned probe will land on the moon and return in about a year from now, beating the Americans to it by about three years.” ‘‘(NYT, 2/6/66, E 11 )
Speech by the late H. J. Bhabha, director of Tata Institute, Bombay, and chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, at January 1965 meeting of the International Council of Scientific Unions in Bombay, appeared in Science. Bhabha explained the Indian Radio astronomy Group and described new 32-parabolic-dish facility near Bombay for solar radio astronomy work and project to build large cylindrical radiotelescope at Ooty. Bhabha was killed in an airplane crash at the top of Mt. Blanc, Jan. 21. ‘‘(Science, 2/4/66, 544-5)’’
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
