Jan 24 1966
From The Space Library
President Johnson’s message to Congress on the FY I967 budget said in part: “Just over 60 years ago man entered the age of controlled flight. Today, men orbit the earth at speeds measured in thousands of miles an hour. In 1967, less than 6 years after this Nation set the goal of a manned landing on the moon within the present decade, we will begin unmanned test flights of the giant Saturn V rocket and the Apollo spacecraft-the complete space vehicle required for achieving that goal. Later on in the 1960’s, we will undertake the manned lunar mission itself. Our many space achievements-both manned and unmanned-have dramatically advanced our scientific understanding and technological capabilities. They have also demonstrated our remarkable progress in the peaceful exploration of space. In 1967, our large space projects will be progressing from the more expensive development phase into operational status, and new projects of equivalent cost will not be started. Accordingly, expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are estimated to decline by $300 million in 1967 [as opposed to the new authorization requested in the FY 1967 budget]. This level will sustain our progress in space exploration and continue the advancement of science and technology.” ‘‘(Text, CR, 1/24/66,861; Pres. Doc., 1/31/66, 88-9)’’
President Johnson sent FY 1967 budget request to Congress including total space budget of $6.8 billion. Of this sum, NASA would receive $5.012 billion (NASA had originally requested $5.58 billion); DOD, $1.65 billion; AEC, $173.7 million; Environmental Science Services Administration, $27 million; and National Science Foundation, $2.8 million. NASA R&D program was a major area of reduced expenditure with reduction of approximately $186 million (compared with FY 1966 appropriation) mostly absorbed by the sharp drop in requirements for [Project Gemini]]. With only three flights remaining to be made in FY 1967, the total budget dropped from $226.6 million in FY 1966 to $40.6 million requested for FY 1967. Sum included $19.1 million for the spacecraft and $8.5 million for mission support. There was also a reduction of some $54 million in lunar and planetary exploration and $12 million in physics and astronomy. Funding for Project Apollo increased slightly-from $2.967 billion in FY 1966 to $2.974 billion, including $1.2 billion for spacecraft (as compared with FY 1966’s $l.l7-billion level). $100 million requested for Apollo Applications (AA) program-once considered the single program with any potential for new major funding-was not approved.
Major portions of the DOD space budget would be spent on development of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) which would be slowed down with no increase in funds over the $150 million allowed in FY 1966; development and launch operations costs of the Titan III launch vehicle; continuation of the reconnaissance and Vela nuclear detection satellite programs; navigational satellite launches; and initial launch of a satellite by the Defense Communications Satellite System. DOD budget also provided for initiation of procurement of the FB-111B aircraft and development of a new short-range air-to-surface missile (SRAM).
AEC s budget allotment for space programs included $78 million for Project Rover; $39.5 million for testing of the NERVA engine system; and $8.2 million for testing of the Snap-8 nuclear reactor. ESSA’s TIROS weather satellite program would involve expenditures in FY 1967 of $17 million for spacecraft and launchings and approximately $10 million for data acquisition, processing, and archiving. FAA’s FY 1967 budget request for $758 million contained $80 million for six more months of supersonic transport research. ‘‘(Text, Wash. Post, 1/25/66, A10; Schmeck, NYT, 1/25/66,1; Av. Wk., 1/31/66,23, 29,30; M&R, 1/31/66,25)’’
NASA Deputy Administrator Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., said at NASA FY 1967 budget briefing that the “extremely stringent budget” ($5.012 billion) approved by President Johnson and the BOB was the result of pressing needs of the Vietnam war and the Great Society. Major loser in the NASA budget reduction was the Apollo Applications (AA) program: “The option to go ahead or not [on the AA program] will be made in 1968 [budget],” he said. Although NASA had wanted $5.58 billion to carry out its FY 1967 program, Seamans said, the $5.012 billion would make it possible to continue ‘‘a good space program” with most of the projects intact. Yet, NASA did “not have the funds we would like to see” for Apollo. He said the approved FY 1967 Apollo budget of $2.974 billion (compared to $2.967 billion in FY 1966) would give the US. “a chance of lunar landing in this decade,” but there were no funds “for major difficulties that might occur.” ‘‘(Transcript)’’
NASA had begun contract negotiations with TRW Systems to convert the prototype Orbiting Geophysical Observatory (OGO) into a flight observatory. Negotiations might also include option to fabricate an additional flight observatory. Contract was expected to be for $9 million. ‘‘(NASA Release 66-16)’’
Major decisions on the future of space exploration facing the Administration received comment by William J. Coughlin in Missiles and Rockets: “History teaches us . . . that such exploration is more likely to come in waves, one overlapping the other, than in single units, each with a distinct beginning and a distinct end. “Man strives for the most distant objective within reach of his technology. And as the first explorers try and try again on that far reach, others-at first other explorers and scientists, then those scouts of commerce, miners and trappers, then businessmen, settlers and shopkeepers-follow in their wake to prove and develop what courage has proven attainable.” ‘‘(Coughlin, M&R, 1/24/66, 46)’’
NASA Nike-Cajun sounding rocket launched from NASA Wallops Station carried instrumented payload to estimated 104-mi. (167-km.) altitude. Experiment conducted for Univ. of Michigan measured ambient air density from 19-75-mi. (30-120-km.) altitudes by radar track of two falling Mylar spheres ejected at plus 72 sec. Flight also measured solar heating effects by comparing diurnal variations of measurements. ‘‘(NASA Rpt. SRL)’’
NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight Dr. George E. Mueller said in a speech at the 51st annual meeting of the National Dairy Council in Washington, D.C.: “We in NASA do not feel that the planning of our space programs is the prerogative of NASA alone. . . . The participants should include men from all walks of life-national, political, and intellectual leaders, the business and agricultural communities, and all informed citizens-not just scientists and engineers nor those who are presently engaged in the space program.” Describing the launch vehicles and spacecraft in the Apollo program, Dr. Mueller said: “The uprated Saturn I launch vehicle [formerly Saturn I-B] . . . is capable of placing 40,000 pounds in orbit. . . . The Saturn V launch vehicle . . . provides the power to place in orbit loads weighing 280,000 pounds. . . . The Apollo spacecraft itself consists of three major systems or modules. The Command Module . . . houses the astronauts during most of their journey. The Propulsion Module [formerly Service Module] has rocket engines and abundant fuel for mid-course maneuvering, for braking into lunar orbit, and for the thrust to return to earth. The Lunar Module [formerly Lunar Excursion Module] is for descent to and return from the lunar surface. . . . We have the ability to fly this equipment at an annual rate of six Saturn I launch vehicles, six Saturn V launch vehicles and eight Apollo spacecraft.” ‘‘(Text)’’
Astronaut M. Scott Carpenter said surgeons would have to remove a callus, formed on his left forearm after he broke it in a July 1964 motorcycle accident in Bermuda, before he could be considered for another spaceflight. Ability to rotate the arm properly was hampered. ‘‘(AP, Wash. Eve. Star, 1/25/66, A2; AP, Chic. Trib., 1/25/66)’’
Prof. Philip Handler of Duke Univ., member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, said at the Asia-Pacific Seminar that the US. was the only nation in the scientific revolution and that the U.S.S.R., U.K., and West Germany had not yet entered it. He described the scientific revolution as dependent upon man’s brains and not upon water, coal, or iron, as was the industrial revolution. The computer, he said, was the chief symbol of the scientific revolution. ‘‘(AP, NYT, 1/27/66, 3)’’
January 24-26: At AIAA Third Aerospace Sciences Meeting in New York City, Dr. Raymond L. Bisplinghoff was elected 1966 AIAA president. Dr. C. Stark Draper, chairman of MIT’s Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, gave 29th annual Wright Brothers Lecture on the role of “informetics” in modern flight systems. NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Dr. Homer E. Newell chaired a special “Space Sciences Report” plenary session which considered priorities in planetary exploration and the interaction of solar wind with the planets. Donald L. Hunter of Kitt Peak National Observatory said Venus exploration was likely to be as interesting as exploration of Mars; high Venusian surface temperature did not rule out possibility of rudimentary life forms, and Venus’ environment might be less hostile than that of Mars. Manned round trips to Mars could be shortened to 450-560 days by a Venus swing-by, according to Rollin W. Gillespie and Stanley Ross of NASA Office of Manned Space Flight; direct flights would take 800 to 900 days. Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Deputy Administrator, was principal speaker at the Honors Convocation. He said: “Yesterday, President Johnson presented his budget for the coming fiscal year to the Congress. . . . This year, the process of sorting out priorities and allocating resources has been especially difficult. Abroad, there is the growing commitment to Vietnamese freedom. At home, there is the growing commitment to freedom from poverty, ignorance, ugliness, and unemployment. In addition to these and other commitments, the President’s budget once again reiterates the commitment made in 1958 and repeated year after year: to undertake the exploration of space for the benefit of mankind. Even in a year of extraordinary budget pressures, slightly more than $5 billion for NASA’s part in this enterprise have been requested. . . . “It is within this framework that the NASA program has been hammered out-not representing the sum of our program demands. However, as we indicated in our budget briefing for the Press this past weekend, we believe we have a balanced program of aeronautics and space research, of science and technology, of large scale manned exploration and unmanned probes and satellites. “We recognize there is an enormous responsibility attached to the planning, justification, and direction of a sum so large during a period so rich in other needs. . . . We have reached a point where the exploration of space is no longer a promise but a hard fact, where scientific data and tested capabilities are in hand instead of in the future. “. . . The program that we have laid out for NASA for the coming year will meet the highest priorities of scientific and technological needs. It will permit flexible evaluation of the next major steps open to us in space. It will maintain the forward momentum that has been built up with energy and care over the past years. It will permit strong competition for those who wish to outstrip us and meaningful cooperation for those who can find communities of interest with us. It will provide an honest and practical balance between the many elements of scientific investigation, technological application and operational experience. It provides a challenge that will require hard work, hard judgment, and careful appraisal at every step of translation from plan into execution. It does not close to future exploitation the many options that have been built for the nation in the past. Most importantly, it recognizes that true national security is best measured by the useful knowledge in men’s minds and that the great arena of space remains a battleground between the intellect of man and the unknown.”
Tribute to late Dr. Hugh L. Dryden was made at the Honors Convocation by L/G James Doolittle (USAFR): “On the second of December 1965 the world became poorer; our country lost one of its foresighted leaders; aeronautics lost a man who had devoted a major part of his life to its advancement; astronautics lost its great ambassador at home and at large and those fortunate of us-who had been privileged to know and work with him-lost a beloved, revered and respected friend and associate. “Dr. Hugh Latimer Dryden dedicated his whole life to the service of his fellow man. He was a doer, but a gentle person -a man who strove prodigiously, but instinctively did the kindly thing. He was eager and courageous. He had been critically ill for several years, but he worked hard and effectively up to a few days before his death. . . . “Hugh Latimer Dryden: engineer, scientist, administrator, public servant, patriot, theologian, realist. With his immediate family and all the nation we, his close friends and associates, mourn his passing. We will long remember him with affection, admiration, respect, and gratitude, for excellence endures.” Goddard Award, AIAA’s highest, was presented jointly to Hans J. P. von Ohain, Chief Scientist, Aerospace Research Lab., Wright-Patterson AFB, for “his contributions to the achievement in 1939 of the first successful application of turbojet propulsion to aircraft”; and to A. W. Blackman, Chief of Propulsion, United Aircraft Corp., and George D. Lewis, Project Engineer, UAC Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div., for “their contributions to the understanding of the phenomenon of combustion instability and for their recognition of acoustical liners as a method of suppressing such instabilities in turbojet afterburners and rocket engines.” Sylvanus Albert Reed Award went to Clarence L. Johnson, vice president of Lockheed Aircraft Corp., and designer of the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft and the YF-12A interceptor, for his “production of two triple-sonic military aircraft, for continuing personal design innovation, imaginative engineering, and practical manufacturing techniques that over the years have aided immeasurably in maintaining U.S. ascendency in defensive aerial weaponry.” 1966 Research Award was given to Prof. Shao-Chi Lin, Univ. of California (San Diego), for “basic research in the electric and electromagnetic properties of ionized gases, and for significant contributions to reentry physics.” ‘‘(Texts; AIAA Release; AIAA Bulletin, 12/65, 693, 709, 710)’’
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
