Jul 13 1969
From The Space Library
U.S.S.R. launched Luna XV unmanned spacecraft from Baikonur into selenocentric orbit to conduct "further scientific studies of the moon and near lunar space," Tass announced. Spacecraft was expected to reach moon late July 16-scheduled date of launch of NASA'S Apollo 11 manned lunar landing mission. There was speculation that Luna XV was Soviet attempt to land spacecraft on moon and return it to earth with sample of lunar soil before U.S. landed. (W Post, 7/14/69, Al; SBD, 7/18/69, 22; B Sun, 7/14/69, Al; GSFC SSR, 7/15/69)
Washington Sunday Star published Associated Press interview with Dr. Charles A. Berry, MSC Director of Medical Research and Operations: While 4,514 hrs of weightlessness endured by U.S. astronauts in space had produced no serious medical problems, on moon "we will be placing men in an entirely new environment." After four days of weightlessness, they would step onto surface where gravity field was one-sixth that of earth. At Mission Control Center in Houston, Dr. Berry would be watching Apollo 11 astronauts' heart rate, oxygen consumption, and temperature of water that cooled spacesuits. Preflight physicals had enabled doctors to draw metabolic profile of each astronaut, including work capacity on earth at various heart rates, oxygen consumption, and body heat generated. "We know the heat production level which the portable life support system can handle without being overburdened. If it reaches that point for five minutes, we will tell the astronauts to stop and rest." Because of spacesuits' bulk astronauts would start with simple tasks and work up to tougher ones. Excitement could affect ability to sleep in four-hour rest period planned before lunar walk. "We might have to make a real-time decision on whether to give them a sleeping pill or perhaps a stimulant." Apollo had taught one "amazing medical fact-that the loss of red blood-cell mass apparently is caused by a pure oxygen atmosphere." Results of using mixed nitrogen-and-oxygen atmosphere in spacecraft since January 1967 Apollo fire had indicated nitrogen apparently protected cells. (Benedict, AP, W Star, 7/13/69, A9)
From summer residence, Castel Gondolfo, Pope Paul VI asked Christians worldwide to pray for Apollo 11 astronauts and said mission showed man was a "giant." (AP, B Sun, 7/14/69, A5)
At White House religious service the Rev. Paul H. A. Noren of Mount Olivet Church in Minneapolis led 300 people in prayer: "We ask Thy divine protection for our space pioneers who will soon make footprints on the moon." (AP, NYT, 7/14/69, 23)
New York Times editorial: "This is the week of the moon. The countdown is on at Cape Kennedy and, if all goes well, a week from today a manned vehicle will for the first time alight on another celestial body. . . . all mankind will share in the exhilaration of discovery. Ever since man evolved he has been exploring, extending his domain over all parts of his planet. Now that insatiable curiosity is bursting its terrestrial bounds to provide our first personal knowledge of the nearest neighbor in the cosmos. It is an inspiring adventure, a testimony not only to man's imagination in amassing knowledge of nature, but to his courage, his perseverance and his indomitable spirit." (NYT, 7/13/69)
In Washington Evening Star William Hines said: ". . . Space Administrator Thomas O. Paine was dead right when he acclaimed Project Apollo as 'a triumph of the squares." While word "square" was in disrepute, "you will find no umbrage taken by the clean-cut stars of this week's cosmic drama if you called them squares. They are, and probably proud of it. There was no fight from Neil Armstrong when Congress told him to plant an American flag on the surface of the moon. . . . The Apollo Program is not only run by squares, but for squares, as well; its thrills and glories appeal to the vast majority of Americans who, at the bottom, are just as square as any Armstrong on Earth-Jack or Neil or any other." (W Star, 7/13/69, D2)
Wing of Lockheed C-5A static test specimen cracked during stress tests at point below aircraft's contract specifications but above its design limit. USAF later said cause of crack was overloading of wing area where spar attached to lower rear beam cap; it would not require extensive redesign. It was first major performance failure reported for C-5A. Contractor was planning modification and retesting of static specimen. (USAF Memo 8/18/69; W Post, 7/15/69, A2)
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
