Mar 11 1974
From The Space Library
Explorer 46 Meteoroid Technology Satellite, launched 13 Aug. 1972, was officially adjudged a success. The primary objective of measuring meteoroid penetration rates on a bumper-protected target in the near-earth environment was achieved despite the failure of half of the bumper panels to deploy fully. Because of the anomaly, the spacecraft batteries had overheated and data collection from the main telemetry system had been discontinued; since 22 Aug. 1972, data from the primary experiment had been transmitted through the backup system, which operated on solar cells only. Flight data showed that the bumper concept was six times more effective than a single-wall structure, twice the anticipated effectiveness.
Because the secondary experiments had been powered only by the spacecraft batteries, no data were received from these experiments after 22 Aug. 1972. One secondary experiment-to measure impact flux of small mass meteoroids-had recorded 1850 penetrations, however, enough to show conclusively that the microphone meteoroid sensors flown on early Explorer and Discoverer satellites had greatly over-estimated the population of small meteoroids. (NASA MOR, 11 March 74)
A General Accounting Office report disclosed by Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton (D-Mo.) had questioned Pentagon plans to begin production of 34 radar-carrying aircraft, part of the Airborne Warning and Control System, the Washington Post reported. The GAO report said the radar planes' mission, defense against bomber attack, had changed and the project should be delayed until it was certain the system would work in its new role. There had been no demonstration that the aircraft could work effectively in a massive air battle. In addition, GAO questioned whether the aircraft's large radar would be susceptible to enemy jamming from distances as great as 320 km and whether the planes would become high-priority targets. Sen. Eagleton therefore had requested the Senate Armed Services Committee to deny AWACS production in 1974. (Getler, W Post, 11 March 74, A2)
11, 21 March: Joint hearings on the Technology Resources Survey and Applications Act, S. 2495, were held by the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences and the Committee on Commerce. Dr. James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, said NASA supported the broad objectives of the bill, which would amend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to establish within NASA an Office of Technology Applications to support the proposed National Resources Council. How-ever, NASA already had an effective technology utilization program and did not require additional authority to ensure that its technological capabilities were effectively used. Dr. Fletcher said he could give more support to the bill if the responsibility for a proposed survey of technological resources were given to the existing Domestic Council.
Dr. H. Guyford Stever, National Science Foundation Director, said technology coordination and planning analysis could be more effectively done by an augmented Federal Council for Science and Technology than by the proposed Council. In addition, although NASA had great technological resources, it was essential that mission agencies should be held to their originally defined responsibility.
Dr. Philip Handler, President of the National Academy of Sciences, said the bill unduly emphasized technological resources of NASA and the aerospace industry, when the real issue was how to use the entire Federal science and technology effort in combination with private industry resources within coherent national programs and plans. Instead of direct authorization to NASA, a similar amount should be made available to the President or a council, such as the Council of Economic Advisors or the Council on Environmental Quality, to allocate and coordinate.
Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., President of the National Academy of Engineering and former NASA Deputy Administrator, favored a compact organizational structure with leadership appointed by the President and a research staff independent of all agencies and industry. NASA-developed technology could be used with that in other agencies and private industry. NASA laboratories should be used whenever appropriate. Employees and facilities of Lewis Research Center, which was preeminent in the fields of air-breathing and space-propulsion systems, could be applied effectively to energy research and development. (Transcript)
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
