May 1975
From The Space Library
Preparations continued for late summer launches of the two Viking spacecraft to Mars. A Lander l plugs-out test was completed 8 May, 2 days later than planned, because of a grounding problem. By 26 May all flight equipment, except for the gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, had been installed on Lander 1. Lander 2 was mated with its protective aeroshell on 28 May.
Orbiter 1 was undergoing final mechanical assembly as the flight subsystems became available after individual reworking. By 31 May all temperature-control louvers, protective covers, and thermal blankets had been installed. Initial Orbiter 2 system testing was completed 5 May, and Orbiter block validation tests were begun. All solar panels for both Orbiters had been assembled and swing-tested, and were awaiting buildup of the low-pressure gas system.
On 13 May a major hardware review of both landers was held at Kennedy Space Center with 100 NASA and industry participants. The review was the final chance to discuss' modifications in the spacecraft before closure of the bottom plates and sterilization. Following the review, Langley Research Center's Viking Project Manager James S. Martin, Jr., said, "Everything is going just great and right on schedule." (Viking launch and mission operations status bulletins 4, 5, 6,; NASA Activities, June 75)
The vertical tail assembly for the Space Shuttle arrived at Rockwell International Corp., in Palmdale, Calif., after being shipped by Shuttle subcontractor Fairchild Republic Co. The tail unit, more than 8 m high, had a root chord of nearly 7 m. (FRC X-Press, 6 June 77, 2; Spaceflight, Jan 76, 25)
NASA Life Sciences Director, Dr. David L. Winter, issued an invitation to scientists to help plan NASA's future life sciences program in space. The invitation, sent to 30 000 biological scientists in the U.S., said that NASA was considering a series of manned laboratories staffed by scientists, engineers, and technicians to be launched aboard the Space Shuttle. One entire lab devoted to life-science experimentation would be launched every 6 mo. Other small highly automated life-science experiments could be performed during Spacelab and Space Shuttle missions dedicated to other disciplines; NASA estimated that as many as 200 life-science flight experiments could be conducted in space during the 1980s.
The invitation stated that "in order to take maximum advantage of future research opportunities, NASA intends to involve a large cross section of the Life Sciences community in shaping scientific program objectives, in selecting spacecraft laboratory equipment, and in the planning and execution of Flight Experiments." NASA estimated that approximately 200 scientists could participate as principal investigators of future flight experiments and that 50 of those could perform their research in- space as crew members.
As part of the first phase of the life-science program, NASA requested that interested scientists suggest general topics for future research and identify equipment needed to carry out life-science investigations. (Winter letter, text; NASA Release 75-140; UPI, NYT, 9 May 75, 7)
The launch of Skylab 1 on 14 May 1973 had torn a temporary "hole" in the ionosphere, Physics Today reported. The journal said scientists speculated that the hole, a depletion of the total electron count, was caused by molecular hydrogen and water vapor from the exhaust of the Saturn V engines which had continued to burn well into the lower region of the ionosphere. The exhaust caused the oxygen atoms in the ionosphere to recombine, losing one electron each; the electrons were removed faster than could be replenished by the sunlight, thus the hole. The sun did replace the electrons, patching up the hole within 3 hr after the spacecraft passed.
The electron loss triggered by the Skylab launch was similar to ones caused, on a larger scale, by magnetic storms. Because the launch occurred on the second day of such a storm, scientists found it difficult to trace any radio interruptions-typical during decreases in the electron content of the ionosphere-to Skylab. (Physics Today, May 75, 17-18)
The Air Force Systems Command Newsreview reported that the Air Force had awarded an estimated $17 649 042 contract to McDonnell Douglas Corp.'s Douglas Aircraft Co. for the development, manufacture, and testing of a wide-body cargo aircraft fuselage segment using adhesive bonding instead of conventional riveting of the primary structures. Either the YC-14 or the YC-15, advanced medium-short-takeoff-and-landing transport prototypes, would be used as the engineering baseline against which the technology could be developed and evaluated. The contract was AFSC's primary adhesively bonded structure (PABST) portion of the advanced metallic structures (AMS) program to improve structural integrity and durability of future aircraft while minimizing weight and costs of acquisition and maintenance. (AFSC Newsreview, May 75, 4)
Flying magazine discussed "Relevant Research" at NASA: NASA had often been accused of neglecting aeronautics research in favor of space. But the $6.2 million for general aviation, of NASA's total $3.5 billion budget, was "a lot of money, even for a Government agency, and if used wisely... can make significant contributions in the many areas where technology advancements are sorely needed." NASA was particularly well suited to investigate stalls and spins and weather prediction-two of the most prominent factors in general aviation accidents-as well as to develop simple autopilots and flight control systems.
With the aircraft industry becoming increasingly competitive, NASA was "one place to seek help" to produce a technically superior product. NASA was responding to the need, allocating manpower and dollars to relevant general aviation research programs.
More important was the new attitude of NASA and industry toward communicating about capabilities and needs. In the past NASA did its research "in a vacuum, oblivious to the needs of the aviation community and to the unique conditions that constrained the industry's ability to apply NASA research results." But recently NASA initiated a series of workshops between key industry technical experts and their NASA counterparts, designed to coordinate industry technological problem areas and NASA research programs. Also, in 1974, NASA established the General Aviation Technology Advisory Panel and gave it equal stature with the committees and panels that constituted the influential NASA Research and Technology Advisory Council.
The atmosphere for effective communication and relevant research was improving. "While the threat of bureaucratic inefficiency and self-serving growth seems ever-present in Government endeavors, we see a conscientious effort on the part of NASA to apply their resources to the needs of general aviation." (Flying magazine, May 75)
- April
- May
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
