May 6 1963
From The Space Library
JPL Deep Space Instrumentation Facility (DSIF) at Goldstone, Calif., succeeded in bouncing radar signals off planet Mercury 60,500,000 mi. from earth. Traveling at speed of light, signals took 11 min. to make trip from Goldstone to Mercury and back to Goldstone. Preliminary analysis of echo patterns indicated Mercury has rougher surface than Venus or Mars but same surface reflectivity as that of moon. Mercury experiment was to be conducted 12 hrs. per day May 6-29, at which time planet would move out of antenna's range. (JPL TWX, 5/29/63; Marshall Star, 6/5/63, 5)
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center announced eight NASA astronauts were working with manned space flight simulator at Ling-Temco- Vought, Dallas, evaluating manual control and instrument display should the Apollo lunar excursion module's primary guidance system fail during descent to the moon. (MSC Release 63-81)
Interplanetary space simulation was achieved in a 6-ft.-wide, 10-ft.-high-space tank at the NASA Lewis Research Center. This included solar simulation and vacuum of 10-13 torr. (Lewis Chronology, 3)
USAF announced it would attempt second Project West Ford orbiting belt of 400 million copper filaments "in the near future." First such attempt, Oct. 21, 1961, was unsuccessful because container failed to eject the needles. MIT Lincoln Laboratory, conducting experiment for USAF, said in fact sheet that "no other communication method suggested to date, by satellite or otherwise, offers comparable reliability, in terms of global coverage with virtually complete invulnerability to destruction or jamming . . . ." (DOD Release 637-63; Finney, NYT, 5/7/63, 29; Laurence, NYT, 5/12/63, E9)
Brig. Gen. Charles H. Roadman (USAF), NASA Director of Aerospace Medicine, testified before House Committee on Science and Astronautics' Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight. Replying to press criticism of NASA plans to use pure oxygen in Project Gemini spacecraft, General Roadman said: ". . . in our investigations to date we have no physiological information that would permit us to say that 100% oxygen from a physiological standpoint is contraindicated in a two-week mission. This is not to say that there are not, many physiologists who would like more information concerning 100% oxygen over a time period, which we thoroughly support . . . ." (Transcript)
May 6-9: Third National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space held in Chicago. NASA Administrator James E. Webb, in keynote address May 6, cited recommendation by Iowa Summer Study that one or more scientists be included in Project Apollo lunar flights: "To those who have the responsibility for success in reaching the moon, it has appeared that the nature of the Apollo effort requires the training of astronauts who have substantial experience as test pilots in high speed jet aircraft, and to the extent possible engineering training as well. "Meanwhile, it is apparent that the view of the scientists that trained scientific personnel should participate is valid, and that at the earliest appropriate stage in the program scientists will be included on Apollo missions. So far as we can now tell we are obligated to utilize astronauts with the maximum of test-flight, experience and highly conditioned reflexes on the first flight of the most difficult of all undertakings. Should training and experience in intermediate flights indicate otherwise we will, of course, take this into consideration in determining the stage of development in manned, space flight at which a scientist-astronaut will directly participate. "In its effort to insure maximum scientific benefit from the manned space flight program NASA is doing several things "First, manned space flights are being used to take scientific measurements in order that they will provide results beyond crew training and technological experience. "Second, efforts have already begun to provide scientific training for the present group of astronauts including geological field trips to enhance their capacity for scientific observation. "Third, a manned space science working group has been established [within NASA] . . . . This group is already at. work in the planning of a program for training scientists for space flight . . . ." (Text)
Dr. David H. Stoddard, Assistant Director of Medical Operations in NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, discussed human factors in manned space flight and said "we are confident that the biomedical needs of our currently approved manned space flight program can be met from within the scope of our existing technology." (Text)
Dr. Joseph F. Shea, Deputy Director for Systems in NASA Office of Manned Space Flight., reviewed U.S. manned space flight program. Describing Project Gemini, he said: ". . . the Gemini is more than an experimental spacecraft. At the end of its scheduled developmental flight program, it will be available for missions ranging from scientific and engineering experiments to the ferrying of astronauts to and from a permanent space laboratory. The end goal of Gemini is, therefore, an operational spacecraft which can be launched by relatively small boosters. We expect Gemini to be a useful space vehicle for several years . . . . The Gemini spacecraft will reach operational status by 1966. . . ." (Text)
Capt. Robert F. Freitag (USN), Director of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion in NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, said "The nation's program to achieve pre-eminence in space and to insure that the United States occupies first place among the nations of this world in science, in technology and in conquest of space is critically dependent on the power of the rocket. "You may have heard much about the `booster gap' and the effect this situation has had on our position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union started well ahead of us in the development of large rockets, so necessary for manned flight. The Soviets have been ahead of us, and are still ahead of us in their ability to launch reliably large masses to Earth orbit. "However, with the acceleration of our own progress and by the establishment of our program on a sound engineering basis we can, we believe, surpass the Soviets in time and clearly establish and demonstrate United States pre-eminence in manned space flight.. " (Text)
Reviewing NASA space program, Director of NASA Office of Programs D. D. Wyatt said: "In its broadest context the NASA program can be classified into three complementary parts. First, we have those phases of the program which are aimed at the exploration of the very nature of space . . . . "The second major element of our program is aimed at the earliest practical utilization of space for the benefit of mankind.... "Complementing our programs to understand and define space is a third major program element aimed at developing and improving the highly complex technologies which will enhance our future capabilities in space . . . ." (Text)
John E. Naugle, Director Of NASA Geophysics and Astronomy Programs, said: ". . . the scientific program which we have in NASA is a logical extension of the research work which has been underway in laboratories on the earth since the time of Galileo. Just as astronomers once carried their telescopes to the top of a mountain to see better, now we carry telescopes beyond the earth on rockets and satellites. By doing this we see entirely new phenomena and enable scientists to broaden their studies in certain scientific disciplines . . . ." He then discussed scientific results from each of the six scientific satellites launched by NASA since beginning of 1962 (OSO I, EXPLORER XIV, EXPLORER XV, ALOUETTE I, ARIEL, and EXPLORER XVII). (Text)
NASA Director of International Programs Arnold W. Frutkin said in May 7 address delivered by J. H. Barnes, NASA Chief of Cooperative Programs, Office of International Programs: "What other nations are doing in space and in particular, what they are doing together, is in fact small when compared with the resources going directly into national programs in the US and the USSR. Yet, what has been accomplished provides substantial evidence of the feasibility, the benefits, and the promise of joint action by the nations in this new field . . " (Text)
Edgar M. Cortright, Deputy Director of NASA Office of Space Sciences, described scientific spacecraft now under development, and said: "We must continually assess our progress . . . The flight performance of our spacecraft has been increasing dramatically . . . . The useful life of unmanned spacecraft launched in 1962 has exceed six months and is still rising because most of those intended for long life are still operating successfully. "Our progress with launch vehicles has been equally gratifying. In 1962, 82% of all major NASA launchings were successful. This performance has been paced by the remarkable Thor-Delta which has successfully launched 16 out of 17 spacecraft. In addition, the huge Saturn has scored 4 out of 4 perfect flights. During this time period, both the Thor-Delta and the Scout payloads were increased over 60% at no increase in their $2.5 million and $1 million price tags. These dramatic increases in performance, life, and reliability of spacecraft and launch vehicles represent by far the most effective way to achieve economy in the space program . ." (Text)
NASA Director of Advanced Research and Technology Dr. Raymond L. Bisplinghoff said: "There are four principal areas where a continuing and driving program of advanced research is required if this nation is to achieve pre-eminence in aeronautical and space activities in the decades to come. These are energy conversion and propulsion; materials and structures; control, guidance and communications; and space sciences and the environment of space." (Text)
Louis B. C. Fong, Director of NASA Office of Technology Utilization, said on May 8 that the "basic objectives of the [NASA] Technology Utilization Program are: Identification of innovations, Cataloging, Dissemination " . I want to make it very explicit that NASA's Technology Utilization Program is separate and distinct from our manned space flight and space science efforts. The space exploration program stands on its own merits; our nation must occupy a position of pre-eminence. The benefits from industrial applications are not now-and never will be the justification for the high costs of this major effort . . . ." (Text)
Harold B. Finger, Manager of AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Office and Director of NASA Nuclear Systems, described on May 9 NASA research in and plans for nuclear propulsion " . . the door that was opened here in Chicago in December 1942 has in less than 20 years led us to concepts and hardware for the utilization of that new energy source in space missions that could not be generally anticipated at that time. As a result of that dramatic scientific effort, we have established major goals aimed at the early and practical utilization of nuclear energy in space. We are convinced that a substantial effort is justified by the potential performance advantages and the many applications of these systems for difficult space missions. This work will lead us not only to the development of particular hardware items, but will open new fields of rocket propulsion and power to permit us to travel freely in space" (Text)
Former Chairman of the AEC (1946-50), David E. Lilienthal, suggested a comparison of the "purple cliches about the space age, current successor to the atomic new world" with the early years of the atomic age in Stafford Little lecture at Princeton University printed in the Congressional Record: "In the 1940's it was reasonable to join in General Groves' and Senator McMahon's view of the possibility of a `new world' that peaceful applications of atomic energy might bring. Responsible men spoke of atomic power so cheap it wouldn't pay to meter it. Most of us were less exuberant by far. Yet even those with a less euphoric outlook had ample grounds to believe that the expectations of the 1940's and the early 1950's should be given a hard try, and that such an effort had a good chance of paying . . . . "What then is the record? . . For the country as a whole, except where the costs of producing electricity from other sources of heat are high, atomic power is not cheaper but costlier than conventional fuel . . . ." (CR, 5/6/63, 7324-30)
Remarks by Charles H. Wilson on X-21A research aircraft appeared in Congressional Record. In experimental test program conducted by Norair Div. of Northrop Corp. for AFSC, two X-21A aircraft were "designed to test the feasibility of a suction system to maintain laminar air flow over the wings . . . . X-21A flight tests are expected to prove that up to 80 percent of airplane friction drag can be eliminated with a corresponding increase in range, endurance or payload of more than 50 percent . . . . ." (CR, 5/6/63, 7399)
Press conference with Lt. Col. K. B. Cooper of ARPA was reported in Missiles and Rockets. Colonel Cooper predicted Project Defender would provide in three years 95% of knowledge required to understand and interpret re-entry physics phenomena. (M&R, 5/6/63, 21)
Speaking at American Institute of Chemical Engineers meeting in Buffalo, N.Y., engineers of Linde Co. described new process for making liquid hydrogen that would reduce its cost from $2 per pound to 35 or 40 cents per pound. (AP, NYT, 5/7/63, 11)
USN announced Allegheny Ballistics Laboratory facilities destroyed by fire in April would be rebuilt "to provide support for current rocket motor development programs and those already planned for the next year." (AP,Wash. Post, 5/7/63)
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
