View source

From The Space Library

You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reasons:

• This page has been locked to prevent editing.
• The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Sysops, trusted. Please choose a subscription type:
  Subscription #1 - One Month - $5:
  
  Subscription #2 - One Year - $50:
  
  

You can view and copy the source of this page:

NASA management officials continued to testify on their pro­grams, within NASA's FY 1969 budget request, to House Committee on Science and Astronautics. NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr. [[George E. Mueller]], said OMSF's $2.815-billion FY 1969 request was lowest request since FY 1963, $332.8 million below FY 1968, and "almost $700 million below the peak Manned Space Flight budget year, Fiscal Year 1966." Dr. Mueller included $2.483 billion for R&D, $18.7 million for construc­tion of facilities, and $313 million for administrative operations. Over 80% of total R&D report was committed to Apollo. "The program of Apollo and Apollo Applications Flights, with the development of the [[Saturn V]] Workshop and the Advanced Missions studies leading to a space station of longer duration and greater earth orbital capabilities, constitute a minimum effort to continue manned space flight into the early 1970s." Dr. Mueller warned against failing "to capitalize on the investment in the Apollo Program" and said it was "economically prudent to proceed now with the Apollo Program and the definition study of the . . . long duration space station . . . keystone in the fu­ture of manned space flight." NASA Associate Administrator for Organization and Management [[Harold B. Finger]], citing 27% decrease in procurement for first three months of FY 1968 below same period in 1967, predicted 94% of procurement dollars going to industry would decrease to less than 90% by end of FY 1969 as industry-developed systems came into NASA for testing and launch. Presenting $10-million Sustaining University program budget-equal to 1968 budget but one-third 1967's $30 mil­lion-Finger stressed need for university contributions and combining universities' "demonstrated competence in physical sciences with their social science strengths to deal with the total impact of the nation's aerospace effort." Finger submitted statement of Dr. Richard L. Lesher, Assistant Administrator for Technology Utilization, describing pro­grams "to experimentally test and develop methods for bringing about the multiple use of the new knowledge gained as a result of NASA activities." NASA Assistant Administrator for Administration William E. Lilly charged $7. 8 -million increase in FY 1969 administrative operations budget request ''(from $640.4-million budget for FY 1968)'' to cost of 1967 Pay Act and conversion to civil service of certain GSFC support services. He cited personnel reduction of 1,704 positions since freeze on hiring new employees on Aug. 24, 1967. ''(Testimony)'' Five ellipse-shaped, three- by five-mile lunar landing areas were selected for astronaut safety considerations by NASA Apollo Site Selection Board. First two sites were in [[Sea of Tranquility]], third was in Central Bay, and fourth and fifth were in [[Ocean of Storms]]. Sites contained fea­tures of scientific, interest, including small craters, raw material ejected from craters, ridges, and faults. Criteria for selection were area smoothness, approach path, propellant conservation, countdown recy­cling time, free-return trajectory, optimum lighting, and slope. Board had studied Lunar Orbiter high-resolution photos and Surveyor close-up photos and surface data. ''(NASA Release 68-25; AP, NYT, 2/5/68, 13)'' NAS released Space Applications Summer Study, 1967 Interim Report, Volume I, Central Review Committee Conclusions and Recom­mendations and Summaries of Panel Reports. Chaired by Dr. W. Deming Lewis, study treated aspects of space technology "likely to produce practical benefits to large segments of the American and world econo­mies." Report urged extensive and coherent program and said NASA should double $100 million it currently spent to develop technology of space applications. ''(Text; Clark, NYT, 2/9/68, 6)'' NSF announced scientists and engineers from USA's Cold Regions Re­search and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H., had for first time successfully drilled through Antarctic icecap, obtaining contin­uous cores to depth of 7,100 ft at Byrd Station. Later studies of cores and samples of underlying rock were expected to provide insight into climatic and atmospheric history. Engineers had reached their immedi­ate goal Jan. 29; drilling would be resumed in October. ''(NSF Release 68-108; Reinhold, NYT, 2/8/68, C3)'' Soviet Prof. Georgy Petrovich, writing in Trud, praised U.S. space achievements but pointed to 20 Soviet "firsts" since [[Sputnik I]]. Past neutral appraisals had generally agreed with Petrovich that U.S.S.R.'s payloads had been heavier and U.S. hardware more sophisticated. Recent contradiction had been intricate softlanding for Soviet Venus IV, Oct. 18, 1967, and successful U.S. test of [[Saturn V]], world's largest booster, Nov. 9, 1967. Petrovich praised NASA'S broad application of space equipment in practical commercial use of satellite technology for communication, meteorology, and navigation. ''(Winters, B Sun, 2/9/68, A3)'' *[[February 1968|February]] [[Feb 1 1968|1]] [[Feb 2 1968|2]] [[Feb 3 1968|3]] [[Feb 4 1968|4]] [[Feb 5 1968|5]] [[Feb 6 1968|6]] [[Feb 7 1968|7]] [[Feb 8 1968|8]] [[Feb 9 1968|9]] [[Feb 10 1968|10]] [[Feb 11 1968|11]] [[Feb 12 1968|12]] [[Feb 13 1968|13]] [[Feb 14 1968|14]] [[Feb 15 1968|15]] [[Feb 16 1968|16]] [[Feb 17 1968|17]] [[Feb 18 1968|18]] [[Feb 19 1968|19]] [[Feb 20 1968|20]] [[Feb 21 1968|21]] [[Feb 22 1968|22]] [[Feb 23 1968|23]] [[Feb 24 1968|24]] [[Feb 25 1968|25]] [[Feb 26 1968|26]] [[Feb 27 1968|27]] [[Feb 28 1968|28]] [[Feb 29 1968|29]] *[[March 1968|March]]

Return to Feb 8 1968.