Jun 16 1972
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: Federal Communications Commission adopted by 4-to-3 vote policy of "multiple entry" of firms into domestic satellite communications field. Commission rejected proposal by its Broadcast Bur...)
Newer edit →
Current revision
Federal Communications Commission adopted by 4-to-3 vote policy of "multiple entry" of firms into domestic satellite communications field. Commission rejected proposal by its Broadcast Bureau for "limited entry" that would have required applicants with similar technology to combine efforts. FCC said that multiple-entry policy would require applicants to demonstrate that they were financially and technically qualified to provide domestic satellite service in public interest. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and ComSatCorp would be subject to certain additional conditions. (B Sun, 6/17/72)
Science commented on June 6 defeat of Rep. George P. Miller (D- Calif.) as candidate for reelection to Congress; Since 1961, when Miller became Chairman of House Committee on Science and Astronautics, "Apollo program has reached fruition and starts have been made on Skylab and the shuttle. Miller was NASA's foremost advocate in the House and took pride in announcing every latest achievement of the space program." Miller's committee had been "influential in having NASA expand its investment in . scientific satellites." Science cited Miller's age, 81, as "decisive factor" in his loss of election. (Science, 6/16/72, 1219)
NASA awarded 18-mo, $1 236 500, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to General Electric Co. Aircraft Engine Group to test inlet choking-new method to quiet short takeoff and landing aircraft. GE would build and test two choked inlets with large two-stage fans. Inlet air flow, accelerated to nearly mach 1 at inlet throat, would be nearly choked so that noise generated by engine fan and compressor could not propagate forward through choked region and out inlet. Studies with scale models of choked inlets were being made under separate contract with Boeing Co. Commercial Airplane Group. (NASA Release 72-126)
Wall Street Journal article criticized "strange aspects to NASA's push for the shuttle." Economic estimates of cost were "troublesome" Some critics had charged that development costs might be "two to four times the $6 billion estimate of NASA. And the operating cost may not be as cheap as NASA says." "Strangest" aspect of NASA argument was "agency's almost total silence on the one space project for which the shuttle makes real sense-the permanent orbiting space station." It had been assumed space station would be "keystone of any long-range space effort involving men" from beginning of space program. Project had been "shoved aside" in favor of manned lunar landing but "the moment that race was won ... NASA pulled the space station plans back out." It was easier to sell public $6-billion research and development program for "useful" space shuttle than $40-billion program for space station. But NASA's "selling spiel" was "somewhat misleading." Once $6-billion development program was finished shuttle would go into routine operation. "Plans call for 30 to 40 flights a year for 10 years. At $10.5 million a flight this comes to $30 billion to $40 billion-about the same in time and money as proposed for the space station." Paper later acknowledged its arithmetical miscalculation and corrected total to "$3 billion to $4 billion," but said corrected figure also was "misleading." NASA estimate had projected $35 billion for shuttle program through 1990, including $12 billion for shuttle and $23 billion for payloads. (WSJ, 6/16/72, 10; 6/20/72)
President Nixon signed S. 3607, $2.6-billion FY 1973 Atomic Energy Commission appropriations bill. Bill became Public Law 92-314. (PD, 6/26/72, 1089)
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
