Dec 2 1977
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: The Washington Post reported that NASA had asked Congress to let it use $100 million of Space Shuttle production funds to pay for higher costs and delays in developing the first two Sh...)
Newer edit →
Current revision
The Washington Post reported that NASA had asked Congress to let it use $100 million of Space Shuttle production funds to pay for higher costs and delays in developing the first two Shuttles. Dr. Robert A. Frosch, NASA Administrator, told the appropriations subcommittee headed by Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) that $65 million would bring production up to schedule and the other $35 million would go into contingency reserves that had run between $100 and $150 million; they were "down near zero right now," Frosch said. Associate Administrator John F. Yardley said the rocket to put the Shuttle into orbit was 5mo behind schedule; also running behind were computer controls and fuselage parts. Asked why NASA requested a fund shift that might cause problems in the future, instead of a supplemental appropriation, Frosch noted that twice when NASA had asked Congress for supplemental budget increases, it had had to wait until the next fiscal year for approval. (W Post, Dec 2/77, A-2)
Dryden Flight Research Center reported that Ralph "Buzz" Sawyer of its flight systems laboratory had made a "paper airplane" to test a theory of reducing elevator flutter and had come up with a new type of aircraft its builder named Skyjacker. Sawyer, working on radio-controlled models, decided to change their airfoils into booms but wanted to test the idea without risking the $600 radio systems. He made a foot-long cardboard model and "heaved [it] off the roof” of DFRC's heat facility; the "paper plane" had demonstrated amazing stability. Sawyer obtained a patent on the design and built a demonstrator 18ft long with an 18ft wingspan that he flew for the first time in Jan. 1975. With a 200hp fuel injected engine and a 3-blade constant-speed propeller, the Skyjacker had "very good low-speed" handling, was easy to fly and land, and (according to the designer) would not stall or spin. The craft had "lift panels" 6ft wide instead of actual wings, but derived lift from its configuration just as DFRC lifting bodies did; the design had no compound curves, and its flat surfaces would make it inexpensive to produce. Possible applications would include crop dusting and firefighting. (NASA X-Press, Dec 2/77, 4)
DFRC reported it had made further study of the effect of insects sticking to the leading edges of aircraft wings [see A&A76, Nov. 23] by flying a small jet transport from four airports (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Diego) to study actual environments from which long-range commercial flights would be made. The program, conducted jointly with Langley Research Center, was part of NASA's aircraft energy-efficiency program to achieve 20 to 40% fuel savings in a 1985 long-range transport aircraft. Such a craft would probably use laminar flow-control technology, depending on smooth airflow over the leading edge of the wings; insects adhering to the wings had made the airflow turbulent, canceling the fuel savings achieved with the laminar flow.
NASA had equipped the wings of the test aircraft with a modified leading edge consisting of 5 panels of different materials, to demonstrate changes in the airflow caused by insects adhering to the different surfaces; it had also added a water cleaning system to study its ability to either wash off or keep off the insects encountered during takeoff and climb. It had then flown the plane over alfalfa fields and sewage ponds, and at Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center, to encounter as many different quantities, kinds, and sizes of bugs as possible. Bob Baron, DFRC project manager, said results indicated a need for some sort of washing system to reduce effects of insect impacts on the laminar flow surface. (DFRC Release 40-77)
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
