Dec 5 1985
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: Having served as NASA deputy administrator for only two weeks, Dr. William Graham was not known well by most NASA employees; but, as acting administrator replacing James Beggs, Graham had ...)
Newer edit →
Current revision
Having served as NASA deputy administrator for only two weeks, Dr. William Graham was not known well by most NASA employees; but, as acting administrator replacing James Beggs, Graham had a clear opinion of NASA and his opportunity to lead it, the Washington Post reported. Graham, who had a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, said in an interview today that “NASA's a marvelous organization . . . For a technologist, this is like dying and going to heaven.” Thus, Graham characterized himself as a professional technologist, which his background would certainly indicate. He had worked as a project officer with the Air Force Weapons Laboratory in New Mexico, was a founder and executive of R&D Associates in California, and had served on numerous advisory panels on nuclear weapons, strategic military policy, and undersea warfare. However, this emphasis in his career on weapons research and military policy aroused some unease at NASA, the Post commented. “He's from the other side of the river,” one NASA official said, referring to Graham's long association with the Pentagon. But Graham had sought to assure Congressional committees recently that his appointment was not designed to lead to the “militarization of NASA.” Graham's close ties to the Reagan Administration were seen as possibly beneficial to the space agency. And Graham commented that he would follow President Reagan's “very strong and clear space policy.” Some associates noted that even as acting administrator they expected Graham to “take a strong hand” in agency affairs. Graham had already announced that he intended to meet soon with all the agency's top executives and then visit the research and operations center at Cape Canaveral, Houston, Pasadena, and elsewhere. “I'm a hands-on kind of person,” he said. “I like to get out and walk the halls and talk to people.” (W Post, Dec 6/85, A29)
NASA announced it selected three scientific investigations for the Hubble Space Telescope that would lead to the design and development over the next several years of one or two advanced scientific instruments for flight readiness during the period 1992 to 1994 for that orbital observatory.
The three investigations selected for the definition phase were an imaging Michelson spectrometer, by Donald Hall, University of Hawaii, Honolulu; near-infrared camera and multi-object spectrometer, by Dr. Roger Thompson, University of Arizona, Tucson; and space telescope imaging spectrograph, by Dr. Bruce Woodgate, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. All the proposed instruments would be capable of taking photos of celestial objects and breaking down the light from these objects into spectral colors.
NASA would then select one or two of the investigations for flight hardware development about one year after telescope launch, scheduled for the last half of 1986. Space Shuttle astronauts would install the selected instrument(s) on the telescope while it was in earth orbit. (NASA Release 85-164)
NASA announced that a NASA scientist and a Stanford University engineer developed the bone stiffness analyzer, an instrument that might aid in treating bone fractures and bone-weaking diseases including osteoporosis, which afflicted millions of the elderly. The two originally developed the instrument, which measured bone mass and stiffness, to help scientists combat bone loss that might occur during long-term spaceflights, particularly on manned space stations or extended space journeys such as trips to Mars.
The instrument was based on a theory, initially demonstrated by Dr. Donald Young, a physiologist at NASA's Ames Research Center, that bone behaved as a structural beam and that well-developed concepts for testing the stiffness and displacement properties of structural beams could be applied to measuring the same properties in arm and leg bones. Dr. Charles Steele, professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford University, adapted the instrument for clinical application.
The analyzer gauged the bone's resistance to a small amount of pressure applied to the forearm or leg bone, while the subject's arm or leg was positioned so the ends were immobile. The instrument's probe, an electromagnetic “shaker” or iron core wrapped with wire, was placed at mid bone and current was run through it, causing the bone to vibrate. A microprocessor then measured the bone's displacement using algorithms stored in its memory, deducing the bone's stiffness and effective mass.
Since the analyzer responded quickly-a test took less than one minute and did not damage the bone or tissue-the analyzer might have wide applications for screening diseases such as osteoporosis, which weakened bones but was usually diagnosed only after a fracture occurred when the disease was well advanced. Although the bone analyzer could not be used on the spine where osteoporosis often first appeared, it could detect the disease long before X-rays, which did not show evidence of change until after at least 20% bone loss. Steele was planning to adapt the device for use on fingers, which also showed early evidence of the bone disease.
Since the analyzer could also monitor a bone's strength as it healed, the device might also aid in the treatment of fractures. The analyzer's quantitative measure of bone strength could replace the inference and guesswork that usually was the basis for a decision on removing a cast from a fractured bone.
After three years of clinical testing on more than 300 subjects, Steele believed the device was at a useful level of precision. To find normal values for bone stiffness, Young and Steele tested participants in the Stanford Invitational Rugby Tournament in 1984. In the coming year, they would conduct more tests on healthy subjects and a data search to find normal “loads,” the amount of stresses and strains needed to maintain healthy bones.
After further tests, Young and Steele planned to use the instrument to create an exercise program for maintaining bone strength during the weightless environment associated with extended spaceflight missions when bones tended to atrophy.
Young hoped to develop a program efficient enough to place the necessary stresses on bones through short periods of daily exercise. “It would be great if it could be done in an hour a day,” Young commented. He believed a trampoline-like device, with restraints to hold the body, might be effective. Eventually, the analyzer itself might go into space with astronauts, who could test their own bone strength, perhaps determining when they needed to return to earth. (NASA Release 85, 163)
NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) announced signing today with Rockwell Shuttle Operations Co. a cost-plus-incentive/award-fee contract for Space Transportation System operations (STSOC) [see Space Transportation System/Management, Sept. 12]. JSC estimated the first two years of the contract, starting January 1, 1986, to be valued at $378,536,000 and the follow-on two-year extension option from January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989 at about $374,320,000 for a possible four-year total of $752,846,000.
Rockwell's STSOC tasks would include project management; maintenance and operations of mission control center-Houston, shuttle mission simulator, shuttle avionics integration laboratory, software production facility, and the central computing facility; sustaining engineering; flight preparation requirements and analysis; flight preparation production; and direct mission operations and testing and support for Space Shuttle operations at JSC.
The Rockwell team included Bendix Field Engineering Corp., System Development Corp., Omniplan Corp., RMS Technologies, Inc., and System Management American Corp. (JSC Release 85-051)
Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd at NASA Headquarters and all NASA centers via closed-circuit TV, former administrator James Beggs said today that federal fraud charges against him were “baseless” [see NASA/Management and Personnel, Dec. 2], that he expected to be cleared, and expressed thanks for an “outpouring” of support, the Washington Post reported.
“These charges relate to things that happened in General Dynamics six and seven years ago,” Beggs noted and said that he had reviewed the charges and believed, “we acted in an entirely ethical, legal and moral sense.” “The charges, therefore, are baseless . . . They are outrageous, ridiculous and I feel confident that once this is brought to trial that I'll be completely exonerated of the charges.” Beggs also noted that the suits against defense firms were creating a climate that would blight the work of NASA and of the defense community. “The very adversarial relationship that is being created by the suits against the contractors, the very bad kind of statements that are being made in the press, and elsewhere, is going to make our job in the future much more difficult,” he said. “Not just here, but in the Defense Department as well.” Earlier, the NY Times reported that all top 27 administrators at NASA and field installations had sent a statement to Congress and the White House endorsing Beggs as “an individual with the highest standards of integrity which have earned him the esteem and respect of his colleagues.” The statement said he had revitalized the space program and regretted “the untimely interruption of his work;' calling him a man of the “highest integrity, totally dedicated to NASA, an extremely able executive.” (W Post, Dec 6/85, A16; NYT, Dec 6/85, A5)
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
