May 23 1963

From The Space Library

Areas rocket instrumented to measure electrical characteris­tics of lower ionosphere launched from Birdling's Flat on the Canterbury Plains, New Zealand. First sounding rocket launched in cooperative U.S.-New Zealand program, Areas with its launch­er was supplied by NASA; payload was designed and built by Univ. of Canterbury staff; rocket was assembled and launched by Royal New Zealand Air Force. Two more Areas rockets would be launched in the joint Univ. of Canterbury-NASA project, sponsored by National Space Research Committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand. (NASA Release 63-110)

A Sodium-vapor experiment to measure high-altitude winds and dif­fusion rates was launched on Nike-Apache sounding rocket from Wallops Island, Va. Sodium vapor trail, ejected from 27 to 127­mi. altitudes, was visible for several hundred miles from launch site. (Wallops Release 63-51; AP, Wash. Post', 5/24/63)

Astronaut Leroy Gordon Cooper greeted by crowds of thousands in Houston as he returned home for first time since his 22-orbit MA-9 space flight. (UPI, NYT, 5/24/63)

NASA announced plans to award contracts for support services in Launch Operations Center Merritt Island Launch Area (MILA) in four broad categories: base services; launch support services; administrative and management services; and communications. (NASA Release 63-111)

Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D.-N.M.), Chairman, Senate Com­mittee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, speaking on the Sen­ate floor stated "The decision to try to land a man on the moon by 1970 does not constitute a crash program . . . . Failure to decide on a schedule for attempting to reach the moon is equivalent to set­ting no deadline at all. Work is done best-even by the technical community-which is not exempt from the laws of human na­ture-when a specific goal is set. An objective of landing on the moon in the 1960's ... permits us to work at a challenging pace; yet, does not absorb a greater percentage of the nation's resources than our country can afford. This is only one percent of the gross national product at current rate .... "Project Apollo does not fit the description of a crash pro­gram. - The wartime Manhattan project was a crash program. We used all the resources we could to develop the atomic bomb in the shortest period of time, regardless of cost. We main­tained duplicating operations over a 3-year period in the hope that one would work-and one did, in time to help win a war. Apollo is no such project. If it were, we would not have had the controversy over whether earth-orbiting rendezvous, lunar­ orbiting rendezvous, or a direct landing was the best way to get a man to the moon. A crash project would have gone into opera­tional stages of all three alternatives to a moon landing . . . . "The shortage of scientific manpower has not been aggravated in a measurable way by Apollo. Those critics who fear that it has, have not established their case. For example, in 1970, it is predicted that U.S. scientists and engineers will total 1,995,000, of which only 114,700 or less than 6 percent, will work for NASA and its contractors. It should be noted that a substantial por­tion of those are merely moving over from research and develop­ment work on aeronautics and missiles . . . NASA is enlarging its efforts to increase the national supply of scientific and engi­neering. personnel. Last fiscal year, the agency provided grad­uate science and engineering fellowships to 100 students at 10 universities. In its budget proposal for fiscal 1964, NASA requests authorization for 1,250 fellowships covering 110 universities. "Additionally, the agency has provided funds for 150,000 square feet of research space at five universities; it is asking for funds to provide 400,000 square feet of laboratory space at 11 universities." (OR, 5/23/63,8961-66)

Dr. George L. Simpson, NASA Assistant Administrator for Technology Utilization and Policy Planning, testified before Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee of House Committee on Government Operations, appearing at Committee's invitation to "discuss NASA's responsibilities with respect to the Satellite Situation Report and related procedures and reports . . . . "NASA has been publishing the Satellite Situation Report since . . . [Feb. 47,1961]. It has included all unclassified infor­mation made available to it by NORAD except for a period from Jan­uary to April 1963 when it was thought that each agency, NASA and DOD, would handle its own reporting. NASA has resumed pub­lishing all unclassified information received from NORAD . . . . "In summary, NASA was never assigned the responsibility for reporting satellite tracking information but did agree at DOD's request, when the DOD's Space Tracking effort became operational, to disseminate all unclassified information on satellites to the scientific community using the information made available to it by NORAD. "There apparently has been some variation in the type and scope of the information which Defense has made available to us. We have released all unclassified material received from NORAD without modification . . . ." Under recent NASA-DOD agreement, NASA's Satellite Situation Report lists information on Soviet satel­lites when such information is: (1) cleared for release by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, (2) Officially reported to U.N. Registry and confirmed 'by NORAD tracking data, and (3) publicly announced by Soviet government and confirmed by NORAD. Subcommittee members joined Chairman John E. Moss (D.­Calif.) in accusing NASA Of "unjustified subservience" to DOD policy. Chairman Moss said that "Official space information has dwindled to the point where a true perspective of where we stand, in relation to the Russians, scarce exists so far as the general public is concerned .... [DOD policy] clearly has resulted in the withholding of information vital to public understanding Of United States and Russian space activities." Asked if any Soviet space failures in recent months had been kept secret by U.S. au­thorities, Dr. Simpson replied that his answer could be given Only in executive session. (Testimony; Transcript)

Arnold W. Frutkin, NASA Director Of International Pro­grams, Outlined progress in NASA international programs before Third European Space Flight Symposium, Stuttgart, and said: "I believe that the essential meaning Of this brief review Of Our Own programs is that international pooling Of efforts in the space field can be highly successful if it is rigidly directed to solid scientific and technical Objectives Of mutual interest, requiring significant rather than to en contributions by both sides a do thoughtful planning. Perhaps even more important is the clear evidence that these successes engender growing interest and greatly expand the basis for succeeding cooperative enterprises. "We are quite aware Of Our great indebtedness to European science and technology. We believe that the freest possible asso­ciation Of Our respective programs, where they complement and support each Other, is the soundest way to proceed if we are to continue to benefit in this way and if we are to reciprocate generously. I believe that in the long run cooperation between NASA for the United States and ESRO and ELDO for Europe affords the best means to expand the hard core Of cooperation in space research, and that such collaboration will have the greatest po­tential for further extension to forward-looking nations every­where in the world .... " (Text)

In paper presented at Lunar Surface Materials Conference, Boston, NASA scientists Curtis W. McCracken (GSFC) and Maurice Dubin (Hq.) asserted moon is covered with dust from four inches to three feet deep. Basing estimate On data gained from space­craft and ground observations of interplanetary dust particles, McCracken and Dubin said articles traveling at hyper velocities impact moon at such speed that both particle and its impact point are destroyed, creating lunar dust. They supported theory that dust layer is porous cobweb-like structure. (NASA Release 63-109)

Warren Rayle, Lewis Research Center engineer, described work he is doing in watching for "ball" lightning, a phenomenon occur­ring during thunderstorms and appearing as a round, glowing object which may move slowly Or hang in the air. Lewis scien­tists engaged in research with plasma propulsion devices think ball lightning may be much like the plasmas they work with in the laboratory. (LRC Release 63-31, Lewis Chronology, 4)

Senator John L. McClellan (D.-Ark.) inserted in Congres­sional Record editorial from Industrial Research regarding S.816, bill to establish Commission on Science and Technology : "We simply doubt that it would be possible to pull together all Federal scientific activities under a single roof; and failure to do so would mean that the agency or department would be little or no improve­ment over the existing Office of Science and Technology. It is highly unlikely that the National Bureau of Standards could be taken from the Department of Commerce; the National Institutes of Health from the Department of Health, Education, and Wel­fare; the Bureau of Mines from the Department of the Interior; the research and engineering activities from the Department of Defense; the nuclear laboratories from the Atomic Energy Com­mission; etc., without impairing the effectiveness of these govern­mental bodies. However, we are willing to be convinced. But there is not much chance of change unless someone-such as the proposed Commission-takes a good, hard look at the ongoing Federal science programs." (IR, 5/63, in CR, 5/23/63, 8786-87)

Heinz Koelle, Director of MSFC Future Projects Office, was awarded Hermann Oberth Medal at third annual European Space Vehicle Congress, Stuttgart. (Marshall Star, 5/29/63,1)

• May

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