Dec 12 1964
From The Space Library
USAF and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) were reported to be negotiating a $13,000,000 contract with the Garrett Corp. for a 33-month program of advanced development and ground testing of the Space Power Unit Reactor (Spur) system. Spur was one of two elements in the Snap-50/Spur system-Snap-50, under development for AEC by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, being the energy producing reactor, and Spur, the portion which converted heat to electricity. The objective Would be to provide a flyable system in the 1970's. (Haggerty, J/Armed Forces, 12/12/64, 8)
Thiokol Chemical Corp. Wasatch Div.'s 156-in. solid-propellant rocket motor was fired for 130 sec. and terminated within 0.5 sec. of predicted action time, although the last 30 sec. of the firing was completed without the plastic nozzle extension, which parted at the metal attachment flange. Severe erosion of the 5-ft. nozzle extension skirt, which was constructed entirely of ablative materials, weakened the structural integrity of the skirt and it blew off after about 100 sec. of motor burning. The firing continued normally after loss of the skirt with only about an 8% degradation in thrust, which had peaked at just over 1.4 million lb. This was the first demonstration of thrust-vector-control using a movable nozzle. The rocket motor case used in this feasibility demonstration was undamaged, would be used in the follow-on 156-in. program which was awaiting DOD approval. (Av. Wk., 12/21/64, 26)
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara held a press conference at which he responded to questions regarding the MOL project: QUESTION: "Mr. Secretary, Senator Anderson has suggested that a billion dollars could be saved by merging the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory with NASA's Apollo. [See Dec. 7, 1964.] Can you tell us how you feel about that?" SECRETARY MCNAMARA: "I feel very strongly that we must avoid duplicate space programs. There must be only one National Space Program. The great bulk of the expenditures for that National Space Program should be in NASA, because the bulk of the National Space Program will be oriented toward civilian scientific and other objectives. There is a place, there is a requirement for a military component. We must maintain security, a high level of security, on certain elements of the space program and that portion of the program must be handled by the Defense Department. I think Senator Anderson was simply emphasizing the absolute essentiality of fully coordinating the NASA and the Defense Department programs. With that, I agree 100 percent. . . . My principle is a very simple one. I believe we are a military organization, we are not interested in space except insofar as it bears directly on our military mission. If there is anything that NASA can do, that we can in effect hire them to do as our agent, I am 100 percent in favor of doing so." QUESTION: "A related question. Could you say, specifically, whether you are backing the MOL or not?" SECRETARY MCNAMARA: "Yes, indeed." QUESTION: "That could go ahead under the Air Force." SECRETARY MCNAMARA: "Yes, but I want to be sure that the MOL program, the details of it, are fully analyzed by NASA and fully taken into account when NASA establishes any portion of its Apollo Program not directly related to the Lunar Program. . . I want to be certain that the Air Force, when it established the MOL, takes account of what NASA is required to do as part of the Apollo Program that in turn is directly related to the Lunar Program." (Text; M&R, 12/21/64, 20; SBD, 12/15/64)
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara announced that DOD Would establish a Contract Audit Agency whose principal function would be to consolidate the activities and the 3,600 personnel of various units formerly engaged separately in auditing defense and space contracts. He estimated that this would result in a "manpower" saving of $1.8 million. (NYT, 12/13/64)
Britain's new Labor Government had reviewed plans to build the Concorde supersonic airliner and was reported to be seeking a compromise with France over the project. It was possible that the U.K. would propose to France an extension of the Concorde project over a longer period of time to stretch out cost of development. Also Britain would like France to consider the possibility of U.S. participation so that cost could be split three ways. (Farnsworth, NYT, 12/13/64,4)
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
