Oct 30 1963

From The Space Library

NASA announced it was dropping four manned Apollo or­bital flights employing the Saturn I booster and accelerating the all-systems manned Apollo flights employing the Saturn I-B booster. Saturn I would have been able to orbit only the com­mand and service modules of Apollo. Saturn I-B can launch the entire system, including the lunar Excursion Module (LEM). Studies have concluded that running all-systems checks from the beginning is a quicker and more certain method of checkout than to add additional systems flight by flight. Also the deletion of the four flights would save $50 million in FY 1964. The changes would delay the first manned Apollo flights by some nine months. (NASA Release 63-246; NYT,10/31/63,18; Wash. Post, 10/31/63, 5)

Thrust-Augmented Thor space booster developed by the USAF would be added to the National Launch Vehicle program as booster for Agena and Delta vehicles, DOD and NASA announced. TAT would have three XM-33 solid-propellant rockets, each 31-in. in diameter and producing 54,000 lbs. thrust, strapped to the sides of the basic Thor vehicle. This is the same rocket developed by Thiokol Chemical Corp. as the second stage of NASA's Scout booster. The three solid rockets would be fired at the same time as the Thor engine, would burn for about 40 see., and then drop off as the Thor engine continued powered flight. Raising Thor's total thrust to 330,000 lbs., TAT would represent a 20 to 30% in­crease in capability over the Delta, putting 1,000 lbs. into earth orbit compared with 800 lbs. for Delta. (DOD Release 1434-63)

Dr. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary of the National Aero­nautics and Space Council, speaking before the Air Transport Association Engineering and Maintenance Conference in Wash­ington, said: "While much has been said about the Congressional cuts in the NASA budget request, it is noteworthy that the debate was not on cutting back the program. Rather, it was on how much should the increase be. This is, I believe, the key to the public outlook on space." (Text)

NASA Administrator James E. Webb, speaking at Montana State University, Missoula, Mont., listed six reasons for making Project Apollo the major manned space flight effort of the 1960's: `1) The goal of lunar exploration is feasible from an engineer­ing standpoint .... 2) By planning ahead, and adopting a realistic schedule, we avoid the wastefulness of indecision and stop-and-go financing. "3) We have set ourselves a clear goal which the entire world can understand, and one in which weave a good chance of being first. 4) We have set a goal which will focus our efforts, and at the same time enable us to build up a broad base of space power .... "5) In Project Apollo we protect ourselves against the great psychological advantage the Soviet Union would have if it alone could occupy and use the moon .... "6) Project Apollo gives us our first good chance of overcoming the lead in manned space exploration which the Soviets now hold. ' (Text )

Sen. A. . Monroney (D.-Okla.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Senate Commerce Committee, speaking at the Air Transport Association Engineering and Maintenance Conference in Washington, said that the Government's plan of cost sharing for the development of the supersonic transport aircraft ($1 bil­lion, the U.S. putting up 3/4, the aviation industry the other 1/4) was "a firm figure that must be considered final . . . . "I am afraid that many of our finest businessmen still hope to consider this project in the nature of a defense contract. This effort must stand alone as a civil aviation need . . " The Senator did concede that if the market turned out to be for 100 aircraft instead of 200, the Government "might be able to give the companies some bail-out on this." (NYT, 10/31,/63, 58)

In column strongly supporting the U.S. space program, Roscoe Drummond stated that the United States "should not make the mistake of allowing Nikita Khrushchev to determine the size of the U.S. space program. This is a pitfall to be avoided at all costs "Naturally we must leave it to the consensus of the scientists and the technicians to decide whether the manned flight to the moon is the 'best way and the urgent next step to insure pre­eminence in outer space. The controlling and compelling objec­tive is not a manned lunar landing on the moon for its own sake, but the achievement of mastery of the element of outer space for all that it will mean to the kind of earth we will inhabit for a longtime to come." (Wash. Post,10/30/63)

Editorial in The Houston Post: "Why Khrushchev's word should be accepted on this [com­menting that Russia does not have a definite program for putting a man on the moon] any more than on anything else is hard to understand . . . It . . . must be kept in mind that Soviet policy in any area is a zig-zag affair and subject to quick change. Moreover, under the Soviet system, Khrushchev does not have to worry about congressional attitudes or reaction if he should decide upon a change . . . " . why should Khrushchev be permitted to set the policy on this country's space program? That is something for the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States govern­ment to do on the basis of careful study and evaluation. "The fact is that the United States government made its deci­sion several years ago. It stands committed to a program of trying to put a man on the moon in this decade. What the Russians do or don't do should be a matter of secondary im­portance at this point in the program. Much more is involved than merely a contest with Russians as to time." (Text)

A new program was being established to encourage the develop­ment of skilled writers who would explain science to the layman. The Richard Prentice Ettinger Program for Creative Writing would have three participating institutions-The Rockefeller Institute, New York Univ., and Univ. of Pa., and would be headed by Dr. Loren C. Eiseley, on leave from his post as Chairman of the Department of the History and Philosophy of Science at the Univ. of Pa. Beginning in 1964, it would award fellowships for the purpose of enabling the fellows to produce high-quality books and articles on science free from the pressure of earning a living. It also awards a Richard Prentice Ettinger Medal, with $1,000, to writers or others who have fostered understanding of science. (NYT, 10/30/63, 40)

• October

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