July 1967
From The Space Library
Editorial comment on proposed NASA FY 1968 authorization bills [see June 281 : Science: "The political atmosphere surrounding the US. space program is today murkier and less hospitable than at any time since 1961 when President Kennedy-decided to send men to the moon. This does not necessarily mean that NASA is in any danger of falling off its $5-billion-a-year budgetary plateau . . . [but] it is clear that, where Congress is concerned, the agency has lost much of its innocence and therefore its plans are to be reviewed with caution and skepticism. "Some members of Congress are remarkably frank in indicating that their principal interest in the space program lies in the economic benefits it brings their districts. . . . Indeed, one might be justified in predicting that the major budgetary struggles of the future will be less concerned with how much money NASA gets than with how NASA spends the money it does get." (Carter, Science, 7/14/67, 170-3)
Washington Evening Star: "If continuity and momentum are to be maintained in the space program . . . the [congressional] conferees must act with special wisdom this year. "Two . . . items in the House bill should be embodied in one final version. . . . One would establish an independent safety panel in NASA, and the other would require . . . [NASA] to keep Congress `fully and currently informed' of problem areas in the space &ort. "Both proposals were strongly opposed by administration spokesmen on grounds that seem shallow and legalistic. It would be well to embody both in the final 1968 authorization bill, if only to put NASA on firm notice that it is time to shape up." (W Star, 7/7/67, A16)
New York Times: "To read the record of the Congressional debate on NASA's budget is a melancholy experience. . . . Behind the rhetoric it was easy to see the pressure of the many corporations and communities now sharing in NASA's largesse and fearful of the impact of any major cut in this flow of golden manna. "A rational 1968 space budget had been substantially lower than either the House would have cut particularly severely at the Apollo project. . . . It would have changed the present emphasis . . . to lay greater stress on the exploration of the cosmos with relatively cheap, unmanned rockets. Instead, the enormously expensive manned lunar landing effort is left virtually intact, while the highly promising program for sending unmanned Voyagers to Mars and other planets could be entirely eliminated. "The lobbyists can rejoice, but the nation's real interests have been dealt a severe setback." (NYT, 7/3/67,10)
AIAA President Harold T. Luskin, in Astronautics and Aeronautics editorial, proposed a joint Soviet-American safety program to reduce hazards of manned space flight. He urged that representatives of US. and U.S.S.R. meet to exchange technical data on spacecraft safety features, to set up a common communications network for use in emergencies, and to plan joint rescue operations. "Cooperation for safety could be a step forward in promoting the greatest possible success of manned space exploration. The world would regard it as a meritorious indication that nations can find ways to compete and cooperate at one and the same time. . . . "Let both countries work toward the day when a flight crew is saved through cooperative action. That event would be the finest space spectacular, the best space first !' (A& A , 7/67,334)
AFCRL Space Physics Laboratory scientists Drs. Graham R. Hunt and John W. Salisbury said, "Major `hot spot' on the moon is not volcanic," a conclusion based on measurements made by AFCRL imaging device to produce thermal photographs of infrared emissions of lunar surface during dark of moon. Images had been obtained by using infrared imager in association with AFCRL Strawberry Hill Observatory's optical telescope at Concord, Mass. The hot spot, associated with crater Tycho, had heat distribution pattern very similar to solar illumination pattern just before lunar sunset. Because of clear relationship between heat release and solar illumination, Salisbury and Hunt had concluded that crater was emitting stored solar heat rather than volcanic heat. (OAR Res Rev, 7/67, 12-3)
International Council of Scientific Unions' Inter-Union Commission of Solar-Terrestrial Physics (IUCSTP) had planned coordination of observations and data exchange during and beyond period of solar maximum activity expected to arrive before end of 1968. Members had been preparing list of projects in six major areas: solar activity; particles and waves in interplanetary space; particles, fields, and waves in magnetosphere; external geomagnetic field; ionosphere; and aeronomy. Much if not most of this work would be carried out from ground based observatories and geophysical stations, but spaceborne instruments would be essential to supply key information not obtainable from ground. IUCSTP recommended that "ground-based, rocket and balloon programs should . . . take advantage of the fact that certain space vehicles will be making related measurements at particular times." (NAS-NRC-NAE News Report, 8/9/67,6-7)
Federal Support for Academic Science and Other Educational Activities in Universities and Colleges, NSF's report to OST for fiscal years 1963-66, showed these Federal obligations were $3.0 billion in 1966, more than double 1963's $1.4 billion. Although R&D support increased from $813.2 million to $1,257.7 million, its percentage share of the total dropped from 58 to 42. Federal agencies expected a drop in annual rate of growth in MD support from 16% in 1963-66 to 8% in 1966-68. Support for nonscience activities, however, had increased ninefold, from $85 million in 1963 to $847 million in 1966. (Text)
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy reported that internal Chinese Communist strife had had little effect on nuclear weapon program, that Chinese Communists could possibly launch a "low order" missile attack on US. by early 1970's, and that their progress in developing thermonuclear weapons had been "excellent." Joint Committee report, Impact of Chinese Communist Nuclear Weapons Progress on United States National Security, was based on testimony by officials from State Dept., DOD, AJEC, CIA, and nuclear weapon laboratories. (Text)
Low-orbit space operations from a manned orbital base "has the potential to reduce operating costs by a factor of two" for the mission traffic anticipated for post-1970, G. A. Sears of the RAND Corp. had concluded. His paper, Orbital Basing: Key to Low Cost Space Operations, compared present earth-based manned spaceflight program with concept of basing spacecraft at manned space station. Spacecraft would be injected into mission orbits as required and later rejuvenated for reuse by rendezvous with station. Spacecraft would have to operate nearly coplanar with base, a constraint acceptable to many but not all low-orbit missions; however, as method of reducing cost, orbital basing "deserves attention on a par with recovery-to-earth and reuse and extended-life concepts," Sears stated. (Text)
- July
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
