Apr 14 1972
From The Space Library
U.S.S.R. launched two satellites. Prognoz 1 (Forecast), launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome, entered orbit with 199 667-km (124 067.3-mi) apogee, 1005-km (624.5-mi) perigee, 5782J-min period, and 65.0° inclination. Primary objective was "to study processes of solar activity, their influence upon inter-planetary medium and the earth's magnetosphere." Prognoz 1 weighed 845 kg (1863 lbs) and carried instruments to study corpuscular, gamma ray, and x-ray solar radiation; solar plasma flows and their interaction with magnetosphere; and magnetic fields in near-earth space. Cosmos 486, launched from Plesetsk, entered orbit with 253-km (157.2-mi) apogee, 218-km (135.5-mi) perigee, 89.1-min period, and 81.3° inclination. Satellite reentered April 27. (GSFC SSR, 4/30/72; Tass, FBIS-Sov, 4/17/72, Li; Sov Aero, 5/1/72, 9; SBD, 4/17/72, 120)
Selection of Kennedy Space Center in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California as launch and landing sites for space shuttle was announced by Dr. James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, in Washington, D.C. KSC site would be used for research and development launches, to begin in 1978, and for all operational flights into easterly orbits. NASA would provide facilities for shuttle users at KSC by modification of existing facilities. Vandenberg AFB site would be phased in toward end of decade for shuttle flights requiring high-inclination orbits. Dept. of Defense would provide basic shuttle facilities. NASA Site Review Board studies had shown Kennedy-Vandenberg combination had cost, operational, and safety advantages over all other U.S. sites.
Cost of establishing facilities at KSC was estimated at $150 million; at Vandenberg, $500 million. Decision to use KSC was "most gratifying to NASA's launch organization" and ensured "continued utilization of this base and the sup-porting Eastern Test Range," Dr. Kurt H. Debus, KSC Director, said in statement read at 'KSC press briefing following announcement of shuttle site selection. Dr. George M. Low, NASA Deputy Administrator, explained at KSC briefing why site construction at Vandenberg AFB would cost more than at KSC: "At Kennedy we can make full use of the Saturn V launch complex-Complex 39. The Shuttle will be brought back in there after flight, ... refurbished there, ... mated with its booster . . . in the VAB [Vehicle Assembly Building], taken on the trawler transporter to the existing launch pad and launched." KSC modifications would be minor but at Vandenberg "launch facilities . . . are not yet as well suited to the shuttle."
Larger modifications would be required, "and this is where the cost is." Selection between KSC and Vandenberg for a particular launch would depend on required launch azimuth, Dr. Low said. "If we launched something toward the east . . . then it makes sense to launch it from the east coast, whether it is for the Department of Defense or for NASA or for civilian users. When you launch into a polar orbit, or a high-inclination orbit, then it makes more sense to launch from the west coast so you don't overfly land." In response to question, Dr. Low said NASA did not plan to mate Air Force-supplied booster with shuttle. "NASA will develop, or have developed under NASA contract by industry, the full shuttle including the orbiter, its large tanks, and the solid rocket motor." NASA did have "clear understanding" with DOD that it would use shuttle when it became available and if it met requirements. (NASA Release 72- 81; Transcript)
Final Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences hearing on NASA FY 1973 authorization bill heard testimony on space shuttle by Dr. Brian O'Brien, physicist and Chairman of NASA Space Program Advisory Council and of National Academy of Sciences' Advisory Committee to Air Force Systems Command. Committee also heard shuttle testimony from Dr. Courtland D. Perkins, Chairman of Princeton Univ. of Dept. of Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences and Chairman of NASA Space Systems Committee. Dr. O'Brien said he believed shuttle would provide "space transportation system which can be available on short notice to meet unforeseen conditions which may result from world events, and ... great flexibility in our space operations, whether civil or military." It "should make possible a drastic reduction in cost of launches and in cost of payloads destined for earth orbit; while providing the opportunity for refurbishing or repairing satellites in orbit, or returning them to earth. In short, it should prove an invaluable tool in keeping us at the forefront in our operations in space." Dr. Perkins said nothing NASA could do "could have a more profound effect on the total space program in the years ahead." Shuttle would provide launch capability for nearly all programs, manned and unmanned, permitting elimination of large stable of rocket boosters and large complex of launch sites. Program provided strong signal to young scientists and engineers that U.S. wasn't "about to throw away our carefully developed competence in space" and it was one of only few new national programs continuing "growth and stretch" in high technology. (Transcript)
John N. Wilford contrasted U.S. and U.S.S.R. space programs in New York Times article: "As American astronauts prepare for another Apollo voyage to the moon . . . their counterparts in the Soviet Union are training for long-duration flights in earth-orbiting laboratories, leaving their own lunar exploration to automatic probes. As the American Pioneer 10 heads for Jupiter, a Soviet spacecraft, Venus 8 is traveling toward a planned softlanding on Venus. As American engineers design a reusable shuttle for ferrying men and satellites into space, the Russians apparently are still trying to develop a giant rocket to give them lifting power as great or greater than the Saturn V. As American launchings run about 30 a year and the space budget Is under public attack, the Russians are launching nearly three times as many spacecraft and, if anything, are expanding their space program." Contrasts had been highlighted in interviews with space officials during Wilford's month-long visit to U.S.S.R. during March. According to Dr. Boris N. Petrov, director of Soviet Academy of Sciences Intercosmos Branch, "the priorities of the Soviet space program will remain the systematic research of near-earth space with the help of automatic stations, manned spaceships and orbital stations. For the moon and the nearest planets, the priority will continue to be research with the help of automated means." (NYT, 4/14/72, 10)
Appointment of Dr. Noel W. Hinners as Deputy Director and Chief Scientist, Apollo Lunar Exploration, in Office of Manned Space Flight was announced by Manned Spacecraft Center. Dr. Hinners had headed lunar exploration department of Bellcomm, Inc. (msc Release 72-82)
Use of energy in cosmic plasma to launch spacecraft inexpensively was discussed in Science by Dr. Hannes O. Alfven, Univ. of California at San Diego physicist. Energy for space propulsion was being used in "extremely inefficient" way because of low exhaust velocity of rocket gases. Total start weight of spacecraft "must be two or three orders of magnitude larger than the payload." By plasma ejection, "one can easily reach exhaust velocities of several tens of kilometers per second" so that "the ejected mass may be of the same order of magnitude as the payload and the efficiency very high." Energy for launch could be supplied from solar wind, tapping voltage of 1000 v if transfer resistance between ends of conductors and solar wind could be "made small." Or energy could be supplied by transfer from ground through plasma channel in atmosphere. "When Apollo 12 was launched, there were low clouds but no thunderstorm. When the spacecraft had disappeared in the clouds, lightning was observed ... where the space-craft had last been seen. This effect was interpreted as due to the exhaust gases which facilitated a discharge of electrostatic charges in the clouds down to the ground. One cannot avoid thinking that it would be preferable to transfer power up to the spacecraft in this way" If spacecraft at launch was "accelerated by two plasma guns at a large distance from each other, and electric arcs are produced between each ... and the corresponding electrodes on the ground, it is possible that these arcs can be maintained during the launch through the atmosphere." (Science, 4/14/72, 167-8)
Federal Aviation Administration announced publication of 1972 edition of National Aviation System (NAS) Ten Year Plan and Policy Summary. Summary detailed FAA's long-range program for development of balanced airport-airways system to meet projected demand for air transportation through 1982. Plan objectives included: completion of semiautomation of en route air-traffic control facilities; provision of basic automation equipment for radar- equipped terminal facilities and automatic metering and spacing of approaches in medium- and high-density terminal areas; increase in instrument-landing-system (ILS)-equipped runways and installation of improved ILS at high-density airports; introduction of microwave ILS; investigation of use of satellite technology for air-traffic control communications, navigation, and surveillance and implementation of satellite communications in oceanic areas; expansion of designated area navigation routes to shorten en route and terminal flight paths; and plans for landing facilities and systems for vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft. (FAA Release 7M3)
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
