September 1972
From The Space Library
Four rare stellar explosions within Milky Way galaxy were recorded by observations in various parts of the world, beginning with Univ. of Toronto discovery by Dr. Philip C. Gregory [see Sept. 21. Observations were made by radiotelescopes and other instruments and by x-ray scanners aboard OAO 3 (Copernicus) Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (launched by NASA Aug. 21), Explorer 42 (Uhuru) Small Astronomy Satellite (launched by Italy for NASA Dec. 12, 1970), and Dept. of Defense Vela satellite. Observations and speculations as to meanings were so extensive, Walter S. Sullivan said in New York Times article, that British journal Nature Physical Science devoted entire Oct. 23 issue to subject. Explosions were radio emissions from gas cloud expanding at about half the speed of light, Sullivan said, but were "clearly not those of a supernova, since they were observed only at radio wave lengths and they recurred several times." If, as some astronomers suspected, explosion source was also source of x-rays being emitted in 288-min cycle, object exploding probably was spinning once every 288 min and was "about the size of a star." (NYT, 11/1/72, 1; Nature Physical Science, 10/23/72)
Space technology had become "forcing function to bring nations together in mutual undertakings with a common purpose," Dr. Allen E. Puckett, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics President, said in Astronautics & Aeronautics editorial. U.S.- U.S.S.R. space agreement "expresses our intention to cooperate in various fields of space activity, and in particular proposes a joint experimental flight of U.S. and Soviet manned spacecraft in 1975. We may debate the immediate technical values of this experiment, but the overriding consideration is the fact that we will be working together. Regardless of the technological outcome we will be communicating and collaborating, getting to know each other better, in a common enterprise. On such small beginnings, a new era of mutual understanding and cooperation might evolve." (A&A, 9/72, 19)
Engine concepts for space applications were described in Air University Review. Government and industry had spent more than $100 million on high-pressure-engine technology since 1961. Air Force XLR-129 engine program had provided strong technical base for space shuttle engine. Shuttle's orbiter stage would use advanced-concept staged combustion engine "very similar to that of a turbojet equipped with an afterburner; . there are two different stages of combustion" While first turbojet combustion occurred in main chamber, shuttle engine's first burning occurred in gas generator or preburner. Preferred engine concept for future spacecraft would be "single engine that could operate as a rocket, a ramjet, a scramjet, and a turbofan." At liftoff, rocket would be firing and "turbofan might also be operating to supply additional air to improve the performance of the rocket. After the vehicle is moving at a greater speed, the ramjet would start operating, and the turbofan would be removed from the airstream. The pure rocket would continue to operate briefly to aid the ramjet. As the vehicle reaches the outer fringes of the atmosphere, the inlets would be closed, and the pure rocket would be used alone for reaching, maneuvering in, and leaving orbit. To return to base after re-entry into the atmosphere, the ramjet and/or the turbofan might be used separately or they might be used like an afterburning turbofan." To improve spacecraft performance further, "we would like to get away from having to carry an oxidizer for the rocket portion of the flight." Future space engines would "mate the tremendous energy available from nuclear explosions with the ability of a rocket to operate at high thrust levels." Performance of nuclear rocket "more than makes up for its being heavier than a normal rocket." Nuclear rocket's specific impulse was about twice that of "even the best chemical rocket." Nuclear stage also would be useful for seeding space with unmanned applications satellites. (Holder, Siuru, Air Univ Rev, 9/72)
Europe's dilemma over altered conditions for participation in post- Apollo space program was described by Kenneth W. Gatland in Spaceflight. Europe had been invited to develop research and applications module (xAM) for space shuttle, rather than space tug as originally discussed. Elimination from Europe of any shuttle propulsion technology had "left little room for manoeuvre." Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm would be "denied the opportunity to contribute their Attitude Control Propulsion System (ALPS) engine" which "is considered to be fully competitive with U.S. equivalents" because NASA had rejected ACPS as "too advanced and too complex" a European contribution. Space tug-with attributes of both launch vehicle and spacecraft-would have pushed propulsion technique "well beyond what is currently envisaged in Europe." Tug covered "very extensive range of the basic techniques of interest to the Europeans and might engender solutions to the most classic problems." Tug's "far-reaching integration with the shuttle and with the payload during operations would have afforded Europe effective participation in most American missions, i.e., the majority of space activities in the 1980s." (SF, 9/72, 322-3)
- August
- September
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
