Oct 21 1976
From The Space Library
Correlations between an astronaut's susceptibility to motion sickness on the ground and his susceptibility in space were the subject of studies by JSC scientists, based on data from U.S. and Soviet manned space flights and on data from tests aboard a zero-gravity training aircraft. Motion sickness had been difficult to study because of the variety of separate sensory inputs to the brain. The three major components of human balance and posture were generally accepted to be visual input, defining the local vertical component; vestibular input from the semicircular canals and otoliths in the inner ear, sensing angular and linear acceleration and the presence or absence of gravity; and muscle sensors, monitoring posture. These interrelated inputs normally function to keep the body balanced; in an earth-normal gravity, balance would be reflexive, and persons would not be conscious of the body-movement patterns that kept them upright. In a moving vehicle, the inputs to the brain might produce contradictory information resulting in a feeling of discomfort; "motion sickness" is not an adaptive response and does not improve the situation, as coughing would do to relieve a throat blockage.
Persons without sight can experience motion sickness, but persons without their vestibular functions intact apparently do not. Although little was known about the interactions among the three sensory systems, motion sickness seemed to be more related to vestibular input. During Skylab missions, in the relatively large areas of living space, much vestibular relearning apparently occurred in the first 2 wk of spaceflight, after which all crewmen became very resistant to motion sickness. No correlation was apparent between an astronaut's susceptibility to motion sickness on the ground and his susceptibiity in space. The studies postulated that the otolith (chalky concretion in the inner ear) was the receptor affording the most direct information on gravity, and therefore was the source of many of the inputs causing disequilibrium or motion sickness. (JSC Release 76-67)
The B-I bomber was vital to U.S. security, said Gen. William J. Evans, commander of the Air Force Systems Command, in a speech to the Rockwell Management Club at Los Angeles, Calif. As part of a strategic triad-SLBMs, ICBMs, and bombers-constituting three distinct types of retaliatory weapons, the B-1 would help complicate defense efforts of potential enemies. Although the U.S. now had "a rough equivalence" of strategic strength, Gen. Evans noted that the Soviet Union was engaged in an effort to upset "the present equilibrium" and gain military advantage. Along with deterrent value, the B-1 should be considered a flexible, reusable, appropriate weapon in a conventional tactical role as well as in a nuclear strategic role. A future conflict might start not through "a surprise storm of nuclear missiles," but through "daring but limited acts of provocation" to which the U.S. should be able to respond with at least a show of force or be "perceived as a paper tiger." Gen. Evans congratulated Rockwell and other contributors to the development of the B-1 and urged continuation of the program. (OIP Release 231.76)
FAA Administrator John L. McLucas announced award to Wilcox Electric Co., Kansas City, Mo., of a $3 720 99 contract for nine Category III instrument-landing systems that would complete a program to provide all-weather landing capability at key airports across the U.S. One Category III system would be installed at the FAA academy at Oklahoma City for training; the other eight would go to Kennedy Airport, NYC; O'Hare, Chicago; Houston Intl., Kansas City Intl., Seattle-Tacoma Intl., Los Angeles Intl., Portland Intl., and Detroit's Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. The new equipment had already been installed at Dulles Intl. near Washington, D.C., Atlanta Intl., San Francisco Intl., and Stapleton Airport at Denver, as well as at the FAA center at Atlantic City, N.J., where it had been used for test and evaluation. Category III equipment would permit landings without visual reference to the ground, under weather conditions with ceiling zero and runway visibility no less than about 200 m. Existing Category II equipment at the sites to be replaced would be moved to other airports, to be named later. (FAA Release 76-97)
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
