Apr 25 1986
From The Space Library
NASA announced that 25 industry/university consortiums submitted proposals for high technology research in the microgravity environment of space. Proposed areas included semiconductor crystal growth, remote sensing, communication technology, biotechnology, and space services. The proposals all have commercial potential or could contribute to possible commercial ventures. (NASA Release 86-49)
NASA scheduled two scientific experiment rocket launchings for early May, a Black Brant X and a Taurus-Nike-Tomahawk, to create artificial clouds along the East Coast that would be visible from Canada to Florida and as far west as Ohio. The objective of the experiment was to investigate Nobel prize winner Dr. Hannes Alfven's proposed Critical Velocity Effect Theory, which has been used to explain details in the early formation of the solar system. In 1954, Alfven proposed that if an element M a nearly neutral plasma became ionized when it attained a flow velocity that matched its ionization potential, several facets of the structure of the solar system could be explained, including differing chemical compositions of the planets and the regularity of their orbits. Although Alfven's critical velocity effect has been studied in the laboratory, the phenomena required investigation in a space plasma.
The experiment was scheduled for dawn, when the Earth's surface would still be dark but when there would be sunlight at the experiment's altitude so ionized cloud chemicals could be visible to the naked eye. The three-stage, solid-propellant rockets would release barium and strontium at the apogee altitude of 267 miles. When the releases occurred, ground observers could see, if the experiment was successful, a cloud split into two well-delineated jets of gas in the first few minutes. The experiments were part of NASA's sounding rock-et program, which included launching approximately 40 to 45 sounding rockets a year from various worldwide locations. (NASA Release 86-51)
NASA disclaimed an April 23-24 two-part article in the New York Times that accused the organization of ignoring audits and safety standards, with particular emphasis on the Space Shuttle program. According to NASA, some of the examples mentioned in the article are related to activities of several years ago and have since been corrected or are being corrected." Moreover, "NASA has always considered audits to be a necessary management tool to be used in conjunction with other management processes. ..dug the existence of NASA prior to and since the Inspector General Act, management has used its own internal audits to uncover and correct deficiencies and to strengthen internal controls." In addition, NASA has been responsive to external audit reports through tighter management. "Indeed," said NASA, "$749.3 million in savings, cost avoidances, and cost recoveries were realized from 1978-1985 because of internal and external audits." NASA also noted that many of the audit reports dealt with research and development projects into which new technologies had to be figured, making for an uncertain budget environment.
Other allegations: Various violations of law and Federal codes have occurred within NASA; the Agency predicted that Shuttle cargo would cost around $100 per pound but actual cost was closer to $5264 per pound; the Shuttle was not equipped with the amount of hardware for test purposes that was available to the Apollo program; in financing a Government guaranteed loan for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System program (TDRSS), NASA wasted $1 billion; NASA lost $2.4 million of equipment in 1983.
In defense, NASA noted that the original estimate for Shuttle cargo was $160 per pound and the most recent was $615 per pound-besides, cost per pound was only a partial indicator of the Shuttle's utility; the Shuttle program did not parallel the Apollo program in regard to safety test hardware, but introduced longer periods of testing, not substandard safety precautions; the $1 billion said to have been wasted in the TDRSS program was in fact attributable primarily to significant interest cost increases; the lost equipment was a 1950's state-of-the-art computer that by 1983 was so obsolete that no one else would take it-hence the machine was dismantled and disposed of; ties to graft at NASA have to do with individual misconduct, such as that by Lewis Research Center and Marshall Space Flight Center officials, who were prosecuted in Federal court, indicating that the internal NASA investigation process was working well. (NASA Release 86-52)
A statement by Shuttle Director Richard H. Truly noted that the remains of the crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger were soon to be transferred, but no positive determination of the cause of the accident had yet been made. The three approaches pursued were the examination of remains, direct examination of the wreckage, and analysis of photography and radar to determine forces imposed on the vehicle. An examination of the remains revealed no new information, and the wreckage examination was hampered by the amount of damage done at water impact. Photo and radar analysis, he hoped, would lead to a determination of the magnitude and the direction of the forces imposed on the cabin during and after breakup. (NASA Release 86-53)
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
