May 26 1964
From The Space Library
NASC Executive Secretary Dr. Edward C. Welsh said at dedication of Aerojet General's Dade County (Fla.) plant: "Leadership in propulsion is . . . synonymous with leadership in space-for both military and non-military purposes. We cannot afford to relax in this area. There is no room for complacency, only room for urgency. . . . "In supporting the thesis that there is real danger from complacency, I list the following points: "1. The USSR is having some economic difficulties, particularly in agriculture. Yet, their space program is expanding. "2. The USSR is far ahead of the United States in manned flight experience. Even their female cosmonaut has flown more orbits than all of our astronauts combined. "3. The USSR has flown their heavier Vostok spacecraft in manned and unmanned flights some 45 times as many earth orbits as we have flown our much smaller Mercury. "4. Practically all of the competences developed for space could be used for aggression as well as for peaceful purposes. "Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. We have made great strides, particularly in the past three years. We are actually ahead of the Soviets in some applications of space, such as communications and meteorology. We are, however, not yet ahead overall. But, our rate of progress is very impressive. "Probably what I am warning about more than anything else is the danger that we might slow down our rate of progress-that we might heed the voices of defeatism and impracticality. This is the one thing we cannot afford. We cannot afford to lose the momentum which stems from a growing program. To slow down is to be content with second place. This we should not do. In fact, we dare not do it." (Text)
Soviet scientists had established existence of cosmic-dust cloud averaging 437 mi. deep surrounding the earth, Tass said. Cloud was believed to be composed of residues from burned up meteorites after they entered earth's atmosphere. (Reuters, Wash. Post, 5/27/64)
General Bernard A. Schriever, AFSC, said in speech to the Aviation/Space Writers Association in Miami, regarding the USAF/USN F-111: "The outstanding characteristic of the F-111 is its versatility. The F-IIIA - the Air Force version-can penetrate supersonically on the deck for interdiction or low altitude tactical reconnaissance. For purposes of close support, it must be able to maneuver well at low altitudes and be able to carry a variety of conventional weapons. It must also be able to loiter for extended periods while awaiting target assignments from the local ground commander. Combined with this low altitude capability, the F-111 requires a very high altitude capability for reconnaissance flexibility and air superiority missions. It must be capable of high altitude deployment between theaters without tanker support. "The F-111A will significantly increase the Air Force's capability in support of the Army. Its great ferry range will increase Tactical Air Command's capability to react even more rapidly than now to meet contingencies anywhere in the world. But even more importantly, the F-111A, with its variable geometry wing design will operate effectively over a wide range of speeds and altitudes in any, conservative combat environment. "Basically the F-111 will be the first truly multi-purpose all-weather tactical fighter in TAC's inventory with a capacity to operate from short austere fields. This means greater dispersal and flexibility and, of course, quicker responsiveness to support Army requirements for immediate and effective close air support, air superiority and interdiction. In short, the F-111 represents a quantum step forward in the development of a tactical air weapon system providing optimum combat effectiveness at the lowest cost and with the greatest possible flexibility. "The F-111B - the Navy version-has a primary role of air superiority. It will be armed with the Phoenix missile system and will be able to loiter at the outer defensive perimeter of the fleet for much longer periods of time than present day Navy fighters. It will also be able to accelerate out of a subsonic loiter condition and maneuver for super-sonic attack. "It is easy to see that both the Air Force and Navy versions of the F-111 call for a number of conflicting inflight performance characteristics. The requirements for high subsonic cruise efficiency and for short takeoff capability call for maximum lift from the wing area. In other words, you need wings swept fully forward. On the other hand, super-sonic low altitude flight calls for swept back wings, since the body design itself provides sufficient lift to support flight; and additional wing area only induces instability. At altitude more wing area is required, but the higher speeds obtainable dictate either very thin straight wings or else a higher degree of sweep. "How do you answer these conflicting demands? The answer is obvious-develop a variable sweep wing aircraft. Contrary to some impressions, the variable sweep design is not new. A variable sweep design was used in the Bell X-5, which was developed under Air Force sponsorship and flown at Edwards in 1951. A similar principle was utilized in the Grumman F-10F prototype which flew in 1952. But there is a major difference between those designs and the one to be used in the F-111. The early designs required a bulky internal mechanism to move the wings. That mechanism is not required for the newer designs, and consequently the use of a variable sweep wing has become practical." (Text, AFSC Release 45-R-64)
Kingman Brewster, Jr., president of Yale Univ., testified before the House Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the Committee on Science and Astronautics: . if we would do our best to see to it that the Government's sup-port of scientific activity distorts as little as possible the competitive allocation of talent in the scientific market place, we must not penalize the universities in competition with industrial and consulting firms; and we must not penalize the less well endowed or supported universities in competition with their richer rivals. Anything less than full reimbursement of indirect costs [of research] does exactly this." He continued: ". . . it seems to me wholly unwise to permit considerations of political geography to control the choices of faculties and students alike, to keep them from working wherever they think they would be most productive. Because the excellent are so few, and because modern science cannot very often be pursued in isolation from a community of one's peers, a productive science policy is bound to lead to a high degree of concentration in relatively few centers of advanced education and research?" (CR, 6/17/64, A3307)
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
