Apr 21 1967
From The Space Library
Seven members of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics' Subcommittee on NASA Oversight continued hearings on Jan. 27 Apollo accident at KSC by touring AS-204 launch pad and questioning eyewitnesses. Donald Nichols, assistant test manager at KSC, told the Subcommittee that the decision to keep the hatch closed during Jan. 27 Apollo rehearsal might have cost the lives of the crew. On Oct. 31, 1966, he said, decision was made to change plans that would have kept the hatch open until the crew had been better trained on emergency procedures. Officials decided that hatch could be locked and emergency escape practice conducted after the test, he said. If test procedures had not been changed, the hatch would have been open or the astronauts not present in the spacecraft. Thomas R. Baron, former North American Aviation, Inc., quality control inspector, said that Apollo 1 astronauts smelled smoke in their spacecraft 12 min before they died and tried for five minutes to escape. This information, he said, had been supplied by NAA electrical technician Mervin Holmberg. Holmberg later made a surprise appearance before the Subcommittee and denied Baron's allegation: "I listened to his [Baron's] speculation, but I didn't make any comment" on what caused the fire. "I wasn't even near the accident when it happened. Baron, who had submitted a report to NASA [see During March] prior to Jan. 27 accident charging laxity, poor morale, and bad management on the part of NAA, was sharply criticized by subcommittee members, and his statement was disclaimed. (Abramson, W Post, 4/22/67, A4)
USN F-111B fighter aircraft crashed on takeoff in test flight at Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.'s Calverton, N.Y., flight test center. Both Grumman pilots were killed. Adapted for use by USN and USAF, the F-111 (formerly TFX) had been subject of continued controversy between Congress and DOD since Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara insisted that the F-111 be used by both services and overruled military leaders' objections to selection of General Dynamics Corp. for construction of the aircraft. Crash was first for USN test model, which had been stripped to remove excess weight; USAF test model (F-111A) crashed in January, killing one crew member. (Wilson, W Post, 4 122167, A5)
Aquanauts diving to extremely low ocean depths should breathe almost pure hydrogen in their diving suits, Dr. R. W. Brauer of Wrightsville Marine Bio-Medical Laboratory suggested at Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Chicago. Dr. Brauer planned to subject himself to such an atmosphere -98% hydrogen and 2% oxygen -at a pressure equivalent to 700-or 800-ft depth within the next six months. Divers long ago passed the depth limits that were pressed air and were now approaching the probable atmosphere in which helium was the major ingredient, Dr. Brauer said. Yet oil drilling, prospecting operations, and other undersea activities were pushing divers to further depths which required new types of atmosphere and, possibly, drugs to modify the narcotic effects produced by the high pressure air. (Schmeck, NYT, 4/23/67,60)
NASA awarded $213,000 contract to Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. to design an orbiting primate spacecraft. (LaRC Release)
US. scientists' interest in military research had declined substantially, Bryce Nelson wrote in Science: "Since the beginning of the Second World War, many American scientists have regarded it as a duty to work on military research in times of national emergency and have often done so with enthusiasm. However . . . many scientists now seem to show little feeling of obligation to do military research." Suggested reasons for lack of interest: (1) disagreement with US. policy in Vietnam; (2) boredom with defense problems; (3) higher salaries in private industry than in DOD; and (4) increased interest in civilian problems such as urban development, poverty, and transportation. (Nelson, Science, 4/21/61, 24)
The efficiency of Soviet scientific research was deteriorating and the price of getting an idea into production was rising, biologist Alexander Neifakh wrote in Literaturnaya Gazeta. Although scientists had doubled every 7 to 10 yrs, published works had doubled only every 13-15 yrs. This shows that the effectiveness of scientific activity per scientist or per ruble invested in science is consistently falling," Neifakh concluded. (Reuters, NYT, 4/22/67,31)
April 21-23: Editorial comment on NASA SURVEYOR III's successful soft-landing on the moon April 19. Miami News: "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration badly needed a victory to demonstrate that the moon program is not threatened by technical deficiencies, as the Apollo investigation seems to suggest. The landing of SURVEYOR III . . . and the transmission of TV picture fills the bill. . . . There is no denying, however, that Apollo is in serious difficulty . . . [and] NASA is creating the impression that it is unwilling to see the investigation carried to a complete conclusion. . . . Surveyor and dozens of similar achievements demonstrate that the overall space program has been a remarkable success. NASA would make a mistake to see the luster of this record dimmed by its failure to cooperate fully in the Apollo investigation." (Miami News, 4/21/67)
New York Times: "Inevitably, Surveyor 3 calls attention to the fact that the first stages of lunar study and exploration do not require men, that the moon can be investigated to a considerable extent without incurring either the great risks or high costs of manned lunar flight. From the scientific and technical points of view, Surveyor-type flights are a rational and feasible alternative to Apollo. . . . Manned space exploration has unavoidable dangers, but these are multiplied many times by the pressure of the 1970 deadline that dominates the Apollo project. What Surveyor 3 has done is to remind us that-aside from propaganda and prestige considerations-there is no need to endanger brave men's lives." (NYT, 4/23/67,10B)
Washington Post: "With the success in landing SURVEYOR III . . . [NASA] once again exhibited its stunning scientific and technological skills. . . . Surely the time cannot be far off when men will be shuttling from earth to the moon-and far beyond. . . . Bold ventures of mankind are always undertaken in din of criticism, and the manned flight to the moon will be no exception to the rule. Space exploration will continue-not because it excites expectations of an El Dorado or a Fountain of Youth-but because it is an inescapable challenge to human curiosity and imagination." (W Post, 4/23/67, C6)
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
