Aug 2 1967
From The Space Library
Senate passed, by routine voice vote, and sent to the House the $4.86-billion NASA FY 1968 authorization bill (S. 1296). House/Senate Conference Committee had agreed on a $4.86 billion bill July 31. (CR, 8/2/67, S10578-80)
Five of the 11 scientist-astronauts selected for NASA's Apollo program were announced in the Nation's press. NASA released complete and official list Aug. 4. (AP, NYT, 8/3/67, 8; UPI, W Post, 8/3/67, A1)
NASA Arcas sounding rocket launched from Point Mugu, Calif., carried Naval Ordnance Test Station experiment to 33-mi (52 km) altitude to flight-test internally modified version of standard ROCOZ payload, designed to measure ozone distribution for support data on Ogo IV satellite. No experimental results were obtained because of loss of telemetry. There was evidence of payload malfunction near time of experiment ejection. (NASA Rpt SRL)
MSC selected NAA's Rocketdyne Div. to negotiate $5-million, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for design, development, and qualification of a backup injector for Apollo Lunar Module (LM) ascent engine. Contract would provide initially for design feasibility and development testing with provision for delivery of four production injectors if required. Two of the injectors would be used in ground testing at WSMR and remaining two would be held for possible use in flight engines. NASA said present injector, which was being built by Bell Aerospace Corp., was causing unstable combustion in engine chamber and excessive erosion of ablative thrust chamber. Bell was attempting to correct the deficiencies, but "it was decided to develop an injector of a different design in the event the problems cannot be corrected." (NASA Release 67-207)
The number of scientists, engineers, and physicians immigrating to the US. had increased 77% between 1956 and 1966, according to report released by House Committee on Government Operations Research and Technical Programs Subcommittee. Report said this influx from poor nations was an "involuntary gift of valuable resources. Such a loss by the developing countries is. of direct concern to the United States. To the extent that it undermines development, it also defeats a major United States foreign policy objective for the sake of which this country is currently spending about $3.7 billion per year. . . ." Reduction of this influx would probably have to be the joint responsibility of the US. and the nations that were losing their skilled professionals, report said. (Text, Science, 8/18/67, 783; NYT, 8/3/67, 13)
Office of Science and Technology released an interim report on USAF test flights at Edwards AFB to study the effects of the sonic boom June 3-23, 1966, and Oct. 31, 1966-Jan. 17, 1967, 11 types of aircraft made 367 supersonic and 261 subsonic flights. Report concluded that flights caused little or no physical harm to test structures, 393 test subjects, or 220,570 test animals, and noted relative annoyance of booms of differing intensity and of booms compared to jet aircraft engine noise. Between 33% and 98% of the test subjects objected to booms in the 2.0-to 3.5-lb-psf overpressure range that SSTs were expected to produce under the worst possible conditions. Other preliminary conclusions : (1) sonic booms sounded louder outside than inside; (2) walls of houses were more effective in blocking out jet engine noise than sonic booms; and (3) annoyance increased faster with increasingly bigger booms than with increasingly louder engine noise. (Text, Clark, NYT, 8/3/67, 1, 24)
A farmhouse in the village of Mauron, France, collapsed seconds after a loud bang was heard, killing three workmen and seriously injuring a fourth. French military and civil officials immediately began an investigation to determine whether a sonic boom had been responsible for the accident. The New York Times later commented: "The latest discoveries about sonic boom . . . provide scant comfort for enthusiasts of supersonic commercial air transports. "Further research will undoubtedly turn up additional useful information, but by now the results of several years' investigation of this phenomenon are beginning to fall into a pattern. In a world where everyone was healthy and vigorous, where all buildings were relatively new and well constructed, sonic booms would be just one more source of annoyance and frayed nerves among the many such `blessings' modern civilization and technology have produced. But in the real world-where any large community has many sick and infirm people and many old and poorly constructed buildings--sonic booms, especially if repeated frequently, pose appreciable hazards to the more fragile human beings and structures. . . ." (Hess, NYT, 8/3/67, 24; NYT, 8/3/67, 30)
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
