Aug 18 1967
From The Space Library
House Committee on Appropriations reported $4.6-billion NASA FY 1968 appropriation bill-$516.6 million less than NASA had requested and $282 million less than NASA FY 1968 authorization bill (S. 1296). Committee said the bill was "less than would be recommended under less stringent fiscal circumstances," but it would support "a viable space program, and one that is consistent with available resources. "The reductions . . . should in no respect be interpreted as an expression of a lack of confidence in our space endeavors. . . ." Cuts included: (1) $50.5 million from Apollo program; (2) $154.7 million from AA program; (3) $27.5 million from Nuclear Rocket Program; (4) $37.7 million from Tracking and Data Acquisition; and (5 ) $71.5 million from Voyager (funding eliminated). (NASA LAR VI/91; WSJ, 8/21/67,4; O'Toole, W Post, 8/19/67, A4)
First two Apollo spacesuits incorporating changes recommended by NASA's Apollo 204 Review Board were scheduled to arrive at MSC in early September for thermo-vacuum and compatibility testing. New suit, designated A-7L, was an improved version of the original A-6L suit. Changes, primarily replacing flammable materials with nonflammable or low-flammability materials, included substitution of: (1) Beta fabric, a nonflammable fiberglass cloth, for Nomex, a high-temperature nylon, in outside layer; (2) Nomex for a more flammable nylon inner layer; and (3) fire-resistant Kapton/Beta fiberglass insulation for aluminized Mylar-Dacron insulation. In addition to its greater fire-resistant properties, spacesuit, which was white rather than blue, was more comfortable and mobile than A-6L. It would be used in all manned Apollo missions during prelaunch and launch phases, and reentry. First production model of spacesuit, manufactured by International Latex Corp.'s Government and Industrial Div. under MSC contract, was scheduled for mid-October delivery. (NASA Release 67-222)
Rocket engine for Apollo Service Module's propulsion system had been undergoing tests at Arnold Engineering Development Center during past 31/2 years. Initially, engine performance was unknown; it would use an ablatively cooled thrust chamber and a high expansion ratio nozzle of thin metal and would operate at relatively low combustion chamber pressures. Initial tests were on configuration of engine's fragile nozzles. Follow-on tests, for prequalification of engine combined with heavy duty replica of propellant tankage, had checked ballistic performance. Simulated high-altitude testing would lead to eventual man-rating of propulsion system. (AEDC Release 67-212)
NASA had awarded NAA's Rocketdyne Div. a $1.4-million contract for continued technological investigation of the advanced aerospike rocket engine. Studied by OART for 1« yrs, the engine utilizes a doughnut-shaped combustion chamber which discharges exhaust gases against the surface of a short center cone. In conventional rocket engines, gases are expanded inside long bell-shaped nozzles. Current concept specified an engine 8 ft in diameter and 4« ft high-about 50% shorter than conventional bell nozzle engines. A new "aerodynamically compensating nozzle" would permit use of the engine at sea level or high altitude, making it potentially suitable for both lower and upper stages of launch vehicles. Contract completion date was May 31, 1968. (NASA Release 67-221)
A completely fireproof version of the spacecraft fabric Velcro had been perfected and would be used on NASA's first manned Apollo mission in 1968, William Hines reported in the Washington Evening Star. In tests conducted at MSC early in August, the all-metallic fabric did not ignite, even in pure oxygen atmosphere at 16.5 psia. Velcro Corp. vice president Jack Mates told Hines in an interview that NASA had not yet placed an order for the improved Velcro, but that his company was beginning production of a substantial quantity. In the Jan. 27 Apollo fire, flames in the spacecraft had quickly spread along the surface of ordinary nylon Velcro adhesive pads which were used to hold frequently used equipment. (Hines, W Star, 8/18/67)
Inexpensive and easily acquired property was not necessarily the best site for a new airport, according to airport site selection guide published by FAA. Other factors such as accessibility to users, construction costs, future expansion possibilities, obstructions, anticipated community response to aircraft noise, and proximity to other airports could be even more important factors. Airport site selection was a local responsibility, guide noted, but all sponsors of civil airport projects were required to notify FAA of proposed construction so agency could review project's effect on surrounding airspace. (FAA Release 67-62)
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
