Apr 17 1967
From The Space Library
NASA's SURVEYOR III (Surveyor C) was successfully launched from ETR by Atlas-Centaur (AC-12) booster on 65-hr lunar intercept trajectory. Primary mission for the 2,283-lb spacecraft was to perform a soft-landing east of the SURVEYOR I landing site within the Apollo zone and to obtain post-landing TV pictures of the lunar surface. As secondary mission spacecraft would obtain data on lunar surface bearing strength, radar reflectivity, and thermal properties and photograph use of a surface sampler to manipulate the lunar surface [see April 19]. At 34:53 GET SURVEYOR III with two-burn Centaur-being used for the first time on a Surveyor mission-separated from Atlas and ignited to reach 100-mi-altitude circular parking orbit where it coasted for 22 min; Centaur then reignited to escape earth orbit and boost spacecraft toward the moon. SURVEYOR III separated from Centaur, deployed its solar panels, and locked on the sun and the star Canopus. Based on a 248-mi target miss estimate, a 4.2-mi midcourse maneuver was conducted shortly after midnight April 18 to assure precise landing on target in the Ocean of Storms. SURVEYOR III was third in series of seven spacecraft designed to prove out design, develop technology of lunar soft-landing, obtain post-landing TV pictures of lunar surface, and provide basic scientific and engineering data in support of Project Apollo. Surveyor program was directed by OSSA Lunar and Planetary Programs Div.; project management was assigned to JPL; Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle was managed by Lewis Research Center; and prime contractor for spacecraft development and design was Hughes Aircraft Co. (NASA Proj Off; NASA Release 67-85)
Astronaut M. Scott Carpenter would never be able to fly in space again because of an arm injury suffered in 1964 motorcycle accident, the Washington Evening Star reported. Surgery performed six months ago had failed to restore full mobility of the arm. (AP, W Star, 4/17/67, A6)
Soviet scientists had succeeded in raising the temperature in lower atmosphere by as much as 14Ao F by dissipating clouds with carbon dioxide and other chemicals, Soviet Hydrometeorological Service director Dr. Yevgeny K. Federov told World Meteorological Congress in Geneva. Dispersal of "tens of thousands of square kilometers" of clouds could serve as "a mechanism for triggering off the modification of more massive meteorological processes," he said. (NYT, 4/18/67,26)
The press praised Apollo 204 Review Board's investigation of Jan. 27 flash fire. Technology Week: "The harsh, scathing report of the Apollo 204 Review Board has effectively laid to rest charges that the board was assembled to conduct a whitewash of the January 27 fire, which took the lives of three astronauts. The board should be commended for the vigor with which it undertook to establish the cause of the fire, the energy with which it attacked what it regards as dangerous practices and procedures and the directness with which it distributes the blame. . . . Perhaps the question that will linger longest about the January tragedy is the part played by the pressure of the lunar landing deadlines. We personally believe that such target dates play a large and important factor in motivating the space program and keeping it moving at a healthy pace. But they should not be so sacred as to invoke carelessness. . . . Without waiting for another accident, it might be well to undertake the same sort of review of practices and procedures throughout the major elements of Apollo that has just taken place in regard to the spacecraft. . . . The Apollo 204 Review Board has set a good example of what can be accomplished." (Coughlin, Tech Wk, 4/17/67,50)
Aviation Week: "Its report is technically incisive and sharply critical of NASA and the private contractors manufacturing Apollo hardware. It is as thorough and technically solid as any other investigation of aerospace disaster in the past three decades. It disproves earlier charges that NASA is incapable of investigating its own technical faults. In fact, it would have been impossible to assemble another group sufficiently knowledgeable about the Apollo system from any other source to complete a useful investigation within this time span. ". . . there are none of the pat answers, so often demanded by legislators and harping critics, to the dangerous and complex problems of probing the unknown. Apollo is man's most daring foray in his history on this planet. If all the problems involved in a lunar voyage were so obvious and the solutions so simple as many critics seem to think, we could all buy tickets for a lunar excursion tomorrow." (Hotz, Av Wk, 4]17/67, 21)
A satellite capable of broadcasting directly to the home, bypassing local stations and national networks, might be technically feasible within five years, ComSatCorp President Dr. Joseph V. Charyk testified before FCC. Economic feasibility, however, might require more than five years, he said. Dr. Charyk appeared as a witness for the Justice Dept., which was challenging the proposed acquisition of ABC by ITT. (Mintz, W Post, 4/18/67, A2)
NASA Administrator James E. Webb told the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences that NASA would present, within two weeks, detailed estimates of how much the Jan. 27 Apollo accident had cost; what changes in spacecraft would be made to reduce fire hazards; and the earliest date for the first manned Apollo mission. He declined to disclose his thoughts concerning canceling NASA's contract with North American Aviation, Inc., because of failures to meet development schedules and stay within cost estimates: "They did not do all the things they should have done, but I can say the same thing about us at NASA." He stated his conviction that he was obligated to "act responsibly in respecting confidences between himself and contractors." Denying that undue risks were taken in order to speed the program, Webb emphasized that NASA had "never put schedule above safety." Apollo 204 Review Board's study was "a good report," he said, but it should not be construed to be an evaluation of the entire space program: "The board has done an outstanding investigation of one accident but it is not a full and fair appraisal of the space program . . . [and] cannot be taken as a guide to the realities of this program. . . ." In response to questioning Webb stated that, in his judgment, the pacing item in the manned lunar landing program remained the Saturn V booster, and when it was ready for manned flight there would be a spacecraft ready. Committee Chairman Clinton P. Anderson (D-N.Mex.) requested that NASA witnesses appear again not later than May 9 to detail changes the program, as suggested by Webb. (Wilford, NYT, 4/18/67, C26; O'Toole, W Post, 4/18/67, A1; SBD, 4/18/67, 275)
Astronauts Donald K. Slayton, Alan B. Shepard, Walter M. Schirra, Jr., Frank Borman, and James A. McDivitt, testifying before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics' Subcommittee on NASA Oversight, expressed confidence in NASA's management of U.S. space program. They noted that there had been only one mishap in the program, compared with 16 successful manned flights under the same management. Since fire had been foreseen as a significant danger in orbit but not on the launch pad before fueling of the launch vehicle, everyone had been "lulled into a sense of false security . . [and] grossly underestimated the fire potential of the spacecraft," they said. Schirra explained confidence astronauts felt prior to the fire Jan. 27: "The back-up crew [of which Schirra was commander] had left the Cape with the feeling that we had a good spacecraft behind us. . . . I was not at all prepared for the news I received when I arrived at Houston." (Hines, W Star, 4/18/67, 1)
April 17-20: Some of the more important preliminary results from NASA's interplanetary spacecraft PIONEER VI (launched Dec. 16,1965) and VII (launched Aug. 17, 1966) were presented at American Geophysical Union's 48th annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Spacecraft, which had flown almost 200 million mi. in their solar orbits, had provided: (1) better definition of solar atmosphere; (2 ) additional data on solar wind; and (3) improved measurement of earth's magnetosphere. Report by ARC scientists Dr. John H. Wolfe, R. W. Silva, and D. D. McKibbin indicated that magnetosphere ends about 3.5 million mi from earth going away from the sun; previous estimates had varied from 240,000 mi to 100 million mi. (NASA Release 67-94)
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
