Jan 22 1967
From The Space Library
William E. Zisch, Vice Chairman of the Board of Aerojet General Corp., was sworn in as a part-time consultant to NASA Administrator James E. Webb on technology development and utilization of NASA- developed technology by nonaerospace industries. (NASA Release, 67-8)
Lifting-body vehicles, with their ability to maneuver and land on conventional runways, might become the spacecraft of the future, J. V. Reistrup suggested in the Washington Post. Because a naval recovery fleet would not be required, space missions could become a day-to-day operation; crews might use the vehicles to inspect foreign spacecraft, repair U.S. satellites, make reconnaissance flights, fly in search and rescue operations, or take replacement crews and supplies up to manned space stations. NASA and USAF had been testing various types of lifting body vehicles: M2-F2 and HL-10 in piloted glide tests, and a small automated model of SV-5 as part of Prime-Precision Recovery Including Maneuvering Entry-program. (Reistrup, W Post, 1/22/67)
Growing confidence that US. would accomplish a manned lunar landing by 1970 had plunged space planners into an urgent debate over post- Apollo plans, John Wilford wrote in the New York Times. Should the US. concentrate on unmanned and manned exploration of Mars or Venus? An expanded lunar-oriented program? Giant manned laboratories in earth orbit for research and surveillance? Networks of communications and meteorological satellites? Or a series of instrument probes to comets, asteroids, and outer planets? Such questions had opened a searching reexamination into the value of space exploration, and some critics were urging a less ambitious and costly program, with more emphasis "on the problems that confront us here on earth." While the debate continued, NASA was said to favor concentrating on manned orbiting laboratories that would exploit present technology. Although a broad range of space goals was considered attainable in the next two decades, NASA officials said failure to define post-Apollo objectives soon could cause U.S. to find itself unprepared to achieve any major space goal before the mid-1970's. (Wilford, NYT, 1/22/67, 1)
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
