Jun 30 1964
From The Space Library
Atlas-Centaur 3 (AC-3) was launched from ETR in partially successful development test which NASA officials termed "highly successful from an engineering point of view." Five of the six primary objectives were fully achieved: nose fairing and insulation panels withstood flight-loads and jettisoned properly; structural integrity of Atlas and Centaur stages during all phases of flight were verified; Atlas-Centaur separation operated satisfactorily; operation of the guidance system was demonstrated; and capability of Atlas-Centaur to be launched at scheduled time was demonstrated, the vehicle lifting off only four minutes after pre-planned launch time. The sixth, partially-achieved objective was ignition and burn of Centaur stage's two RL-10A3 liquid hydrogen engines: They ignited properly but cut off 127 sec. before programmed 380 sec. burn time. Four seconds after engine ignition, hydraulic pump to engine actuators had failed, so that hydraulic system did not actuate the engine swiveling mechanism to maintain control of the stage during powered flight. The Centaur began to roll. Increasing roll motion forced propellant to side of propellant tanks, uncovering feed-line outlets; engine cut off after 253 sec. because of lack of fuel. Stage maintained its trajectory, however, and at programmed cutoff time the stage attitude control system regained roll control and remaining inflight events occurred as planned. Because of the shorter engine burn, AC-3 reached speed of only 11,425 mph instead of the 17,400 mph which would have put it, incidentally, into orbit. Spent stage re-entered and impacted in Atlantic Ocean 2,706 mi. from Cape Kennedy. (NASA Release 64-143; CR, 7/1/64, 15086-87; AP, Balt. Sun, 7/1/64; Wash. Eve. Star, 7/2/64, A5)
X-15 No. 1 piloted by John B. McKay (NASA) reached only 98,000-ft. altitude and 3,375-mph speed (mach 5.10) in flight near Edwards AFB, Calif. Within seconds after launch from mother ship, all guidance equipment on the rocket aircraft failed, forcing Pilot McKay to cut back speed and altitude. Flight had been planned to reach 180,000-ft. altitude and 3,550-mph speed in test for future X-15 flights to photograph the stars from above atmospheric interference. The rocket engine burned 83 sec. (NASA X-15 Proj. Off.; Wash. Post, 7/1/64)
House and Senate conference committee agreed on $5,227,506,000 as compromise between the two versions of H.R. 10456, the NASA Authorization Act for FY 1965. This was $33.7 million more than the House had voted and $18.8 million less than the Senate had approved. (NASA LAR III/129-131; Confr. Rpt., House Rpt. 1529)
New York Times editorialized on the four-vote margin of the Senate de-feat of Sen. Fulbright's amendment to reduce FY 1965 Project Apollo funds by 10%. ". . . The narrowness of the margin may be illustrated by the fact that if there had been abstentions by the Senators from even three of the states having direct economic interest in the most rapid prosecution of the moon race-say, California, Texas and Florida-Senator Fulbright's amendment would have been adopted. ". . . [Senator Fulbright] lost his battle on the authorization bill, but he will have another chance when the bill actually appropriating the funds is considered. The new mood in Congress suggests that this battle may produce a decision to scrap the artificial 1970 deadline. ." (NYT, 6/30/64)
NASA Associate Administrator Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., said at AIAA Luncheon in Washington: ". .. the concept of the lunar landing was not new when NASA was founded in 1958. Research was continuing on the various technical aspects of such a mission. In 1959, in-house work began on mission definition. In the fall of 1960, three six-month feasibility design study contracts were awarded. In January 1961 NASA. received these interim findings. There were two basic vehicle approaches to be considered-direct ascent and rendezvous. In May of 1961, the study contract results were available, and supported our interim findings, and the recommendation was made to the Congress that the nation proceed with the mission. . . . "There will be missions after Project Apollo. We are already examining their feasibility, cost, and potential return. We are carefully establishing a variety of future space missions, both manned and unmanned, that exploit the near earth, lunar, and planetary environments. No decisions have been made and we are not ready to recommend them yet. As the information becomes available and as the results are analyzed, we will be able to present the country with a solid spectrum of achievable, well-conceived mission alternatives and options. The selection will be a national, not an agency, decision." (Text)
Self-sealing structural walls for spacecraft application were demon-strated at AIAA by Arnold J. Tuckerman, Hughes Aircraft Co. materials scientist. Tuckerman and his colleagues fired .22 pellets at pressurized chamber with walls in which polyurethanes and polyamide prepolymers were impregnated within the laminations of the walls. As the pellets pierced the chamber, they triggered chemical reaction causing the seal- ant to foam instantly, hardening into an airtight plug that would last up to two weeks without major leakage. (Haseltine, Wash. Post, 7/1/64)
A. O. Tischler, NASA Director of Propulsion and Power Generation, said in paper for AIAA "At this time the United States stands on the threshold of transport in the space environment. Until now, with the exception of a relatively few payloads such as Syncom, payloads launched into space were put on their trajectory by the launch vehicle. Only minor path corrections were applied by the on-board propulsion systems. Even the Mercury capsule returns were made by a relatively minor slowing of the orbiting capsule, with aerodynamic braking providing the rest of the kinetic energy change. However in Gemini which may fly with men this year, and which will later effect rendezvous of separate payloads in space, and in Apollo, which will perform an intricate series of space maneuvers, we recognize systems that carry significant propulsion capability into space for use entirely in that environment. The time is rapidly coming when space is no longer something we throw darts into but is an environment in which working propulsion systems will maneuver and transport spacecraft payloads and eventually convey these payloads back to the earth's atmosphere for descent to the surface to be used again. . . "[Space] . . . booster engines have passed, or in the case of the Saturn V engines, are approaching their preliminary flight rating tests, while the more conservative spacecraft propulsion systems have not yet arrived at that milepost. While these spacecraft engines may be expected to come along at a faster pace than the big booster engine developments, the fact is that they are presently in a tail chase situation. I think we must observe that at this moment the status of spacecraft propulsion systems under development lags the development status of launch vehicle engines and is additionally behind in performing sophistication. That is the area that warrants propulsion attention." (Text)
Paper surveying space nuclear propulsion by Harold B. Finger, James Lazar, and James J. Lynch of NASA and AEC was presented to AIAA. ". . . a major forward step has been taken in the milestone established by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in its design, develop-ment, operation, and analysis of the KIWI-B4D nuclear rocket reactor experiment. This test provides good reason for confidence in the successful execution of the tests to be conducted this year and next and provides a good basis for confidence in the availability of nuclear rockets when they will be required for the performance of advanced space missions. The availability of these nuclear rocket propulsion systems will give this country a propulsion capability far advanced over any other rocket propulsion system available. . . "Progress has been made in electric propulsion, particularly in the thrustor area, but important research data and technology are also be-ginning to be provided in the difficult area of nuclear reactor electric generating systems required for prime electric propulsion in space. "Beyond these systems, other advanced nuclear propulsion concepts are not yet well enough understood to justify undertaking significant development efforts. Careful and systematic accumulation of research information to evaluate the feasibility of these concepts and to arrive at a real understanding of them appear appropriate." (Text)
Appearing before Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, NASA Assistant Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology John L. Sloop said: "The NASA activities having a bearing on air and water pollution are almost entirely in the area of nuclear and chemical propulsion. Even in this area, however, only a fraction of the work offers a pollution threat. "With regard to water pollution, it is standard practice at NASA Centers and in the rocket industry to capture water used in test operations and, if necessary, treat it before re-use or discharge. "In considering air pollution, the NASA uses two approaches: "(1) Isolated locations and atmospheric dispersion, and "(2) Containment and neutralization... . "In . . . our nuclear propulsion activities, neither routine reactor development testing and flight operations nor conceivable accidents are expected to release sufficient radioactivity into the atmosphere to constitute a hazard to public health and safety. "In chemical propulsion, there are some propellants that are toxic prior to combustion and some rocket exhausts that contain toxic products. Fortunately, the NASA space program is primarily concerned with non-toxic propellants. In our largest program, the Apollo effort, for example, the giant Saturn I and V boosters both burn oxygen and kerosene in their first stages and oxygen and hydrogen in their upper stages. The Apollo spacecraft uses toxic nitrogen tetroxide and a mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, but the quantity is small compared to that used by the Saturn boosters . . . [and is not used] until the Apollo is well into space under normal operation. . . . "In most rocket testing and in vehicle launches, the rocket exhausts directly into the atmosphere. The very high exhaust temperature and velocity serve to rapidly disperse the exhaust products. In some rocket testing we must simulate the low pressures encountered at altitude. In these facilities, the rocket exhausts into a duct where there is an opportunity to scrub the products with water before discharging into the atmosphere. A unique facility, an example of the containment and treatment method for use in populated areas, was built at the Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, for rockets using fluorine. This facility, put into operation in 1956, was designed to handle hydrogen-fluorine rockets up to 20,000 pounds thrust. . . ." (Testimony)
Vernon G. MacKenzie, Chief of Public Health Service's Div. of Air Pollution, testified before Senate Committee on Public Works" Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution that investigation should be made of "suitable means" to insure that rocket-fuel development tests by private organizations be conducted under "suitably controlled conditions." He said PHS had "full confidence" that Federal agencies would apply appropriate precautions of health protection of rocket fuels "insofar as these are under the direct control of Federal agencies." He named beryllium among "the most toxic and hazardous of the non-radioactive metallic substances used in industry today," and cited also fluorine as a potentially dangerous component. (M&R, 7/6/64, 11)
Museum of Modern Art in New York opened exhibition titled "20th Cen-tury Engineering," which featured 195 spectacular and dramatic structures combining beauty with utility. NASA Langley Research Center wind-tunnel was represented among the dams, antennas, observatories, skyscrapers, and other structures. (Huxtable, NYT, 6/30/64, 29)
Arthur Kantrowitz delivered 1964 von Kármán Lecture at AIAA annual meeting. During June: Analysis of infrared radiation measurements of TIROS II meteorological satellite was detailed by R. S. Hawkins of AFCRL. Hawkins suggested that when discrepancies between data from satellite and from other sources are understood and accounted for, infrared data from meteorological satellites could provide an invaluable tool for plotting and predicting course of cold fronts as well as for obtaining information on structure of frontal zones and regions of convective activity. (OAR Research Review, 6/64, 3)
Total number of contractor and civil service personnel at NASA Michoud Operations passed the 10,000 mark. Of the total, 281 were employees of NASA. (Marshall Star, 6/24/64, 9)
Water-cooled space suit, employing plastic tubing sewn into long under-wear, was in research and development at NASA Manned Spacecraft Center. Begun by Royal Aircraft Establishment in 1962, suit was undertaken by MSC in 1963 when Dr. John Billingham left RAE to join MSC. Dr. Billingham said, "In operation and in theory the suit looks acceptable. But we must test it much more for reliability." (M&R, 6/22/64, 28)
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 2829 30
