Oct 2 1967
From The Space Library
NASA Administrator James E. Webb announced resignation of Deputy Administrator Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., effective Jan. 5,1968. Dr. Seamans joined the government with a commitment to serve two years, but . . . served seven years . . . [and] has now decided to return to private life," Webb said. "His departure will leave a wide gap [in NASA leadership] ." A former MIT aeronautical engineering professor, RCA engineer, and member of NACA technical committees, Dr. Seamans joined NASA in 1960 as Associate Administrator. In 1965 he was appointed Deputy Administrator and was presented NASA's highest award, the Distinguished Service Medal, for distinguished service to US., outstanding leadership of NASA, and "ability to bring together into a framework of effective action thousands of industrial organizations, tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, and hundreds of thousands of aerospace workers." He had also received Naval Ordnance Development Award (1945); AIAA Lawrence Sperry Award (1961); and Godfrey L. Cabot Aviation Award (1965). (NASA Release 67-257; O'Toole, W Post, 10/3/67, A3)
NASA awarded supplementary or new research grants and contracts totaling $2,059,104 to 23 universities, colleges, and private institutions. (NASA Release 67-254)
Texas' role in US. space program was summarized by NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight Dr. George E. Mueller for the Texas State Society. "Many thousands of Texans working for dozens of Texas firms are creating through their . . . [R&D] effort the new technology required for space exploration. One measure of Texas contributions may be made in terms of the $771,000,00 of work that . . . [its] firms have performed on NASA's programs. In addition, Texas colleges and universities are not only conducting high level research for NASA, but are training future space scientists and engineers under NASA grants." He noted also that Texas was birthplace of seven astronauts and five astronaut wives and "home town" of all 56 astronauts, based at MSC. (Text)
Soviet satellites were studying solar x-ray sources in an effort to protect cosmonauts from deadly radiation storms, according to Pravda. Cosmos CLXVI (launched July 17) and Electron II (launched Jan. 30, 1964) had gathered "extensive information" about x-ray sources and had discovered that "in principle, by recording an x-ray flare, it is possible to warn cosmonauts of the approach of radiation danger . . . [and] enable spaceship crews to take necessary protective measures." (UPI, NYT, 10/3/67, 2)
Under reduced gravity conditions on moon, most natural and comfortable gait for an astronaut would be "a lope at about ten feet per second," advised Amos A. Spady, Jr., LaRC scientist. He and fellow scientist, Donald Hewes, had tested subjects on specially constructed device-simulating effects of astronauts moving in moon's lower gravity. Simulated lunar gravity had not guaranteed that all motion would be higher, faster, or farther. Scientists had discovered that, at most speeds, lunar stride would be longer-sometimes twice as long-but number of steps per minute would be reduced by as much as half. (Weil, W Post, 10/2/67, B4)
In response to charge by Harry Schwartz in the New York Times that "the costs to both countries [US. and U.S.S.R.] of . . . ten years of space rivalry have been enormous" and prediction that "the economic and technical problems ahead will force the space race to stop at the moon with cooperation replacing rivalry," AIAA Executive Secretary James J. Harford defended space program in letter to New York Times: "The modest scientific dividends which he [ Schwartz] credits the space program with producing are puny, indeed, compared to the effects space technology will certainly have on civilization in eons to come. . . . Technologically, both the US. and the U.S.S.R. are enormously stimulated. . . . Politically, the space program has produced the first international treaty in history. . . . Philosophically, the space program has made the world vividly aware that it is, itself, a spacecraft with three billion passengers, traveling in a solar orbit, in a vast universe. . . . Everyone is for international cooperation, but two nations with ICBM's aimed at each other have understandable problems working out cooperative programs. . . . Perhaps the time for serious joint effort is coming. . . In the meantime, a peaceful program costing less than 1 per cent of the G.N.P., which has produced new technology at a rate that only wars have equaled in the past, . . . should not be diminished because of serious domestic problems." (Schwartz, NYT, 10/2/67,47; NYT, 10/14/67,26)
Ralph K. Bennett, writing in the National Observer, described F-111 aircraft [formerly TFX] as "an Airplane Lemon" and questioned its capabilities: "On paper it is the most sophisticated, flexible, yet economic air-weapons system yet devised-a single airplane capable of performing the divergent missions of both Navy and Air Force . . . [but] in reality it may be the most costly bungle in the . . . history of military procurement. . . ." Sen. John L. McClellan (D-Ark.) later told Senate he agreed with Bennett: ". . . I am not implying that commonality [of one aircraft for USAF and USN] cannot be a valid and economical concept. There is no way, however, to build with identical parts an effective single weapons system which will carry out separate and widely diverse military missions. Mr. Bennett's article points out that the TFX program was an attempt to combine . . . drastically different design and performance characteristics. . . . The result is . . . [a] hybrid craft that cannot capably perform to the requirements of either service" (Bennett, Natl Obs, 10/2/67; CR, 10/4/67, 94225-7)
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
