April 1967
From The Space Library
The US. press commented on the April 24 death of Soviet Cosmonaut Vladimir M. Komarov. New York Times: "Men have risked their lives in pioneering since history began-explorers, mountain climbers, the first aviators who conquered the globe's blanket of air, and now the cosmonauts who enter the `infinite spaces.` That much has to be accepted-but how much? It seems clear that the three Americans who died in the oxygen fire at Cape Kennedy were victims of insufficient care, slipshod work and haste. There is no way of knowing whether similar factors led to the death of Komarov yesterday; but it is a fact that the Russians are aiming at time schedules, hoping to beat the United States to the moon, trying to meet special dates connected with the fiftieth anniversary of their Revolution. The United States still insists on trying to reach the moon by 1970. "Both nations are duplicating costly and dangerous work. Thus good and brave men die unnecessarily, vast sums are wasted, and without doubt the progress that humanity could make through cooperation in the thrilling quest for knowledge of the universe is being hampered by pride, prestige and the nebulous possibility of strategic gain." (NYT, 4/25/67,40)
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin: ". . . hard on the heels of a test disaster that took the lives of three US. Apollo astronauts, tragedy has also struck the Russian space program with the crash of a new giant spacecraft and the death of its pilot, Cosmonaut Vladimir M. Komarov. . . . "Had the Russians succeeded in mounting a new space spectacular at this time, it is possible that some of the sobering impact of the Apollo on this country would have been dissipated. Although there have been repeated disclaimers of a space `race,' the sight of the Soviet Union again forging ahead would surely have fanned anew American competitive instincts. Surely the death of brave men on both sides will reemphasize for both the element of human fallibility and the need for offsetting it with infinite pains and caution in space exploration." (P EB, 4/25/67)
Technology Week: "The Soviet tragedy, by emphasizing the hazards of space flight, has perhaps eased some of the pressure of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and North American Aviation. There is more awareness now that the exploration of space will not be a series of glittering successes, one after another. There are dangers; there will be further tragedies, other brave men to mourn. While bringing home the care which must always be taken, the Soviet accident also makes it clear that in programs of this magnitude humans are not always infallible. . . ." (Coughlin, Tech Wk, 5/1/67, 50)
Aviation Week and Space Technology: "It is fortunate that the Apollo and Soyuz tragedies came this far downstream in the history of manned space flight. If they had occurred in the initial phases of Vostok or Mercury, the hue and cry of technical timidity in both countries might have killed the manned space flight programs before they had a chance to demonstrate their technical feasibility. Viewed against the perspective of Vostok, Mercury, Voskhod and Gemini and more than 2,000 hr of successful space flight logged by crews of both nations, the recent tragedies spotlight development problems but do not raise any fundamental doubts about man's ability to reach the moon. . . ." (Hotz, Av Wk, 5/1/67,11)
Press commented on Congressional hearings on Apollo accident. Philadelphia Inquirer: "With both the House and Senate conducting their own investigations of the Apollo tragedy, in the aftermath of the exhaustive inquiry by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's own review board, there is a danger that what will result is a negative witch hunt instead of constructive criticism of benefit to the space program. Congress should strive to protect the Nation's investment in this critically important and expensive venture and that is not to be accomplished by laboring the deficiencies of Apollo I. Above all, the concern should be for the safety of future space Voyagers. It should be to certify that no unnecessary risks will be taken that might invite another lethal disaster." (P Inq, 4/12/67)
New York Times: "It is a new, and rather shocking, NASA image that is being projected by the current Congressional investigations into the Apollo tragedy. One would have expected that NASA would make available every possible bit of relevant information. . . . The Space Administration cannot afford even to raise the suspicion that it may be covering up evidence relevant to the deaths of the three astronauts . . . [and] certainly does not want to reinforce the view of cynics who insist that NASA actually stands for `Never A Straight Answer.' (NYT, 4/19/67, 40)
Washington Post: NASA "has merited the reproach of the investigators of the Apollo disaster and the searching scrutiny of the congressional committees reviewing the program. . . . What must not be overlooked however, are the risks of the space program that cannot be eliminated altogether without abandoning it. . . . When these catastrophes take place, the Government and the people must and should react as they reacted to the Apollo fire, by demanding new and further precautions, even more careful and complete protection. But there will not be much bold venturing in a society that visits a sanguinary fury upon those unfortunate enough to preside over calamity. For in that kind of society, more and more men will discover that the way to avoid getting any reproach is to avoid taking any risks." (W Post, 4/19/67)
Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.) in joint dialogue with Rep. Carl Albert (D-Okla.) , appearing in General Electric Forum, when asked: "What is the present climate in the 90th Congress for other key legislative programs such as space?" stated: "Congress is interested in space and will support a strong space program. Those who are knowledgeable recognize that we have gone past the point of no return in giving full support to the Apollo lunar landing program. But many Congressmen are concerned about our course in the future exploration of space. When you relate the financial demand of another big quantum jump in space technology to our other fiscal burdens, you get the feeling that the 90th Congress will not be willing to embark on another major manned space program beyond the moon that will lead to another commitment of five or ten years or longer." (GE Forum, 4/6/67,114)
NASA awarded Univ. of Arizona a $14,970 research contract for a case history of LaRC from 1917-47. (NASA Release 67-86)
Dept. of Commerce announced it would construct a multimillion dollar oceanographic laboratory on Florida's Virginia Key similar to West Coast Laboratory in Seattle. East Coast Laboratory would operate three ships and conduct research in geophysics, oceanography, and sea-air interaction. (UPI, NYT, 4/25/67, 26)
- April
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
