May 1 1978
From The Space Library
Langley Research Center announced it had presented to Thomas Blackstock its first major award for an energy-saving proposal. LaRC Director Donald Hearth had presented Blackstock with a check for $1245, largest monetary award ever given at the center for a suggestion. Blackstock's idea was to upgrade the high-pressure air-supply system in the continuous-flow hypersonic tunnel so that it would run in an intermittent short-duration-flow blowdown test rather than in the longer duration continuous-flow mode. The tunnel, which represented LaRC's only large-scale Mach 10 aerothermodynamic-test capability, had been important to the Space Shuttle testing and would aid in developing lowcost advanced space-transportation vehicles. Blackstock's suggestion could save $30 000 the first yr without compromising the tunnel's research capability; LaRC's wind tunnels had consumed one-third of the electrical energy purchased by the center. (LaRC Release 78-24; LaRC Researcher, May 5/78, 1)
In its report on U.S. R&D spending for 1979, the National Science Foundation pointed out that doubling of the nation's R&D expenditures since 1969 had been almost entirely attributable to inflation. However, the overall U.S. R&D effort had experienced real growth every year since 1975, mainly from increased emphasis on finding alternative energy sources; it had not provided major stimulus to economic growth or productivity in the short term. The federal government, currently supporting more than half the nation's R&D effort, had over the last decade emphasized civilian programs rather than defense and space. Largest federal R&D spending increases for 1978 and 1979 were expected in the energy and health areas.
During the 1970s, the U.S. had allocated proportionately less of the national R&D effort to basic research. Factors influencing this trend included the federal government's deemphasizing basic research in defense and space programs during the early to mid-1970s; the industrial sector's seeking quicker payoffs from R&D efforts aimed at a specific product or process, as opposed to projects with no specific commercial application; and universities' increased emphasis on applied research over basic research since 1970. (NSF Highlights, May 1/78, 1)
Av Wk reported that the House of Representatives had authorized a $4.415 billion NASA budget that included $4 million for an option to purchase a fifth Space Shuttle orbiter, which President Carter had tried to defer. The House had not changed the authorization bill submitted by its committee on science and technology. House members had defeated an amendment by Rep. Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.) to delete funds for advanced supersonic-transport research, but had passed an amendment requiring the NASA administrator to report to Congress by Dec. 31, 1979, regarding NASA policy on conflicts of interest, standards of conduct, and financial disclosure. The House version of the NASA budget had represented a $43.7 million increase over the Carter budget.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation had approved a $4.388 billion NASA FY79 authorization that included $4 million for the fifth orbiter and an additional $7 million for manned flight advance planning. Former Apollo astronaut Sen. Harrison H. Schmitt (R-N.M.) had helped convince the committee that NASA needed the $7 million increase to maintain a viable advance-planning program for manned spaceflight. Total Senate Commerce Committee authorization was $17 million higher than NASA's original $4.371 billion request to Congress. (Av Wk, May 1/78, 22)
Latest word on Progress 1 refueling of the Salyut 6 propulsion system in orbit indicated that redesign of the space station had been more extensive than the USSR had previously revealed, Av Wk reported. The Soviets had made a fundamental change in the station's rocket engine and fuel system by switching to pressure-fed from turbine-driven main engines, and adopting a common hypergolic propellant for both the main propulsion and reaction-control system engines.
Before Salyut 6, the Soyuz and Salyut propulsion systems had been the same: in the reaction-control system, hydrogen peroxide thrusters had provided attitude adjustments and hydrogen peroxide had also driven turbines pumping hypergolic oxidizer and fuel to the main propulsion system. Fuels in the main propulsion system were a form of nitric acid and of hydrazine. This arrangement had required 3 sets of propulsion lines and tanks: 1 for the hydrogen peroxide, l for the main-engine oxidizer, and 1 for the main-engine fuel.
Changing the Salyut 6 had allowed both the main engines and the reaction-control thrusters to use propellants from the same tanks, permitting much simpler and more effective orbital refueling than if it had to include hydrogen peroxide. The change had required design of an entirely new internal-tanking and propellant-line fuel system, and development of the pressure-fed engines and the hypergolic-thruster system. The aft section of the station containing the main engines and a concentration of reaction-control-system engines could now accommodate docking at that end by a second Soyuz transport vehicle. The Salyut's standard forward port was able to accept both Soyuz and Progress-tanker spacecraft. (Av Wk, May 1/78, 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
