Aug 14 1968

From The Space Library

Jump to: navigation, search

NAS-NRC Space Science Board urged NASA to use developing technology of fully automated systems in planetary exploration rather than manned flights, which it felt were not "essential for scientific plan­etary investigation at this stage." Recommendations on priorities were made in Planetary Exploration, 1968-1975, prepared by panel of 23 scientists who met during week of June 9 to reappraise 1965 study in light of rapid development in science and severe cuts in NASA budget. Report called 2% for planetary exploration out of NASA FY 1969 budget "totally inadequate." It recommended diversion of funds from manned missions to instrument exploration, including biennial flights to orbit Venus and Mars until 1975; dropping capsule on Mars in 1973 to detect life signs and a major lander later, perhaps in 1975; multi­ple-drop probe of Venus' surface in 1975; Mercury flight in 1973; and priority Jupiter flybys in 1972 and 1973. Panel advocated pursuit of planets in economical way: use of existing Pioneer spacecraft in Venus and Jupiter missions, elimination of second spacecraft in all missions unless "clear gain ... will result from such double launches," and use of single launch for both Venus and Mercury missions by scheduling them when planets were in alignment (same technique could be used for "Grand Tour" of major planets in 1977, when they would be aligned in space). Referring to U.S.S.R. exploration, report said, "We certainly believe we cannot abandon this broad area of space activities to our competitors." Report also recommended strong support for radioastronomy, in­cluding development of major new observatory primarily for planetary study, and continued support of ground-based optical planetary astron­omy. It proposed coordinated, informal contact with Soviet scientists on possibility of joint planning of planetary exploration. (Text; NRC Release; Lyons, NYT, 8/15/68, 17; O'Toole, W Post, 8/15/68, Al; Lannan, W Star, 8/15/68, C8; Carter, Science, 8/16/68, 671-3)

Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd said Government would limit both commercial and general aviation traffic at New York's major air­ports unless aviation industry imposed its own limitations. Banishment of general aviation from Kennedy International or La Guardia Airport was "an extreme possibility"; problem of "spiderweb" of connecting flights would be tackled by diverting some international flights to air­ports at Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington. (Tolchin, NYT, 8/15/68, 1)

Taccomsat 1, world's largest synchronous orbit satellite, was scheduled for launch by USAF Titan III-C booster in February 1969, Aerospace Daily reported. Spacecraft would be six times as powerful as any other comsat. Initial command and control of satellite, to be positioned near Galapagos Islands for undetermined checkout period, would be accom­plished by Air Force Satellite Control Facility (AFSCF) Taccomsat 1 would have 6 kw of effective radiated power. Intelsat II satellites had 50 w. Its 1 kw of raw dc solar power was 10 times that available in Intelsat II. While Intelsat II communications bandwidth was 125 mhz, Taccomsat 1 would have down-link bandwidth of 10 mhz at X-band and 500 khz at UHF fr6quencies. (Aero Daily, 8/14/68)

Recorded aircraft highjackings had totaled 14 in past year, with 13 U.S. airliners over southern U.S. forced to land in Cuba, Andrew Wilson of London Observer reported. (W Post, 8/14/68, A3)

August 14-27: At U.N. Conference on Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space held in Vienna and attended by 500 delegates from 74 nations, Soviet Premier Alexey N. Kosygin announced U.S.S.R. and "other Socialist countries" would establish comsat network "Inter-sputnik" to compete with INTELSAT. Draft agreement had been submit­ted in New York to U.N. Secretary-General U Thant by U.S.S.R., Bul­garia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Mongolia, and Cuba. Vladimir Minashin, head of comsat div. of Soviet Ministry of Communications, said Intersputnik satellite would have same synchro­nous orbit used by the four U.S.-provided INTELSAT satellites. U.S. Dept. spokesman said U.S. had no need to join U.S.S.R.-sponsored system; INTELSAT, with 62 member nations, was already operating successfully, handling 95% of total international telecommunications traffic. U.S. was not opposed to Soviet proposal for political reasons, but on grounds there would be economic problems in creation of two worldwide comsat systems. (W Post, 8/14/68, 12; O'Toole, W Post, 8/15/68, A21; Hamil­ton, NYT, 8/15/68, 18; 8/20/68, 18; WSJ, 8/15/68, 1; Sehlstedt, B Sun, 8/15/68, 1)

Dr. George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, at Vienna conference discussed three results of U.S. manned space flight program to illustrate contributions to space explo­ration. Program had proved man could live in space and man could do useful work in space and it had created technology to make these possi­ble. In first category, NASA, NAS-NRC Space Science Board, NSF, ARPA, DOD groups, universities, and others had conquered problems of weight­lessness in space, heavy acceleration and deceleration forces, air supply and pressure required for breathing in space, psychological problems presented by isolation, and problem of radiation. Successful termination of Mercury and Gemini programs had proved man capable of existing in space. His capability to do useful work in space had been proved by successful rendezvous and docking of space­craft, by space photography, and by extravehicular activity. Pervasive­ness of space technology had been demonstrated by range and variety of thousands of products, including Saturn V launch vehicle, world's largest flight vehicle, and integrated circuit, one of world's smallest manufactured items. Dr. Mueller said: "Our civilization has been built upon our accumu­lated knowledge of the natural laws of our environment. All of our in­ventions have been the result of the application of these natural laws. Advances in our civilization have always followed after discovery of some one of the missing links in our chain of knowledge. . .. We know that many of the missing links .. . will be supplied . . . as we move man with his accumulation of experience and his sophisticated equipment for exploration, into a new laboratory .. . the laboratory of the moon and outward to our solar system. . . . If all of us, from all nations, are sufficiently creative, abundantly inventive, and freely adaptive, we have it within our power to improve the lives of every man, woman, and child." (Text)

U.S.S.R. Cosmonaut Aleksey A. Leonov at Vienna conference pro­posed Aug. 15 that Ocean of Storms, prominent feature of lunar land­scape, be renamed Ocean of Gagarin in honor of Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri A. Gargarin, who made first manned earth orbit April 12, 1961. Leonov, who took man's first walk in space in 1965, read Gagarin paper which emphasized similarity between experience of Soviet astro­nauts and that of crews of deep-sea exploratory craft. He said all actions taken in Soviet space vehicles were tried first in underwater craft. Large Soviet exhibit at conference showed full-scale model of original Soviet spacecraft and listed Soviet space firsts. U.S. exhibit, small because of cut in NASA funds, depicted benefits space exploration would produce for developing countries. (Hamilton, NYT, 8/16/68)

J. L. Blondstein of British National Industrial Space Committee told group meeting at conference Aug. 20 that production of U.S. military satellites capable of direct TV broadcasts to military units was "immi­nent" He said U.S. had spent between $80 million and $100 million on development but denied information was being withheld for military security reasons. DOD spokesman in Washington had said he knew of no plans for direct TV broadcasts by military satellites. (Hamilton, NYT, 8/21/68, 3)

W. T. Pecora, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, said Aug. 23 that worldwide volcano and earthquake monitoring network might be pro­vided within a few years by space satellites carrying cameras and sensing devices to give up to one hour advance notice of strong earth shocks. (AP, C Trib, 8/23/68)

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