Jan 11 1965
From The Space Library
Dr. Edward C. Welsh, Executive Secretary of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, said before the New York Academy of Sciences that "scientists should not set themselves up to judge the overall value" of the national space program. Past advice from scientists had not always been sound advice, he noted. "... Organized science has not always been outstanding for its courage, its vision, or its optimism regarding goals for human efforts. Elements of conservatism, parochialism, and even reactionary thinking do appear among scientists just as they do among many other groups in our society." Dr. Welsh was also critical of the practice of criticizing the space program "by narrowly comparing" the dollars spent for space with what those same dollars might accomplish "if devoted to other endeavors, scientific or otherwise." He said that often such dollars were not transferable; that space dollars might change the general climate to one favoring broader aid to the whole spectrum of science; and that since space expenditures sought broader goals than those of science, "the comparison may well be invalid on the face of it." He continued: "The visionaries, whether primarily scientists or policy makers, must be given the opportunity to point out the many benefits which can flow from the manned and unmanned uses of aerospace. But, given such opportunity, they should use it effectively and affirmatively. Regardless of their motivations, the pessimists who cry out against aerospace research and technological endeavors have clearly set themselves against progress. The United States can no longer relax and rest on its past industrial laurels. The race for survival, literally and philosophically, is on. Of course, we would all like to believe in the solely non-aggressive uses of aerospace by all countries which have the needed technology. However, the realities of life dictate adequate preparation to preserve our national and Free World security. We should follow the axiom that a pound of prevention is worth mega-tons of cure." Howard Simons commented in the Washington Post that these remarks were probably precipitated by a report from a committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science which had charged that social, economic, military, and political pressures were distorting the traditional values and effectiveness of science. The report was highly critical of Project Apollo: "The Apollo program, in its present form, does not appear to be based on the orderly, systematic extension of basic scientific investigation." (Text, CR, 1/28/65, A364--65; Simons, Wash. Post, 1/12/65)
NASA announced that Launch Complex 16 at Cape Kennedy would be modified to convert the former Titan missile facility into static test stands for the Apollo manned lunar spacecraft. Construction bids were expected to be opened by Army Corps of Engineers, late this month. The modified test facility would replace an Apollo static test stand originally planned for the NASA Kennedy Space Center's Merritt Island facility. Officials estimated that the modification of Complex 16 would represent a cost reduction of about 72 per cent under the original $7 million construction estimate for test stands on Merritt Island. (KSC Release 7-65)
NASA Langley Research Center scientist Windsor L. Sherman proposed conversion of Project Mercury spacecraft into unmanned, recoverable orbiting telescope platforms. Equipment would include a 76-cm. Cassegrainian telescope, a camera recording system, and an attitude control system. The system would weigh approximately 4,700 lb. and would be aimed for a 300-mi. orbit. The observatory would remain in orbit 100-200 days, exposing four frames of film on each orbit for a total of 6,000 frames. After all film was exposed, the system would be braked out of orbit and would descend into the Bermuda recovery area of the Eastern Test Range, using the same recovery techniques developed for the manned Mercury landings. In addition to its capacity to perform a variety of such astronomical observations as high resolution photography, photometry, and spectroscopy, Sherman said, the recoverable observatory would permit reuse of capsule, optical, and control systems. It would allow study of space effects on equipment, and the system could serve as a test bed for advanced orbiting telescopes. (Av. Wk., 1/11/65, 23)
Dr. John J. Brennan, Jr., Chairman of the Committee for the Preservation of Cambridge Industries, said he would take to Washington the committee's fight to keep the NASA Electronic Research Center out of Cambridge. Dr. Brennan said the City of Cambridge's claim that the renewal project would cost the Federal government $15 million was way off. He said costs would be between $40 million and $50 million. In a letter to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the House and Senate space committees, Brennan stated: "We are taking every proper course of action, legal and otherwise, to stop this senseless destruction... .We do not believe that the overall destruction will bear judicial scrutiny." Paul Frank, director of the Cambridge Urban Redevelopment Authority, said Brennan's figures were inaccurate and that the $40-$50 million figure was wrong. He claimed the overall cost would bring it down to $14,500,000. Of this figure, the Federal government cost would be $9,600,000 with the remaining $4,900,000 paid by the City of Cambridge, he asserted. (Boston Globe, 1/11/65)
During the week of January 11: Titan III program director Brig. Gen. Joseph S. Bleymaier (USAF) said at a meeting of the New York Academy of Sciences that the launch of the Titan III-A, on Dec. 10, 1964, may have gained the most accurate orbit ever achieved in the U.S. space program. The vehicle achieved an orbit with 102-n. mi. apogee and a 99-n. mi. perigee against a planned 100-n. mi. nominal orbital altitude. Deviation from a true circle was 0.00075 against a predicted value of 0.00050. Time for a single orbit was 88.2 min., within 0.04 min. of the time predicted. (M&R, 1/18/65, 10)
U.S.S.R. orbited COSMOS LII earth satellite. Orbital data: apogee, 304 km. (188.9 mi.) ; perigee, 205 km. (127.4 mi.) ; period 89.5 min.; inclination to the equator, 65°. The satellite carried scientific equipment "for the further investigation of outer space in accordance with the program announced by Tass on the 16th of March, 1962." (Tass, Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1/12/65, 1, ATSS-T Trans.)
North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) tracked a new Russian satellite (COSMOS LII) for several hours before Moscow announced the launching. As of this date, NORAD's space detection and tracking system was observing 488 man-made objects in space, of which 29 were actual payload satellites and the rest debris from previous launchings. (AP, Balt. Sun, 1/12/65)
Arthur D. Little, Inc.. released a 54-page study entitled "Strategies for Survival in the Aerospace Industry," which predicted that in the next five years the production portion of the defense budget would decline about 30 per cent and research and development would decline about 15 per cent. The report recommended that "in view of a declining market and fewer opportunities within the market, the aerospace industry's principal objective within the next few years should be to achieve stability, rather than to search for growth opportunities." (Duggan, N.Y. Her. Trib., 1/12/65)
In January, Dr. Donald F. Hornig began his second year as science adviser to President Johnson and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology. In interview he mentioned that his job was created to prevent a recurrence of the kind of official surprise that greeted Russia's launching of the SPUTNIK I on Oct. 4, 1957. Hornig said the policy questions that he encountered were not ones of "right or wrong, but wise or less wise." (Av. Wk., 1/11/65, 16)
U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce named Capt. Joseph H. Engle (USAF) one of the ten outstanding young men of 1964. Captain Engle, the youngest of the X-15 pilots, had logged nine flights in the X-15. Awardees would be honored at an awards congress Jan. 15-16 in Santa Monica, Calif. (AP, Des Moines Register 1 /12/65)
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
