Jan 4 1965
From The Space Library
Gemini GT-3 spacecraft arrived at NASA Kennedy Space Center for final flight preparations before the nation's first two-man flight this spring. (KSC Release 3-65)
According to Dr. Harold B. Finger, Manager of AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) NASA would not spend any further funds on Project Orion (nuclear-pulse propulsion project). The decision was based on the fact that such a system could not be used while the nuclear test ban treaty was in effect. In addition, NASA felt there were more urgent projects on which to spend the money. (M&R, 1/4/65, 9)
Dr. Barry Commoner, professor of plant physiology at Washington Univ. in St. Louis and chairman of the AAAS Committee on Science in the Promotion of Human Welfare, told Aviation Week and Space Technology that the question of the probability of finding life on Mars had not been "fully and fairly aired," and that an "overbalance of the positive viewpoint has been presented to Congress and the public by NASA officials." Dr. Commoner said that if asked his views on Voyager as a tax-paying citizen, his feeling would be that "the value of pursuing a program to find life on Mars at this time is not worth the $1.25 billion to be invested because the problem of finding life there has not been adequately explored." He had made similar charges in a speech at the AAAS meeting last December in Montreal. Dr. Homer E. Newell, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, was reported by Aviation Week and Space Technology as listing six major points in defending NASA's position regarding Mars exploration: (1) Numerous competent scientists had said there was little liquid water on Mars and that the planet had a dry, dusty surface with high ultraviolet radiation. Changing patterns on the planet indicated some form of seasonal change, however. (2) With the evidence at hand, it was not possible to say there was life on Mars, only that life might be there. (3) If there were life on Mars it might be similar to basic life forms on earth. (4) The only reasonable approach we could take to the exploration of Mars would be to make sure we looked for life before the planet was contaminated from earth. If life was not found on Mars, it still would be valuable to determine how far the planet's chemical processes had progressed toward life formation. (5) The Voyager program had not been sold to Congress on the basis that there was life on Mars. It has been pointed out during budget hearings that there might not be life on the planet but nobody could responsibly take the position that there wasn't. Therefore, the early emphasis of Project Voyager was on bioscience. (6) The Mars exploration was part of an overall program to explore the solar system, including the moon, comets, and other planets. Mars happened to be the planet NASA was focusing its attention on because it would be in the optimum launch position through the mid-1970's. (Av. Wk., 1/4/65, 18)
Dr. Gerard P. Kuiper, director of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of the Univ. of Arizona and principal scientific investigator on the Ranger project, replied to Robert C. Cowen's article, "Was the Ranger Worth the Cost?", which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor Nov. 18. Mr. Cowen had raised four principal questions: (1) Was the recent RANGER VII mission scientifically justifiable? (2) Was it well planned and executed? (3) Were the results up to expectations? (4) Where do we go from here? Dr. Kuiper said in letter to CSM: "Ranger was the U.S. pioneering program of deep-space research and accomplished much more than getting the 4,300 lunar photographs. It established the worth and feasibility of the 'parking orbit' and other concepts of space ballistics, power supply, and communication, as well as preparation for Mars and Venus probes. . . . The cost of the 4,300 lunar records is therefore not the full $270 million (which moreover includes Rangers VIII and IX, not yet flown) but, say, $50-$100 million. No ground-based effort, even with the 300-400-inch telescope costing over $100 million, would, even in the absence of our disturbing atmosphere, have yielded 100th of the magnification (resolution) obtained in RANGER VII. I definitely know of no better and cheaper way to get high-resolution photographs. . . ." In a reply to Dr. Kuiper, Mr. Cowen quoted from a letter by Dr. Andrew T. Young of Harvard College Observatory and published in Science: ". . . It is clear that there are some things that can only be learned above the atmosphere, and it is important that we have a program directed at learning them. . . . [But] many things that can be learned from above the atmosphere can also be learned, much more cheaply, by ground-based techniques. For example, some of the most convincing evidence for life on Mars is based on a few hours of twilight observations with the 200-inch telescope. . . . But the 200-inch telescope has been available for planetary research only a few times, generally during daylight or twilight. . . . Rocket-borne research involves many costly failures, but a duplicate 200-inch telescope could easily be built and staffed for the $28 million that Ranger VII alone cost. . . ." (CSM, 1/4/65)
Gen. Bernard A. Schriever (USAF) announced the activation of the Contract Management Div., Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), under the command of Col. Fred L. Rennels, Jr. (USAF) . Located at Los Angeles Air Force Station, the new division would be responsible for DOD contract management activities in those plants assigned to the Air Force under the DOD National Plant Cognizance program. (AFSC Release 61.64)
USAF announced that Electro-Optical Systems, Inc., was receiving a $1,056,700 final increment to an existing contract for production of ion thrustor systems for orbital flight. (DOD Release 917-65)
Col. John H. Glenn, Jr., former NASA astronaut and first American to orbit the earth, retired from the Marine Corps after 22 yrs. in the service. Glenn said he would spend much of his time as a consultant to NASA. He would also be a director of Royal Crown Cola Co. (DOD Release 912-64; Wash. Eve. Star, 1/4/65; Wash. Post, 1/5/65; Balt. Sun, 1/5/65; Chic. Trib., 1/5/65)
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
