Jul 25 1975
From The Space Library
At an Apollo-Soyuz Test Project crew-status briefing, Richard S. Johnston, Director of Life Sciences, told reporters that Houston control could not make voice contact with the crew during Apollo reentry [see 15-24 July]. The first medical bulletin on the astronauts' condition, received at Houston several hours later, had informed Houston officials of the crew's eye and lung irritation. After splashdown, astronauts Thomas P. Stafford and Donald K. Slayton had noticed that fellow crewman Vance D. Brand had passed out. He had revived after about 1 min when Stafford adjusted his oxygen mask and ensured a proper flow of oxygen.
Johnston also said that preliminary diagnostic procedures had indicated that the crew did not have "any apparent medical problem at that time" but that x-rays had shown increased hylar markings originating from the center of the chest. The doctors elected to move the crew to sick bay and keep them under observation. The astronauts had been given cortisone to decrease the inflammation of their lung tissue and relieve the symptoms of cough and substernal discomfort.
During the briefing, word came that the astronauts had arrived at Tripler Hospital in Hawaii where they would enter the intensive care unit. "They walked in smiling and they looked happy," said JSC Public Affairs Officer Robert V. Gordon. (ASTP Transcript PC-56) The House of Representatives' $48-million cut in NASA's Pioneer Venus program [see 19 June] had taken the agency by surprise, a Science editorial reported. "Not only had the program been scrutinized and endorsed by House and Senate authorization committees, but construction of the spacecraft, for which planning began 4 years ago, is now well advanced." The potential loss was even more bitter because it was the "child of the scientific community." Although the House action was intended not to eliminate Pioneer Venus altogether but rather to delay it, to consider the relative priority between the project and the Large Space Telescope, "they are not in any way comparable in their scientific objectives." The House Appropriations Committee's action seemed to be based on "a misunderstanding of the physical constraints of launching a spacecraft to Venus." Once the 1975 launch window had passed, the next opportunity would be in 1980, when the relative position of the two planets would require spacecraft approach at higher velocities that would call for a larger retro-propulsion motor and more fuel. These requirements would reduce the scientific payload, necessitate redesign, and waste much of the $40 million already spent.
The subcommittee's decision seemed to have been made abruptly "without any real attempt at investigating the consequences." The subcommittee staff had never asked NASA whether the mission could be delayed: Even more remarkable, said Science, was the motivation given for the action in the committee report: "Some astronomers have been critical of NASA's Space Science Program because they contend that a disproportionate level of NASA dollars have been used on planetary astronomy missions, while little or no funds have been allocated to deep space astronomy which is the principal mission of the Large Space Telescope." The public bickering over funds among scientists tended to give "the budget cutters ... a field day." To many space scientists, the deferral raised questions about the credibility of the long-range planning process for large science projects. Scientists argued that "cutting the mission after it has already been approved by Congress and after money and considerable talent have been committed to its development may jeopardize efforts to design efficient spacecraft and plan a logical program of planetary exploration." (Hammond, Science, 25 July 75, 270-71)
NASA announced the development of an improved 'inorganic paint, a potassium silicate zinc-rich coating with a silicon additive that could provide long-term protection from salt spray, fog, heat, and rapid temperature changes. Produced at Goddard Space Flight Center as an anticorrosion coating for use in the space program, the paint had shown no deterioration after 5300 hr of continuous exposure to a 3% brine spray. The paint had also been applied to a 2-m panel mounted under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco for further testing. (NASA Release 75-213; Newsweek (int'l ed), 18 Aug 7.5)
Comsat General Corp. of the Communications Satellite Corp. announced its intent to pay MCI Communications Corp. and Lockheed Aircraft Corp. $1.5 million each for their common stock in the CML Satellite Corp. Restructured in 1972 by Comsat General Corp. and with thirds owned by Comsat, Lockheed, and MCI, CML was to have entered the domestic-communications-satellite business but had stopped short because of the financial difficulties of MCI and Lockheed.
On 3 July 1974, Comsat and International Business Machines Corp. had announced plans to buy out the shares in CML owned by Lockheed and MCI, subject to approval by the Federal Communications Commission. Restrictions imposed in a 23 January 1975 ruling by the FCC-concerned that the combination of the two companies would create a monopoly-required that no one partner own less than 10% or more than 49% of the stock. Under this "balanced CML" ruling, Comsat and IBM were seeking a third partner; to that end, Comsat was acquiring all of the stock so that it could be reapportioned in the proposed new structure. (Comsat General Release 75-45)
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
