Mar 26 1964
From The Space Library
Mockup of the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was shown to the press at Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. after three days of design inspection by officials of NASA Manned Spacecraft Center. Objective of review was to establish design freeze on most areas of LEM design. Under NASA contract, Grumman would build 9 LEMS for ground testing and 11 for flight. (Clark, NYT, 3/27/64, 7; M&R, 4/6/64, 26)
Soviet satellite COSMOS XXIII burned up in the atmosphere between the Great Lakes and the northeastern Canadian coast, according to NORAD. Observers in Pendleton, Ore., and Duluth, Minn., reported seeing fiery streak in the sky, and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory officials at Cambridge, Mass., said they assumed the streak was the reentering COSMOS XXIII. (AP, Balt. Sun. 3/28/64; AP, NYT, 3/29/64, 31)
At close of 18-day session of U.N. Outer Space Committee's legal subcommittee in Geneva, U.S. delegate Leonard C. Meeker praised the "business like" manner in which the subcommittee had studied the draft treaties presented by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The subcommittee would meet again later this year. (NYT, 3/27/64,9)
Space Science Board of National Academy of Sciences concluded that Project West Ford dipoles placed in orbit last year had not interfered with either optical or radioastronomy observations. Board Chairman Dr. H. H. Hess said in report that the board's conclusion "should not be taken either as an endorsement of the experiment or as tacit agreement to the launching of another similar belt without further discussion." Consideration of the West Ford dipoles would continue under Space Science Board's newly established Committee on Potential Contamination and Interference from Space Experiments. (NAS-NRC Release)
Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy voted $14 million in AEC's FY 1965 budget for flight test of Snap-10A reactor. This action followed Budget Bureau letter to the Committee acknowledging that "reasonable and well informed men can differ" on such issues as the Snap flight test and stating that the Administration would conduct flight test if. Congress authorized the funds, as long as the Administration's $2,651,542,000 request for AEC was not exceeded. Late last year the Administration had canceled orbital flight-test because of lack of specific mission for the Snap; leaders of the Joint Congressional Committee, Sen. John O. Pastore (D.-R.I.) and Rep. Chet Holifield (D.-Calif.), had protested the decision, urging President Johnson to approve the flight test. (NYT, 3/26/64, 24)
Dr. Albert J. Kelley, Director of Electronics and Control in NASA Office of Advanced Research and Technology, said in address before Aero Club of New England, in Boston: . the NASA effort is not confined to a single objective such as landing men on the moon. Rather, it is a broad-based research and development effort which is designed to meet the needs of any agency of the government having work to do in space. And the vigor with which we pursue this activity will determine how effectively those agencies can meet their responsibilities, and cope with their problems in space, in the years ahead. . . . "With respect to such a large, complex, and unknown environment as space, and the still not precisely defined characteristics of the earth's atmosphere, this nation would be oblivious to the lessons of history if it, in every case, required that exploratory research and development be matched to a completely defined mission. . . ." (Text)
Rep. Roman C. Pucinski (D.-Ill.) spoke on House floor urging passage of H.R. 8104, his bill to prohibit flight of civil supersonic aircraft generating sonic boom overpressures above 1.5 lbs. per sq. ft. Rep. Pucinski cited FAA's current sonic boom experiment in which flights producing overpressure of 1 to 1.5 lbs. per sq. ft. had prompted some 2,000 complaints. "The tests in Oklahoma City can indeed be a big help in this whole subject, but only if the FAA has the courage to increase the booms to the overpressures which we know the supersonic jets will have to produce to be efficiently and economically operational. . . . I am firmly convinced that the 2,000 complaints . . . would skyrocket if the FAA produced sonic booms approaching 3 pounds or more over-pressure per square foot.. . . "Mr. Speaker, I submit that this whole [SST] project must be held in a state of abeyance until after the FAA has had the courage to generate sonic boom overpressures in excess of 2 pounds per square foot.. . ." He then cited FAA and NASA statements to House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee: "The FAA admits that sonic booms from 2 to 3 pounds overpressure per square foot will do damage to glass and plaster in isolated cases and that sonic booms creating overpressure of 3 to 5 pounds per square foot will cause widespread window and plaster damage. But . . . [NASA] states that tests carried out by NASA in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force show that the lowest overpressure at Which house windows were broken was 23 pounds per square foot, and most of the windows tested survived pressures exceeding 56 pounds per square foot." He said NASA was "Way off the pad in its analysis" and added: .. here we have so vital an issue as the health and welfare of millions of Americans and the safety of property throughout the country involved and yet these two agencies cannot agree on standards for damage due to sonic booms. . ." (CR, 3/26/64, 6193-97)
U.S. manned space flight plans were outlined in Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) article with Col. G. Terent'yev byline. Saying that the U.S. Was "not leaving a stone unturned in trying to outstrip the Soviets in the conquest of space with manned space vehicles," the writer gave particular attention to Gemini and Apollo plans, then went on to claim that U.S. policy "in the conquest of space is far from a peaceful one; it has a clearly evident military (more accurately, aggressive) nature." (Krasnaya Zvezda, 3/26/64, 3, ATSS-T Trans.)
Wilbur L. Pritchard, Group Director of ComSat Systems, Aerospace Corp., before Military Operations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, was first witness to speak out against military usage of commercial comsat system. Speaking both for himself and for Aerospace Corp., Pritchard said military requirements would be so different from commercial requirements that either the national security would be sacrificed or ComSatCorp would have to charge such high rates that there would be no savings to the Government. He proposed alternative system based on simple spin-stabilized satellite, capable of growth and expansion to accommodate increased needs of military satellite communications. (Av. Wk., 3/30/64, 15; SBD, 3/27/64, 479)
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 2829 30 31
