May 1967
From The Space Library
NASA conducted contract negotiations for KSC support services. Federal Electric Co. and RCA Service Co. were selected for competitive negotiations on a five-year, cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide operational communications and instrument services at KSC; Catalytic Construction Co. and Dow Chemical Co. were selected to jointly provide KSC facilities support services under $42-million, four-year, cost-plus-award-fee contract; Trans World Airlines received a $17,006,394 contract extension for installation support services; and Bechtel Corp. received a $2,033,957 contract extension for specialized facility maintenance, repair, and minor construction services. (NASA Releases 67-106,67-107,67-109,67-119)
Listen to NASA Special report on the anniversary of Freedom 7.
Editorial comment on Apollo accident hearings: New York Times: NASA "went to great lengths . . . to assure the Senate Space Committee that all the expensive lessons taught by the fatal January fire will be taken into account before the next try. Yet doubts must persist because the pressurized oxygen system is retained. So is the prime contractor, North American Aviation, whose past errors and deficiencies contributed so much to the debacle. Moreover, NASA has preferred to ignore the pointed questions that have been raised about its own competence to supervise and manage this intricate endeavor." (NYT, 5/10/67,40)
Washington Sunday Star: "Webb and his associates are not solely-perhaps not primarily-to blame for their attitude in time of crisis. In its formative years, the agency was pampered and spoiled by Congress like a favored child. The press willingly cooperated in the creation of NASA's shining image of a superagency staffed by supermen. . . . Inevitably, NASA became the spoiled brat of the federal establishment. "But NASA, of course, is no different than any other federal agency. It is composed of wise and foolish men, of dedicated and self-serving public servants, of heroes and of knaves. It is doing an extraordinary-and, in our opinion, a worthwhile-task [and] deserves continued public support." (W Star, 5/14/67, C1)
New York Times: "Now that the public finally knows that North American was picked for the Apollo project by a few high officials-and not by a large group of technical experts as originally imagined-the question of why it was picked becomes even more intriguing than before. The cynics, of course, have always believed that the award went to North American as the result of a battle among influence peddlers, including Bobby Baker, former Secretary to the Senate Democrats. The cynics may be wrong, but the public cannot know without a full investigation. Congress has the obligation to force out all the facts." (NYT, 5/11/67, 44)
Editorial comment on authorization for SST prototype construction [see April 29]: Washington Post: "President Johnson made the right decision in requesting that Congress appropriate Federal funds for the development of the supersonic transport plane. . . . But in proposing what it calls `a creative partnership between our Government and American industry,' the Administration should provide more adequate protection for the taxpayer who will bear a substantial share of the development costs. "Why should not the taxpayers, who are to provide about 25 per cent of the capital required, be permitted to share proportionately in the enormous profits that would be earned by a successful SST? Although it is necessary to launch the SST project with the shortest possible delay, Congress should be concerned with a more adequate protection of the public interest." (W Post, 5/1/67)
World Journal Tribune: "Actually, the basis of the SST project is coldly commercial. At stake is not some vague blue ribbon of achievement but American leadership in the highly profitable business of supplying planes to the world's airlines. "SST, by its size, speed and sonic boom, will cause a number of problems which have not yet been solved. But it was inevitable that this country should enter the supersonic race-not for national pride or out of scientific curiosity, but as a matter of good business. "The international plane market is too good for America to let it go by default." (WJT, 5/4/67,22)
New York Times: "Mr. Johnson acknowledged that the building of an American SST `carries high technical and financial risks.' Yet in his anxiety to get on with the job he has increased the potential hazards to the taxpayer. . . . "Congress has a responsibility to establish guidelines to keep the Administration's investment in the SST from getting out of hand. It should see to it that the Government does not write any blank checks and become overly involved in what is supposed to be a commercial venture. And industry, too, should recognize that if it asks Washington to shoulder the costs, then Washington may well end up running the entire operation." (NYT, 5/2/67,43)
American Helicopter Society, meeting in Washington, D.C., presented the Dr. Alexander Klemin Award to Avco Corp. executive Dr. Anselm Franz for "leading the development of a noteworthy series of gas turbine engines for helicopters' and other VTOL aircraft. . . ." (Av. Wk, 5/29/67, 55)
NASA's broad program of lunar exploration included, according to Space/Aeronautics "quickening conversion of data and designs into hardware and techniques for . . . planting a coordinated set of instruments on the lunar surf ace for remote, year-long readout; bringing back those lunar samples for exhaustive, quarantine-flavored analysis in custom labs; going back with wheels, rocket pogos, and sophisticated drills for more extensive exploration; [and] exploiting, eventually, the moon's capacities as a base for astronomy, or as a source for fuel." (S /A , 5/67,68)
“The Once and Future Space Engine” in Fortune Magazine
- May
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
