February 1967
From The Space Library
Space flights lasting one month or more should pose no new respiratory problems for astronauts, but additional research was necessary to ensure against respiratory problems that could arise from prolonged weightlessness and an artificial environment, NRC Space Science Board study concluded. Only serious effects of weightlessness on respiratory system anticipated were possibility that astronauts might inhale dust and other solid particles floating in the spacecraft and that muscles controlling the lungs might weaken because work was easier in weightless environment. Areas recommended for further study included : toleration limits for carbon dioxide in case spacecraft's absorption system malfunctioned; problems of infection during long missions; possibility of intentionally filling astronauts' lungs with a liquid to prevent collapse of blood vessels and tissues during acceleration greater than 15 g; and basic medical training and use of drugs for self-medication by crew during weightlessness. Committee also recommended efforts to improve methods to detect and extinguish spacecraft fires, and suggested that a two-gas system with nitrogen or helium be used until effective methods of fire control in 100% oxygen were developed. Report, to be released shortly by NAS, was the product of a June 26-July 9,1966, conference held at Woods Hole, Mass., at OART request. (NAS-NRC-NAE News Report, 2/67)
Soviet Academy of Sciences, using results obtained from Luna III and Zond III probes, had handed over to International Commission on Lunar Nomenclature list of objects on other side of moon and their names-list containing 153 objects of invisible hemisphere and two areas of visible hemisphere. Names would honor great scientists of the past and renowned contemporaries from many countries of the world. For two areas of visible hemisphere, it was proposed to call region of first impact of Luna II (1959) , the Bay of Lunik; and region of first nondestructive lunar landing of Luna IX apparatus (1966), Bay of Lunar Landing. (S/F, 2/67,38-9)
Initial reaction by the press to Jan. 27 flash fire in which three Apollo astronauts died: Business Week: "After 16 space flights, in which 19 astronauts returned from their missions safely, many had forgotten the inescapable peril of exploration. No previous frontier has ever been crossed without the loss of life; it was not to be expected that space is the most perilous frontier of them all-could be conquered without sacrifice. None of this lessens the grief that every man in NASA feels for fallen comrades. But it is the nature of test pilots . . . to accept disaster not as defeat but as a call for intensified effort and dedication." (Bus Wk, 2/4/67)
Washington Evening Star: "Now that the initial shock . . . is beginning to wear off, the second guessers are . . . wondering whether we should be going to the moon at all. . . . From any rational point of view, the only thing to do is to carry on. The Apollo program necessarily will mark time until the true cause of the spacecraft disaster is located and corrected. It is conceivable that the delay could cause the Dec. 31,1969, deadline to be missed. It is entirely possible that the Russians may get to the moon ahead of us. But so what? The world will not end nor the United States vanish, if the Russians beat us to the moon. . . . It would be senseless to stop now. Fortunately, it probably would also be impossible." (Hines, W Star, 2/2/67)
Editor & Publisher: "The recent disaster at Cape Kennedy indicates we are no less reluctant to face up to disaster than anyone else. Not only were our reporters not prepared for it-none of them were there for the simulated flight test-but neither were our space officials . . . [because] the full import of the tragedy was fed out piecemeal. . . . The lessons for NASA officials and for newsmen are obvious. Space travel is fraught with dangers in every test, every maneuver, every piece of equipment, but we became complacent about them because of our successes. NASA's record of dealing with the press up to now has been pretty good and if it hasn't already developed a `disaster plan' for such accidents it soon will. News media have learned that nothing in the space program should be considered `routine' and that front row seat should never be left unoccupied at any time." (Editor & Publisher, 2/11/67)
Some press reaction to the accident later became increasingly critical of NASA:
Washington Evening Star: "The implication of the NASA story was that no fire extinguishing apparatus or quick escape mechanism-neither of which was present on the Apollo 1 -could have saved the men. The implication of the truth is that if the spacecraft had been equipped with a means of blowing open the hatch, Grissom, White and Chaffee might have had a chance. NASA's motive in attempting to distort the truth may have been to protect the families of the astronauts from undue mental anguish. But it also served the function of protecting NASA by heading off criticism of the agency . . . by deliberately misleading the press, Congress and the public." (W Star, 2/9/67)
New York Times: "The most basic issue . . . is not, as NASA has tended to emphasize, the source of the spark that started the fire. It is rather the question of why so much was permitted to hinge on the assumption that there would be no fire. . . . The answer is only secondarily, as a NASA official has suggested, that `alertness . . . had become dulled' by previous successes. . . . More fundamental was the willingness to gamble for the sake of winning the race to the moon." (NYT, 2/28/67, 34)
Congressional actions in response to Jan. 27 flash fire at KSC in which three Apollo astronauts died : Sen. Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (D-N.J.) , urged Senate to ratify space law treaty [see Dec. 8,1966] as a worthy tribute to the astronauts. (CR, 2/3/67, S1449-50; NASA LAR VI/16)
Sen. Spessard L. Holland (D-Fla.) and Rep. Edward J. Gurney (R-Fla.) introduced joint resolution (S.J. Res. 30) to establish a Commission "to formulate plans for a memorial to astronauts who lose their lives in the line of duty in the US. space program." Astronauts Memorial commission would be composed of five Presidential appointees-one NASA representative, one DOD representative, and three civilians. (CR, 2/7/67, S1657; NASA LAR VI/17)
Sen. Vance Hartke (D-Ind.) praised efforts of Mitchell, Ind., residents to erect a memorial to Apollo Astronaut Virgil I. Grissom. "The memorial will preserve the memory of that record for future generations who might otherwise lose sight of the spectacular achievements of the few individuals who made the first forays into space." (CR, 2/16/67, ,92071)
Lift-drag space vehicle had been gaining more attention, Space/Aeronautics reported; reasons were said to be: "X-15 hypersonic tests, unmanned lifting-body reentry, manned subsonic glides and wind tunnel research." For manned spacecraft, atmospheric lift would put an end to worldwide recovery alerts as in Mercury/Gemini experience. (S/A, 2/67, 52)
- January
- February
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
