Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 - NASA's History Office

ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS, 1967 During May
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)
0 Editorial comment on Apllo 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 mwt 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. . . . In-
evitably, 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, Cl)
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 imag-
ined-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 influ-
ence 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)
0 Editorial comment on authorization for SST prototype construction [see
April 291:
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 betweep our Government and American industry,’
the Administration should provide more adequate protection for the tax-
payer 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 achieve-
ment but American leadership in the highly profitable business of supply-
ing planes to the world’s airlines.
“SST, by its size, speed and sonic boom, will cause a number of prob-
171