Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 - NASA's History Office

November 8 ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS, 1967
million. Sustaining university was $10.0 (no change) million, and tech-
nology utilization, $4.0 (no change) million.
Webb presented rather brief outline on present long-range planning
for lunar and planetary mission hardware. Limited funds could continue
development of flight-qualified engine for NERVA I and would support
plans for first Apollo Applications flights in 1970. Two Mars-Mariner
flights for 1969 would be the “last in present program.” Five Mariner
flights in 1970s, two or more Titan I11 launches in Voyager series in
1973, and Saturn V flight in 1975 could be considered in FY 1969
budget. Webb reasoned that NASA could “use the Atlas-Centaur . . . and
the Titan I11 with transtage, to move out into further planetary opera-
tions but with very limited expenditures in 1968 and’1969.”
Responding to questions by Senate Committee on Aeronautical and
Space sciences, Webb referred to recent csc decision on NASA personnel
contracts and said he would join with csc chairman and the Comptroller
General in working out pattern for support contracts, the KSC contract
providing his guidelines. (Testimony ; transcript)
In a prelaunch press conference at Launch Complex #39, KSC, NASA Deputy
Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., referred to high points of Nov. 9
scheduled launch of Apollo 4: “. . . Apollo 4 launch is . . . most diffi-
cult and significant milestone to date [and] tomorrow we’ll be flight
testing the Saturn V for the first time. We’ll be flight testing on Apollo
spacecraft entering the atmosphere at lunar return speeds for the first
time. We’ll be live-testing our launch and operational facilities for the
first time, and we’ll be testing our development and operational team in
its first major mission attempt for the first time. I am certain this
team . . . will not be found wanting.” (Text)
0 Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze, in response to statement made
Nov. 6 by Rep. Craig Hosmer (R-Calif.) , member, Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy’s Military Applications Subcommittee, during hearings
on ABM systems, answered: “First we are taking steps to protect Minute-
man against much better Soviet offenses than we actually expect. Sec-
ondly, even if any two of the three elements of our second-strike forces-
our land-based ICBMS, our submarine-based Polaris and Poseidon, and
our strategic bombers-were rendered useless by some unforeseeable dis-
aster, the remaining element could by itself inflict unacceptable dam-
age on the U.S.S.R.” He compared effectiveness (number of targets
destroyed) of 10 50-kt warheads in a Multiple Independent Re-entry
Vehicle (MIRV) configuration to the same effectiveness of one large
yield-10 mt-warhead, and stated that “the MIRVS provide much mort:
effective payloads . . . by every relevant criterion of military effec-
tiveness, even though they deliver much less total megatonnage.” Re-
sponse to Hosmer’s statement by Nitze had been made at request of
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. (Text)
* FAA, despite qualified objections of air carriers, announced Dec. 15 effec-
tive date for imposition of speed limit of 250 kph (288 mph) for all
aircraft operating below 14000 ft mean sea level [see Sept. 11. FAA
believed its action would give pilots more time to “see and avoid” other
air traffic in the Nation’s most heavily traveled airspace. Larger airlines
felt collision avoidance systems and automated terminal approach sys-
tems would go further to reduce the growing number of midair colli-
sions; they would have preferred a speed limit from 5,000 ft down to
surface. Air Line Pilots Assn. endorsed rule, at the same time making
338