09.04.2013 Views

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 - NASA's History Office

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 - NASA's History Office

Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 - NASA's History Office

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS, <strong>1967</strong> March 12<br />

At the insistence of Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.) , the Senate Foreign Rela-<br />

tions Committee agreed to qualify in its forthcoming report its inter-<br />

pretation of two clauses in the space law treaty [see March 71. One<br />

clause questioned said benefits of space exploration “shall be the<br />

province of all mankind”; the other said that each nation would be<br />

liable for damages to another caused by its space vehicles. Committee<br />

specified that (1) nothing would “diminish or alter the right of the<br />

United States to determine how it shares the benefits <strong>and</strong> results of its<br />

space activities”; <strong>and</strong> (2) damage “pertains only to physical, non-elec-<br />

tronic damage.” Senator Gore had suggested that if there were two com-<br />

peting US. <strong>and</strong> Soviet space communications networks, one nation might<br />

sue the other for damage from electronic interference of one system<br />

on the other. (W Post, 3/14/67, A7; Finney, NYT, 3/14/67, 20)<br />

NASA was negotiating nine-month, $275,000 contract with Planning Re-<br />

search Corp. to identify, analyze, <strong>and</strong> evaluate potential aconomic<br />

returns from possible space station activities in mid-1970’s. Earth-<br />

oriented application areas such as natural resources, meteorology, <strong>and</strong><br />

communications would be considered as they might affect both the<br />

national <strong>and</strong> world economy. Univ. of Michigan would be major sub-<br />

contractor to Planning Research in technical feasibility of remote<br />

sensing. Contract would be managed by OMSF Advanced Manned Mis-<br />

sions Program. (NASA Release 6754)<br />

0 NASA had agreed to fly four DOD experiments on Apollo Applications<br />

( AA) missions to support USAF’S Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) ,<br />

Aviation Week reported; more would be added. Experiments selected to<br />

date included: study of an inflatable elastic air lock; use of alternate<br />

restraints to determine st<strong>and</strong>ard workshop technique in weightlessness ;<br />

evaluation of suit donning <strong>and</strong> sleep stations; <strong>and</strong> integration of multi-<br />

purpose equipment maintenance. (NASA Proj Off; Av Wk, 3/13/67,18)<br />

9 Advanced Defense Satellite Communications Project (ADSCP) currently<br />

being revised by DOD was expected to reach capacity of 100-200 voice<br />

grade circuits, according to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara,<br />

Aviation Week reported. In letter to Rep. Chet Holifield (D-Calif.)<br />

McNamara said that capacity expansion was being made in accordance<br />

with recommendations by House Government Operations Committee’s<br />

Subcommittee on Military Operations. (Committee Off.; Av Wk,<br />

3/13/67, 12)<br />

Technology Week editorial criticized Los Angeles Times editor Marvin<br />

Miles’ accusation that Jan. 27 Apollo accident was caused in large part<br />

by NASA’s shortsightedness <strong>and</strong> that NASA was trying to hide its negligence.<br />

“Mr. Miles discusses the hatch hazard <strong>and</strong> NASA’s failure to provide<br />

an explosive hatch <strong>and</strong> its failure to develop a fire suppression system.<br />

Then comes the ringing finale . . . ‘The nation should be told the whole<br />

truth.’<br />

“It is our impression that the agency is trying valiantly to come up<br />

with just such information <strong>and</strong> we don’t underst<strong>and</strong> the implication<br />

of a Cover-up.’’<br />

Editorial noted that in the past NASA had often been criticized for<br />

being too stringent <strong>and</strong> that despite d precautions, “something some-<br />

where went wrong. . . .<br />

“We think the agency’s st<strong>and</strong>ard of conduct has been high. Its state-<br />

ment before Congress was a frank <strong>and</strong> honest appraisal of the fact that,<br />

despite very strong efforts, somehow it had failed to take the steps to<br />

324401 0 - 4 9 4 71

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!