FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0914.PDF
912 FLIGHT International, 7 June 1962 Missiles and Spaceflight discussion group at least, the origin, objectives and general philo sophy of ELDO, the launcher organization, must have appeared strange indeed. Those best qualified to know did not attempt to justify the formation of ELDO on any grounds of logic. The phrase "we just drifted into it" was used almost with pride, or with an apologetic laugh, and senior men involved were frankly admitting that scientific and logical reasoning had been overruled on grounds of political expediency. It was stated that the primary purpose of ELDO was "undoubtedly ESRO"—which might have appeared plausible had not Mr Price's background paper contained ESRO's proposed eight-year programme, clearly showing the ESRO requirement for ELDO-size launchers to be four vehicles only. Donald Michael's phrase "Men looking at the new horizon of space with old eyes" could not be bettered. One awkward topic—existing and immediately forthcoming US military satellites—tended to be overshadowed, avoided or glossed over amid the more sensational and futuristic talk of bombs in orbit and the like. When such satellites as Samos were mentioned, it was in subtle arguments between military strategists as to whether they (the satellites) would be "stabilizing" or "destabilizing"—and this did not refer to their ability to remain pointing one way while in orbit. One "official" US view was that reconnaissance satellites were stabilizing because it was to the advantage of the Soviet Union that the USA should have reliable knowledge of Soviet strategic strength (for details, see Brennan in Outer Space). A British strategist believed they would be destabilizing; in the interests of stability, he did not wish to know about Soviet missile sites. To the innocent observer, it all seemed an "Alice in Wonder-RAND" story. The apparent legal difference between Samos satellites and, say, U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, was brought out at the assembly and is worth recording here. A U-2 flies through national airspace, whereas a Samos orbits through what both the USA and the Soviet Union seems to agree is res communis—the equivalent of the high seas. Observation of a country by a Samos in orbit is therefore com parable to observation of that country from an aircraft flying out side the borders of the country. Whether satellite observation is an act of agression in itself, in spite of the fact that no national sov ereignty is violated, is another matter. A convenient line in dealing with the embarrassments of military space activity was to urge—rather too emphatically, it seemed— that you simply could not possibly differentiate between military and civilian satellites, with the exception of those carrying bombs. To the innocent observer, again, it occurred that you probably could, if you wanted to. What were the military objectives in space, anyway? Nothing less than the defeat of communism, a Pentagon general opined, going on to quote physicist Dr Edward Teller's well-known view thar the US must have supremacy in space. "Our ideals are such," the general explained, "that we cannot live with communism." Ever; his fellow-Americans balked at this, however, in company with speakers from Canada, Britain and Belgium. Forward again to the future for a novel hypothesis. Instead of trying to find ways of preventing war from spreading into space i.e. confining war to Earth, why not confine it to space instead? The orbital equivalent of knights in armour was suggested—each knight supported by 100,000 technical serfs on earth. The Final Report In many ways the impression that the American Assembly happened to be holding its own meeting in Brighton, rather than that a truly joint European-American assembly was in session, was reflected in the final report of the conference, generalk but not necessarily unanimously agreed by the 75 participants and published in our May 24 issue. Apart from four specific suggestions in the section on European-American co-operation, there seemed little sign that the European participants had in fact participated. But, in spite of the all-American generalities which were to a certain extent inevitable, the fact that these particular 75 men had discussed and agreed their philosophy of space in this manner in itself made the report a valuable document. The general part of the report includes two important cautionary notes: (1) that the advanced industrial nations should not, merely for reasons of competitive prestige, concentrate vast resources on space research over a long period to the exclusion of more pressing human needs; and (2) that, because of the power to change man's natural environment, the use of scientific knowledge must clearly be compatible with moral and political values. Conventional opinions of approval are contained in the "scien tific and civil space activities" section of the report. Under "the mili tary use of space and its control," the grouping together of com munication satellites, early-warning satellites, and surveillance and reconnaissance satellites in the category of "space activities which are likely to improve the stability of the strategic equation between East and West" will raise a few eyebrows, if nothing else. Under "the problems of law and order," the report suggests, but does not describe in detail, a possible "new institutional framework within the United Nations" to deal with space activities on behalf of the international community. In the section on "European- American co-operation," the four recommended fields in which close co-operation is believed desirable are (1) the training of scientists and technologists, (2) joint tracking and data-analysis facilities, (3) the use of US launch vehicles for European payloads, and (4) the mutual granting of space contracts between US and European firms. The report comments that, "partly because of its special role in the maintenance of Western security," the United States is working on a scale which has not been matched by Europe. In the opinion of most American participants at the Brighton assembly, it was partly because of Sputnik 1, too. J. L. Bromberg, Douglas Aircraft Company's director of Skybolt systems (second from left) visited A. V. Roe at Woodford recently. With him in this picture are, from the left, G. A. Whitehead, Avro deputy chief engineer (design); C. F. Bethwaite, Avro deputy chief engineer (aero); C. C. Martin, Douglas UK manager, Skybolt systems; and T. A. House, Avro assistant chief engineer (military design) Space Science Lecture Dr Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies, was due to give a lecture on space science at the United States Embassy, London, yesterday (June 6). Anti-Submarine Tu-16s Operating from shore bases, Soviet Tu-16 twin-jet bombers are making training sorties with anti submarine missiles. One missile is carried under each wing, out board of the undercarriage fairing. The missiles appear to have an aeroplane configuration, with a span of about 16ft—rather smaller than that of Regulus—and to have a nose intake and radome. Vigilant*, for Kuwait? British Aircraft Corporation cannot com ment on a detailed unofficial report that the Sheikdom of Kuwait are purchasing Vickers Vigilant anti-tank missiles as inventory equipment. Shrike This is reported to be the name adopted by the US Navy for the Project ARM (anti-radar missile). More compact and more advanced in design than the cancelled Corvus, Shrike is» intended to be launched by carrier-based strike aircraft against enemy electronic installations. System development is in the hands of NOTS, China Lake.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
