100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 04, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1969-03-04

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.{

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: JIM NEUBACHER

U' scientists:
Business as usual

TheI
By DAVE CHUDWIN
THE LUNAR MODULE, making
its first manned flight with the
Apollo 9 mission, is a spacecraft
only an engineer could love - or
appreciate.
With 40 miles of wiring and sev-
eral million parts, the lunar mod-~
ule is a combination moon landing
helicopter, exploration base, and
miniature Cape Kennedy. It rep-
resents the highest achievement
so far in American space technol-
ogy.
The preliminary job of the lunar
module is to land two men on the
moon from 'Apollo spacecraft or-
biting 70 miles above the moon's
surface. They will spend 22 hours
exploring, collecting rock samples,
and setting up an experiment
package.
The main task of the lunar mod-
ule is to get the astronauts off the
moon and back to the A p o l lo
mothership. If this maneuver fails.
there will be two stranded astro-
nauts.
THE FIRST TRUE spaceship,
the lunar module is designed to
work exclusively in the vacuum of
space. It lacks a heat shield and
other equipment necessary to re-
enter the earth's atmosphere.
The Apollo 9 mission, now in
orbit, is an earth orbital test of
t h e lunar module. Astronauts
James McDivitt, David Scott, and
Russell Schweickart will perform
most of the maneuvers of a lunar
landing during their ten - day
flight.

lunar module,

a space oddity

TODAY IT WILL be business-as-usual
in University laboratories as scientists
here ignore their colleagues' one-day
stoppage of research being held to pro-
test the government's misuse of science.
University scientists and engineers de-
cided last week not to join scientists from
30 other universities in the protest
against the "overemphasis on military
technology."
At a school that accepts so much de-
fense department money for military
research, it is regretted that scientists
here could not take one day off to discuss
the important implications of their re-
search.
The protest was planned by a group of
MIT professors who urged redirection of
the efforts of science toward pressing
social problems and who stressed eon-
tinued opposition against the deployment
of the Sentinel ABM project.
INSTEAD, ABOUT 40 University physi-
cists have sent a letter to Michigan
Senators Philip Hart and Robert Griffin
asking that the ABM project be dis-
carded.

As an act of protest, this letter is
totally meaningless. Senator Hart has
long been opposed to the ABM project,
and Senator Griffin will obviously be
more influenced by internal pressure
within the Senate and the Republican
Party.
The scientific community has already
made its opposition to the ABM project
heard in a significant way. Any further
scientific protest should be directed to-
ward the defense department rather than
the Senate, where sufficient opposition is
now virtually assured.
The 40 University physicists would have
performed a greater service by making
known their opinions on the whole ques-
tion of military research, rather than on
one unpopular project.
BY FAILING to take part in today's
protest, University scientists have a
special obligation to the world and to
themselves to at least find another day
for discussing the important directions
that science is being pushed.
-STEVE ANZALONE
Editorial Page Editor

Otherwise known as "the LEM"
or "the bug," the lunar module has
been dubbed with the code-name
"Spider" by the Apollo 9 astro-
nauts because of its bizarre shape.
Spider's bottom section, known
as the descent stage, is an octag-
onal box containing batteries, oxy-
gen, and the throttleable engine
designed to lower the spacecraft
on the moon. Four landing struts
extend from the corners of the de-
scent stage.
The upper part, or ascent stage,
is a cylinder with assorted bumps
and protrusions. Two windows and
a forward hatch give it a bug-like
appearance. The main portion of
the ascent stage is a pressurized
astronaut cabin.
After the astronauts finish their
exploration, they ignite a separate
ascent stage engine. Using the de-
scent stage under them as a
launchingepad t h eastronauts
blast off, leaving the descent stage
on the moon.
SPIDER, A YEAR behind sch-
edule and costing three times more
than originally estimated, has
been the space agency's problem
child. It is so complex, with so
many parts that could malfunc-
tion, that few space agency offi-
cials expect Apollo 9 to go per-
fectly.
Spider, in fact, was added to the
Apollo program almost as an af-
terthought. Originally the space
agency planned to launch a mon-
ster rocket that would land a large
spacecraft directly on the moon.
Early in 1962, however, a space
agency engineer proposed send-
ing two spacecraft aboard a less
powerful rocket. On e spacecraft
would remain in orbit while the
other would ferry astronauts to
the surface.
The proposal was accepted, af-
ter much debate, because it would
be faster and several billion dol-
lars cheaper. The contract to build
the lunar ferry was given to
Grummann Aircraft Engineering
Corp. in January, 1963.
Little did they know what they
were getting into. Spider, as
Grumman soon found out, was to
have a number of difficulties be-
fore it finally got off the pad.
THE FIRST PROBLEM was
sheer weight of the contraption.
Because of the size of the booster.
Spider was originally limited to
28,500 pounds t o t a l weight. As
hardware was being delivered it
became obvious that the weight
limit would be exceeded.

4

A strict weight control program
was initiated. Metal walls and fit-
tings were shaved to the smallest
possible thickness. A s t r o n a u t
couches were eliminated; they will
have to stand, restrained by
straps. Every possible pound was
eliminated.
Spider now w e i g h s 32,500
pounds. The added weight is pos-
sible because of improvement in
the booster rocket.
Another serious problem h a s
been the propulsion systems. The
injector of the ascent stage en-
gine failed repeatedly and had to
be completely redesigned. Pres-
sure oscillations in the descent en-
gine forced a reduction in the en-
gine's degree of throttle ability.
In addition, last September a
fuel tank for the descent engine
blew up in a test. The failure is
still unexplained.

A THIRD PROBLEM1 was with
the rendezvous guidance system.
The space agency originally plan-
ned a visual system for rendezvous
tracking of the Apollo spacecraft.
Later, it was found the eyeball
system wasn't adequate and a
heavy radar system had to be de-
veloped,
Another major difficulty was
ignorance about the lunar surface.
While Spider was being developed
scientists did not know whether
the surface was a deep layer of
dust, hard rock, or something in
between.
They made a guess about how
strong Spider's landing legs should
be. Luckily, the unmanned Sur-
veyor spacecraft later showed
their guess to be reasonably cor-
rect.
The Apollo 204 fire in January,
1967, in which three astronauts

were killed, spurred further design
changes. Flammable materials
were replaced and a fire fighting
system developed.
However, in the year-long lull
following t h e Apollo tragedy
things began to pull together. En-
gineering problems were being
solved and Spider was scheduled
to fly on Apollo 8.
TROUBLE, STRUCK A G A IN
and Spider was postponed until
Apollo 9. A cabin control panel
and the rendezvous radar caused
electrical interference with other
systems and had to be changed.
Thus, while less exciting than
the moon-circling Apollo 8, t h e
flight of Apollo 9 is a lot more im-
portant to space agency officials.
It will tell if Spider is truly a
magnificent flying machine or a
monumental bust.

A Miekey finis

MY YOUTH finally ended this weekend.
Mickey Mantle, whose rise to stardom
coincided precisely with the birth of my
continuing infatuation with baseball, an-
nounced at a press conference that he
was hanging up his spikes for ever.
For that steadily diminishing hard core
of Yankee fans, the shock was somewhat
cushioned. Mantle's recent series of sub-
par seasons and the 1967 retirement of
Whitey Ford, the greatest clutch pitcher
of the age, all signalled that the end was
nigh.
Now Joe Pepitone, Mel Stottlemeyer
and Tom Tresh must carry forth the ban-
ners of Ruth, Gehrig, and DiMaggio alone.
And despite a promising crop of Yankee
rookies, we all know that it just won't be
the same.
It would be easy to retell the sad and
heart-rending tales of Mantle's daily
struggle to keep on playing despite in-
juries or to speculate on how great he
might have been with two healthy legs,
but all that is merely grist for the sports-
writer.
RATHER MANTLE'S retirement should
remind us of the source of our nation-
al greatness. Where other nations crassly
gauge time by the reign of kings or the
duration of wars, America, especially in
these apolitical times of Republican as-
cendency, is the only nation that meas-
ures generations by the careers of ath-
letes.
MANY HAVE TRIED to attribute the ap-
parent lack of any divisive ideological
disputes in American politics to the wis-
dom of the designers of our wondrous po-
litical system. But all too few appreciate
that our politics are so mild only because

they are merely an off-season substitute
for baseball.
The cultural supremacy of baseball has
been clearly indicated by the way t h e
Mantle retJrement totally dwarfed Nix-
on's almost totally meaningless European
junket. Despite the growing prevalence of
the myth that politics has some social rel-
evance, baseball still, stands unchallenged
and firm as the cohesive center of our
civilization.
A few cynics may protest t h a t it is
neither fitting nor proper for a g r e a t
newspaper to be devoting its valuable edi-
torial space to eulogies on the retirement
of switch-hitters. Presumably this callous
bunch would rather read creaking rendi-
tions of our positions on such tiresome is-
sues as the rent strike or the merits of
the language requirements viewed in the
context of a liberal education.
THESE people don't remember Mantle's
565 foot homer off Chuck Stobbs in our
nation's capital on the opening day of the
1955 season. They probably weren't even
listening the night Mantle hobbled off
the disabled list to pinch-hit a game win-
ning grandslam home run.
These heartless boors can't even under-
stand that my pride in my heredity and
heritage is all due to Whitey Ford. By
pitching two shutouts only two days apart
during a crucial week of the 1960 pennant
race, Ford made us all proud to be called
left handed.
. An era has come to an end this week-
end. And there are those of us who think
that this makes world events seem rather
trivial and self-serving in comparison.
Goodbye Mickey, we may not see your
kind again.
-WALTER SHAPIRO
Associate Editorial Director, 1968-69

0

Letters:

Shafter on Harris, again

To the Editor:
I WAS DELIGHTED that Prof.
Harris himself took time to re-
spond to my innocuous little note
in last Thursday's Daily. And,
while I'm in this expansive mood.
I'd like to comment on several of
his points.
1) I was astonished first of all
that my note could be construed
as illustrating "the Ann Arbor Re-
publican Party approach" to "the
real injustices" of the student
rental housing situation. Appalled
at the very idea that I had, some-
how, constructed a Party Platform,
I feverishly reread w h a t I had
written.
To my inexpressible relief, I
found that I had done no such
thing, but rather had questioned,
as was my intention, the certainty
of Prof. Harris in his labeling of
Prof. Balzhiser's motivation as
"hypocritical" and the student
rental housing situation as"out-
rageous."
2) Then, in 1 i s second para-
graph, Prof. Harris states that 675
multiple dwelling units now being
lived in lack official certification.
Incidentally, the source of t h I s
figure is unclear. According to the
latest housing statistics (Jan.),
there were 7,520 multiple housing
units (not buildings) certified out
of a total of 9,623 - clearly a dif-
ference far greater than 675.
The number itself is not the cru-
cial matter, but rather what that
number means.

THE NUMBER, ipso facto, does
not signify a living unit which is
either unsafe or unhealthy, al-
though Harris suggests that mean-
ing by his juxtaposition of the two
ideas in his second paragraph. The
truth of the matter is, and Harris
should know it, that a Certificate
of Compliance may be, and very
often is, delayed by the presence
of a minor violation.
For example, under t h e local
housing code, certification may be
held up until the owner repairs,
say, a portion of an exterior wood
surface which is in need of paint-
ing or staining, or fixes a window
or door which is not in s o u n d
working order.
Largely, these infractions of the
code are continuing maintenance
problems which may rightly an-
noy a tenant but which do not
render a unit either unsafe or un-
healthy. I suspect that right to-,
day the vast majority of all hous-
ing in Ann Arbor stands in viola-
tion of at least one of the ,provis-
ions of the housing code, and yet
the overwhelming majority of
these dwellings would not be
judged by reasonable men to be
unfit for human occupancy be-
cause of serious health or safety
hazards.
NOW, IF Prof Harris knows for
a fact, and I quote his letter, "that
many students are living in un-
safe, unhealthy apartments," then
his obligation is to notify Building

and Safety, for they have the pow-
er to padlock such housing imme-
diately (first removing the ten-
ants, of course, who will be acco-
modated elsewhere at the owner's
expense). A case in point is the
recent boarding up of a dwelling
on Oakland judged by Building
and Safety as unsuitable for hu-
man habitation.'
3) With one exception, the rest
of the matters touched on by Prof.
Harris are peripheral to the focus
of my first letter - that single ex-
ception is the statement that
"Prof. Shafter laughs . ..
NOW THAT KIND of criticism
can crush a man. Just for the re-
cord. I did not laugh when I read
Harris' first statement; I did not
laugh when I wrote my first note
(though I tried); I did not laugh
when I read Harris' response; and
I'm not laughing as I sit here typ-
ing this letter (though I do con-
fess to an occasional grin). As a
matter of fact, I haven't really
laughed at all for weeks - it's
been that kind of winter.
-Prof. E. M. Shafter, Jr.
Engineering English
department
March 1
Hypocrisy?
To the Editor:
MY OPPONENT suggested that
my attempt to bring students,

landlords and the University to-
gether to discuss student housing
was an "hypocritical" act on my
part. He suggests the record of
the past years would substantiate
such a charge. I find it rather in-
teresting to look back over that
period, for it shows, quite to the
contrary, a deep interest in the
affairs of students on this cam-
pus. I believe the following points
will substantiate my point:
1) Ten years ago I lived in
housing at 1630 Northwood Apart-,
ments on the North Campus. Prior
to that I had lived in three dif-
ferent privately owned apart-
ments. My concerns for the stu-
dent's housing problems were
clearly formulated by this time
and have not diminished since.
2) From 1960 to 1964 I served
as the chapter adviser of Sigma
Chi Fraternity; again I remained
close to the housing problems of
students and was in a position to
begin to observe the changing
pattern in student preferences
with regard to campus versus off-
campus housing.
3) From 1961 to 1965 and again
since my return from Washing-
ton last fall, I have served on the
Michigan Union Board of Direc-
tors.
4) In 1966 and 1967 I served
as a member of the Student Re-
lations Advisory Committee to the
vice president for student affairs.

Both of these latter activities
kept me close to student concerns
and problems over, that period.
5) I have also served on the
Boards of the Graduate M Club
and the University Club of Ann
Arbor, both of which have had
numerous activities ' relating to
iundergraduate students and their
>needs.
6) I encouraged Bob Bodkin, a
student of mine while on council
and a member of SGC and the
Student Housing Group, and oth-
ers to participate in the affairs
of the City Council that related
to student housing. Their con-
tributions were factored into our
deliberations in both the housing
and zoning considerations before
us at that time.
I WOULD suggest that my rec-
ord shows a deep commitment to
the student on this campus and
their problems over the last ten
years as well as in the preceeding
nine years when I, myself, was
a student on the campus. I assure
you those concerns will not di-
minish if I assume the mayor's
chair.
-Prof. Richard E. Balzhiser
Chemical engineering dept.
Republican candidate for
mayor
March 2

Voter registration: The inevitable battle with the city cler

k

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Hollenshead,
a law student, has been active in
Student Government Council's voter
registration campaign.)'
Oy NEILL HOLLENSHEAD
A LTHOUGH it may -be easier for
students to register to vote in
Ann Arbor than it was ten years
ago, the city clerks are still blocking
too many students' legitimate right
to franchise.
The Ann- Arbor clerks' residency
determination is many times con-
trary to law and based upon political
expediency. The only uniform prin-
ciple running through the registra-
tion process here is to refuse to
franchise as many students as pos-
sible. Standards and criteria are sub-
jective and arbitrary. If the student
responds negatively to the clerk's
antagonism or is not conservatively
dressed, his chances for successful
registration are reduced.

the City Attorney's office and was
eventually registered because .he told
them he had planted perennial flow-
ers.
One of the attorneys said that
"putting down roots in the com-
munity" demonstrated intent to re-
main in Ann Arbor.
ONE OF THE better ways to be-
come registered is to confront the
"statutory provision."
Although this law appears to bar
student voting in Ann Arbor, it
merely establishes a rebuttable pre-
sumption of residence elsewhere.
This statute provides, "No elector
shall be deemed to have gained or
lost a residence . . . while a student
at any institution of learning." Based
upon judicial authority two previous
Michigan Attorneys General have
ruled that this provision should be
construed to mean that:

uncertain as to the place of his
future residence, it is generally
held that he may vote at the col-
lege town."
In addition, Atty. Gen. Frank J.
Kelley, has said the presumption
that a student's voting residence is
that community where he resided
prior to becoming a student may be
rebutted. This "statutory presump-
tion" may be rebutted on several
grounds, including "age, lacy of
parental support, family location,
employment in the community and
property ownership."
Also, lack of registration, volun-
tary cancellation of registration
elsewhere, and the fact the student
considers the community where the
college is located as his home are
relevant factors in favor of his reg-
istration.
THERE ARE TWO phases in the

in Ann Arbor, and his decision to
give up any opportunity to vote
elsewhere.
IT IS IMPORTANT to note that
the students is not legally disquali-
fied if he fails to own property, if
he receives financial support from
his parents, or if he is not yet 30
years old.
Marriage is usually considered con-
clusive evidence of independence
and severance of parental ties, but
this does not mean that one has to
be married in order to rebut the pre-
sumption of intent to return to the
former home. Even time spent at
the parents' home is not automatic-
ally fatal to registration efforts.
In the recent case of Wilkins v.
Bentley, four out of eight students
successfully challenged the city
clerk's decision to refuse them regis-
tration. One of the plaintiffs was al-

statutory presumption has been re-
butted.
Unfortunately, those matters which
the clerks consider relevant to the
statutory presumption are mistaken-
ly regarded as requirements. Twelve-
month continual residence and com-
plete financial independence have
been twisted into absolute standards.
Employment in Ann Arbor may
also be considered necessary. Even
if the student is married, a fact
which the Michigan Elections office
views as being determinative of Ann
Arbor residence, the clerks sometimes
illegally expect lack of parental sup-
port and year-round presence.
SIMPLY STATED, the Ann Arbor
registration determination cannot
stand up to legal scrutiny. Although
the city clerk claims that he is en-
forcing the law, this is untrue. Last
August in the Wilkins case, four

They should be allowed to vote.
Students are much more than guests
of the city. Huge amounts of money
are spent by students in Ann Arbor
and their presence creates jobs and
businesses. The overwhelming major-
ity of voting-age students rent apart-
ments, pay property taxes, and are
liable for Michigan personal income
tax even if they pay out-of-state
tuition.
SINCE STUDENTS are counted in
the census figures as residents of
Ann Arbor, the city receives more
money from the state through sales
tax and personal income tax rebates
than would otherwise be the case.
In addition, students boost Ann
Arbor's representation in Congress,
the State House of Representatives
and the State Senate. Although an
individual student's stay in Ann Ar-
bor may be limited to an average of

election director's and the attorney
general's offices in Lansing.
HOWEVER, what is necessary is
an offensive upon City Hall by stu-
dents who refuse to be intimidated.
Law students are present to aid
those who need assistance. Any mar-
ried student who is refsued registra-
tion should insist that the clerk call
the election director's office in Lan-
sing (517 373-2540) so that their
case may be reviewed.
If the clerk refuses then the stu-
dent should call himself and explain
the ' situation. Single students who
are turned down should report the
circumstances to law students who
are at the clerks' office, or to SGC at
763-3241. They may also write Mr.
Bernard Apol, State election director,
at the Treasury Bldg. in Lansing.
Documentation is very important in
efforts to insure proper enforcement
of the present statutory provisions

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan